During a report on the November 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle presented an imbalanced account of three proposed options for Iraq, which Pentagon insiders recently described as "Go Big," “Go Long” and “Go Home.” In his report, Angle quoted Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) support for the “go big” option, which Angle said would mean “a short-term increase in troops,” and Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) argument in favor of the “go long” option, which, according to Angle, could also mean “send[ing] more Iraqi troops to Baghdad.” Angle then noted that "[t]he 'go home' option, of course, is to withdraw -- the favored option of House Democrat John Murtha [PA], as well as Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi [CA]." However, Angle did not quote Murtha, Pelosi, or any other proponent of the “go home” option.

From the November 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

[begin video clip]

ANGLE: Everyone in Washington is searching for options in Iraq, including the Pentagon, which is said to have described the choices as “Go big,” “Go long,” or “Go home.”

In other words, increase troops; reduce them, but stay for years; or bring them home as quickly as possible. President Bush, during a stop in Indonesia, said the Joint Chiefs are hard at work.

BUSH: -- the process of evaluating a lot of suggestions from the field and from people involved with the Central Command, as well as at the Pentagon. And they'll bring -- they will be bringing forth these suggestions and recommendations to me here as quickly as possible.

ANGLE: National security officials at the White House are also conducting a review of options, so the president will have a broad set of choices when the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan effort headed by [former Secretary of State] James Baker and [former 9-11 Commission co-chair] Lee Hamilton, issues its report in a few weeks. While the president offered no opinion on the various options, few others were holding back.

The option the Pentagon is calling “go big,” meaning a short-term increase in troops, is the approach favored by Senator John McCain, among others.

McCAIN: No, we are not winning in Iraq. That's why we have to have more troops there, and we have to do it quickly.

ANGLE: The “go long” option could include short-term increases in troops, but then a move to about a third as many forces, to be used primarily for training and advice. But the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has an Iraqi version of that: Send more Iraqi troops to Baghdad, where the worst violence is, from other, more peaceful areas of the country.

HUNTER: It's time to use them. We trained them. We equipped them. We've got 27 battalions that aren't being used. They're in quiet areas of Iraq. Let's saddle them up and send them in.

ANGLE: That would reduce the pressure on American forces and, since reducing the U.S. presence depends on Iraqi forces stepping in, he said, it would have the added benefit of testing their mettle.

HUNTER: That stands them up, matures them; at the same time, that accelerates the hand-off of the security burden between the United States and Iraq.

ANGLE: The “go home” option, of course, is to withdraw -- the favored option of House Democrat John Murtha, as well as Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, who tried unsuccessfully to elevate Murtha to majority leader, which would have boosted his push for a rapid withdrawal.

But amidst all the soul-searching, Republican Duncan Hunter offered some rare words of encouragement about what is happening in Iraq, along with a definition of what would constitute victory at this point.

HUNTER: But the things that are achievable is to have a government with a modicum of democracy, of freedom, to have a government that will be a friend and not an enemy of the United States, and that will not be a state sponsor of terrorism in the decades to come.

[end video clip]

ANGLE: Those are indeed achievable, he argued, if the U.S. doesn't withdraw too soon. Others, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, as well as Senator McCain, are more pessimistic about the prospects, but both say leaving too quickly would be a catastrophe, because it would spread chaos throughout the region and make the conflict last even longer. Senator McCain also argued it would embolden Iran, which would eventually pose a greater threat to Israel, as well. Brit.