Keep It Like a Secret

Leila Fadel from McClatchy's Baghdad bureau provides yet another independent press account calling into question the administration's claims of improved security thanks to the surge in Iraq. Fadel notes that when the surge was announced, Bush "said that Iraqi and American troops would improve security while the Iraqi government improved services." He promised that "Responsibility for security in most of Iraq would be turned over to Iraqi security forces by November." And, of course, he forecast political reconcilation.

As Fadel reports, "With less than a week to go before the White House delivers a congressionally mandated report on that plan, none of this has happened."

On the flipside we have the news that the reason no outside journalists have been able to scrutinize, evaluate, or verify the administration's claims of security gains is that both the numbers and the methodology used to generate them are classified. I think we need to put our credence in the idea that the White House has some super-convincing data in support of its policies that it's got hidden away and can't release at around zero. If Bush had solid numbers, we'd be seeing them. Heck, we'd see non-solid numbers if Bush thought he might be able to bamboozle people into believing some screwy ones.

Comments

The sputtering jalopy of the Iraq war is powered by lies, and its progress is measured in Friedman Units (FU). The driver's goal is not to reach any particular destination; it is simply to keep the battered car on the road of war.

The current set of lies about to be delivered by Petraeus got another FU for Bush. At the end of the year, some other lies will be used to refuel the war, possibly a coup against Maliki or an attack on Iran. The people are accustomed to watching the Iraq war machine roll down the road, but nobody expects it to continue forever.

Posted by HH | September 10, 2007 9:38 AM

I like the Built To Spill reference.

Posted by tinisoli | September 10, 2007 10:29 AM

Where else can I get indie rock references with my political analysis? hehe

Posted by Lee | September 10, 2007 10:33 AM

In his documentary "Buying the War" -- re how the news media helped Bush con us into Iraq -- Bill Moyers points out that McClatchy's reporters were among the few in the press who correctly told their readers the real situation --that there was little evidence to support Bush's claims.

It was interesting watching McClatchy's reporters talk in the documentary -- it appears that their success was because they are based OUTSIDE the Beltway --although they have a Washington office.

So instead of sucking up to major Washington figures, McClatchy talked to the mid-level officers in the Pentagon and Intelligence Community who actually knew what was going on and who were upset over how the country was being conned into war.

Unlike the New York Times and Washington Post, McClatchy's business model was NOT dependent upon kissing the ass of Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Of being too cowardly to contradict them.

Hence , McClatchy could focus on trying to find out the truth without worrying whether they would offend their "sources". Nor was McClatchy under any obligation to repay illusionary "access" by printing large volumes of deceitful spin from high level "sources".

The Atlantic should take note. There's no real opposition to Fox News -- ABC, NBC and CNN appear to be compelled to mimic Fox rather than show how Fox is deceiving the country. This country desperately needs a leftist press similar to the Guardian.

It IS NOT necessary to curry favor with high level sources in order to give good coverage of what's going on. In many cases, the care and feeding of those sources is an enormous distraction that PREVENTS reporters from seeing what's really going on.

Anyone who's ever worked on intelligence knows how very difficult it is to conceal things -- it takes enormous time and money to cover all observables and most of the times the government doesn't bother.

Suppose you want to know if we're gearing up to bomb Iran? You don't need an interview with Bush -- just run a sailboat past Diego Garcia and count how many transport planes and bombers are passing overhead. Or watch the trains leading into Norfolk. Or see if the Theodore Roosevelt sails early.

Fox would argue that's warning the enemy. But that's because Fox thinks the enemy is an informed American public.

Posted by Don Williams | September 10, 2007 10:34 AM

PS The enemy knows what's going on -- they are not as incompetent --or as compromised -- as the New York Times or Washington Post.

Posted by Don Williams | September 10, 2007 10:37 AM

"The plan keeps coming up again..."

Posted by nitpicker | September 10, 2007 2:24 PM