ABC, CBS, NBC Skip Report of Benchmarks Met in Iraq

bhkad · 07-21-08, 04:37 PM

ABC, CBS, NBC Skip Report of Benchmarks Met in Iraq

Remember when the major networks and publications in this country were all dwelling on the fact that only 3 of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks for progress had been met? Well, they are mysteriously silent now that 15 of the benchmarks have been met.

You'd think they want us to lose!

Quote:

June 17, 2008 - by Abe Greenwald

Way back in the dark days of 2007, when the only popular question about the Iraq war concerned the degree of tragedy, Congress’s Iraq “benchmarks” were all the rage among Democrats. Every argument against a continued U.S. presence in Iraq was constructed around the Maliki administration’s apparent inability to meet the political and security-based milestones as outlined by America’s Democratic-majority Congress.

Then something happened. The gains of the troop surge allowed the Iraqi government and citizenry to implement the security measures and legislative acts called for by the U.S. The benchmark line of argument quietly died. Here, then, is the brief life and glorious death of the great benchmark trope.

In mid-May 2007, Congress passed bill H.R. 2206, which included 18 benchmarks intended to gauge success in the security and political reconciliation of Iraq. Some of the benchmarks were broadly worded calls for beefed-up security, while others cited very specific goals. Benchmarks included, for example, “Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty,” “Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations,” and “Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.” Continued aid for Iraq reconstruction was to be contingent upon the Iraqi government’s ability to satisfactorily meet these benchmarks. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 25, 2007.

In July 2007, the Bush administration issued an interim report that found satisfactory progress being made on eight of the 18 benchmarks, most of those having to do with security. The progress on eight other benchmarks was described as unsatisfactory, and the assessment of two more benchmarks was mixed. The New York Times quoted an anonymous White House official as saying, “It is a mixed bag, with some areas that are too early to pass judgment on.”

Pajamas Media » Remember Those Iraqi Benchmarks? Well, Guess What…

The Mainstream Media can not represent JUST one side or the other side, otherwise it would be like a monopoly of opinion. And even if there WAS only one point of view being represented by the MSM why in the hell would that point of view be OPPOSED to America's interests???

Quote:

For most of the Iraq war, the national media has suggested to the public that there are two sides of the story on Iraq: the version painted by President Bush and his spokesmen, and the "reality" that Americans see in the media. But when things go well in Iraq, do the networks take any steps to acknowledge reality? Or do they keep a lid on the good news?

On July 1, the Associated Press reported that the White House notified Congress this spring that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks of progress were "satisfactory" -- almost twice as many as the eight benchmarks checked off a year ago. On FNC's Special Report that evening, anchor Brit Hume predicted: "I suspect that this broadcast tonight -- and maybe some others on this channel -- are the only ones who are going to make a headline out of this. This is not going to be a big story elsewhere."

Hume was right. Neither CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News mentioned Iraq at all. On ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson read a short update about "increasing dangers for U.S. troops in Afghanistan" since "in the month of June there were 28 American fatalities in Afghanistan, just one less than died in Iraq last month." NBC was the only network that put the words "Iraq" and "progress" together last week, in an item on the July 4 Today on optimism that American soldiers have in Iraq.

Newspapers also downplayed the positive progress report. The Washington Post put the news on page A-8 on Wednesday. But on Thursday, the top of the Post's front page highlighted "A Shortage of Troops in Afghanistan." Iraq is improving, so Post reporter Josh White shifted the bad-news spotlight back to the other battlefront: "Violence in Afghanistan has increased markedly over recent weeks, with June the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began in 2001."

ABC, CBS, NBC Skip Report of Benchmarks Met in Iraq - HUMAN EVENTS

MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, the NYT, the WASHPO, the L.A. Times et al, should be ashamed of themselves.

History will reflect this era as a low point for journalism.

aquapub · 07-21-08, 05:05 PM

In 2007, the networks ran 1227 stories, almost all of them negative, on Iraq. Since we've started winning, all coverage has dropped to 429.

Singularity · 07-21-08, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

In 2007, the networks ran 1227 stories, almost all of them negative, on Iraq. Since we've started winning, all coverage has dropped to 429.

Erm, when were we ever losing in Iraq? Was there some point where the insurgents were actually beating the American soldiers over there?

Furthermore, I never understood the argument that certain news organizations or those of us who opposed the war "want us to lose". Can someone clarify this for me? Have large numbers of people (including those liberal news organizations) actually said this specifically?

bhkad · 07-21-08, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Erm, when were we ever losing in Iraq? Was there some point where the insurgents were actually beating the American soldiers over there?

Furthermore, I never understood the argument that certain news organizations or those of us who opposed the war "want us to lose". Can someone clarify this for me? Have large numbers of people (including those liberal news organizations) actually said this specifically?

Please do not lend what may be your well reasoned sensibilities to those who do not have your understanding of the overall situation.

There are some who actually see the current administration as the enemy and so they have cheered our failures in Iraq as a way of spiting GWB, Cheney, the Neo-Cons, the GOP, the Right Wing, Conservatism, America, the Democratic system of government, man made laws, big business, free enterprise, capitalism, the White Man and/or Christianity.

But the Democratic Party has simply played with the war as a political football by which they sought and seek to gain political power.

Such cynicism and callous disregard fro the consequences is repugnant and irresponsible.

Quote:

Even as American soldiers have fought a fanatical enemy on the battlefields of Iraq, their president has been condemned as a deceiver who led them to war through “lies;”[2] as a destroyer of American liberties;[3] as a desecrator of the Constitution;[4] as a usurper who stole his high office;[5] as the architect of an “unnecessary war;”[6] as a “fraud;”[7] as a leader who “betrayed us;”[8] and as a president who cynically sent the flower of American youth to die in foreign lands in order to enrich himself and his friends.[9]

These reckless, corrosive charges are made not by fringe elements of the political spectrum, but by national leaders of the Democratic Party, including a former president, a former vice president and presidential candidate, and three members of the United States Senate (among them a one-time presidential candidate). These attacks occurred not after years of fighting in Iraq, when some might regard the result as a “quagmire,” but during the first months of the conflict, when the fighting had barely begun. They were made not over a war that was forced on Americans, or surreptitiously launched without their consent, but a war authorized by both political parties. They were directed not merely at its conduct, but at the rationale of the war itself—in other words, at the very justice of the American cause.

Although they voted for the bill to authorize the war, leaders of the Democratic Party, such as Senator Hillary Clinton, turned around after it was in progress and claimed that it was “George Bush’s war,” not theirs.[10] They argued that Bush alone had decided to remove Saddam, when in fact it was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who made regime change the policy of the United States.[11] They argued that the war was “unnecessary” because Iraq was “no threat.”[12] But who would have regarded Afghanistan as a threat before 9/11? They maintained that because the war in Iraq was a war of “choice,” it was therefore immoral.[13] But every war fought by America in the twentieth century, with the exception of World War II, was also a war of choice.

Above all, they claimed the president had manipulated intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and thus the premise of the war. But copies of the National Intelligence Estimate on which the president’s decision was based were provided to every Democratic senator who voted for or against it. The findings were confirmed by government intelligence agencies around the world, including those of France, Britain, Russia, and Jordan.[14] In other words, President Bush could not have manipulated the intelligence on which the vote was based and the war was actually authorized.

FrontPage Magazine

When you attack your own leadership during war you encourage your enemy to fight on longer and stronger.

They should have been indicted on charges of sedition.

aquapub · 07-21-08, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Erm, when were we ever losing in Iraq? Was there some point where the insurgents were actually beating the American soldiers over there?

In 2007 things were getting ugly. Democrats pounced on it and Republicans gave one big last-ditch effort to save things. It was called, "the Surge." Pay attention much?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Furthermore, I never understood the argument that certain news organizations or those of us who opposed the war "want us to lose". Can someone clarify this for me? Have large numbers of people (including those liberal news organizations) actually said this specifically?

Part of this logic comes from the fact that liberals have opposed virtually every single thing we've done to protect ourselves since 9/11 and openly rooted for every enemy this country has had for the last 50 years (coincidence gets ruled out after a while).

Then there's the part where they do things like:

-stage high profile visits with the terror states driving the violence against our troops and forbid our president from acting against them (Iran and Syria).

-respond to military success by complaining about political progress and calling for surrender, only to turn around and respond to political success by complaining about military progress and calling for surrender.

-still call for surrender even now that we're winning decisively.

-lie through their teeth about the nature and history of the conflict, our reasons for going in, the evidence involved, and the current conditions on the ground.

-smear General Petreus and pre-emptively declared the war lost.

-pronounce our troops guilty of everything they're accused of and refuse to apologize when their smears get disproved in court.

-repeatedly try to pull funding for the war

...that's rooting for US defeat, not just disagreeing with the mission. Newsflash: If the Islamic terrorists we're fighting there are suddenly the only combatants on the battlefield because America has abandoned its allies, that means America has lost, and that's what liberals are continuously calling for.

Get it now?

Singularity · 07-21-08, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

In 2007 things were getting ugly. Democrats pounced on it and Republicans gave one big last-ditch effort to save things. It was called, "the Surge." Pay attention much?

Well, I think I do! Let me see if I got this right...

According to you, we were losing the war in Iraq up until the Iraqi troop surge in 2007. Apparently these rag-tag Iraqi insurgents were somehow kicking our butts all over Baghdad despite the fact that our military is an incredibly well-armed and well-trained force. Nevermind that we had in excess of 132,000 of our well-armed, well-trained soldiers in Iraq before the surge. They were in danger of losing the war if not being totally driven out by those not-as-well-armed, not-as-well-trained insurgents. But in a "last ditch effort to save things" (your words), we sent 20,000+ additional troops over there, which saved us from being driven out of Iraq!

But let's put this theory of yours to the test. Can you link me a reputable source that actually says we were losing in Iraq prior to the surge? I'd love to read about it, because poor lil' ol' me assumed we had conquered the country, captured Saddam Hussein, oversaw the creation of a sovereign government, and our forces were never once in danger of being forcibly driven out of Iraq despite the insurgency.

Oh sure, I read all that liberal spin and watched as the panic-stricken bloggers stated how we are losing because some terrorists blew up a pipeline, bombed a building, killed civilians and attacked soldiers, as i'm sure you did, too. But did you ever actually believe it? Did you ever think for a moment that our military could actually LOSE this war to a gang of terrorists?

Hogwash! They never stood a chance against our military machine!

But then again, maybe I don't "pay attention much", as you say! And I look forward to reading your sources!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

Part of this logic comes from the fact that liberals have opposed virtually every single thing we've done to protect ourselves since 9/11 and openly rooted for every enemy this country has had for the last 50 years (coincidence gets ruled out after a while).

...that's rooting for US defeat, not just disagreeing with the mission. Newsflash: If the Islamic terrorists we're fighting there are suddenly the only combatants on the battlefield because America has abandoned its allies, that means America has lost, and that's what liberals are continuously calling for.

Get it now?

Actually, I asked you for clarification and statements where major news organizations or large groups of citizens have specifically said they wanted America to lose this conflict. While appreciate your attempt at rationalization, again, that isn't what I asked for. I would like specific statements, please, not interpretation and exaggeration.

obvious Child · 07-21-08, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Erm, when were we ever losing in Iraq? Was there some point where the insurgents were actually beating the American soldiers over there?

Remember that you can win all of the battles and still lose the war. Until the Surge, or more accurately, until the change in tactics, command and strategy that came with General Petraeus as the head honcho in Iraq and his think tank of counterinsurgency experts, we were losing the fight aside from Mosul which interestingly enough, was under his jurisdiction.

Merely because we could kill lots of terrorists doesn't mean we were winning. In insurgent wars, it isn't about the body count of dead terrorists. It's about the support of the population. As Nagl (he was on the think tank) likes to write, it's about "separating the fish from the water." We were failing to do that: bringing the population in on our side.

What I find amusing is that the pro-war group is praising Bush for the gains made by Petraeus's strategy that essentially gave the finger to Bush's ideas.

Singularity · 07-22-08, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Remember that you can win all of the battles and still lose the war. Until the Surge, or more accurately, until the change in tactics, command and strategy that came with General Petraeus as the head honcho in Iraq and his think tank of counterinsurgency experts, we were losing the fight aside from Mosul which interestingly enough, was under his jurisdiction.

Merely because we could kill lots of terrorists doesn't mean we were winning. In insurgent wars, it isn't about the body count of dead terrorists. It's about the support of the population. As Nagl (he was on the think tank) likes to write, it's about "separating the fish from the water." We were failing to do that: bringing the population in on our side.

What I find amusing is that the pro-war group is praising Bush for the gains made by Petraeus's strategy that essentially gave the finger to Bush's ideas.

I don't see it like that at all. We won the war; it was the occupation we were having difficulties with. While we weren't necessarily winning all the hearts-and-minds after the first few years, when exactly were we in danger of losing?

Were we at any time during the occupation in danger of being forcibly driven out of the country? Or were we in danger of seeing a massive uprising of the citizenry against us? Because never once did I see any of this.

True, we suffered insurgent attacks, the sad deaths of both soldiers and innocent civilians, and a few setbacks here and there, but never once were we in danger of losing. I've never read any objective account of the war that states otherwise. While I certainly admit that I wasn't over there during the invasion and subsequent occupation, i've never heard anything about American forces either in danger of surrendering or being put into a position of forced withdrawal by the enemy.

While I was against the invasion from the beginning, i've always tried to be objective about the whole thing. Sometimes i've fallen short in that department, though! I'm only human after all!

obvious Child · 07-22-08, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

I don't see it like that at all. We won the war; it was the occupation we were having difficulties with. While we weren't necessarily winning all the hearts-and-minds after the first few years, when exactly were we in danger of losing?

Well how do you define "losing?"

The government in place was corrupt, ineffective and incompetent. The country wasn't secure by any means. We lost control of various cities. It was (and still is) a financial black hole. The security forces of Iraq were a joke. Iran was supply weapons almost overtly. Not a pretty picture.

Quote:

Were we at any time during the occupation in danger of being forcibly driven out of the country? Or were we in danger of seeing a massive uprising of the citizenry against us? Because never once did I see any of this.

By those measures, no. But by the measures of success, we were failing quite hard.

I'll agree that as a cohesive military force, the coalition was never at any time in danger of being overrun and forced from the country. But that is a criteria you normally apply to war, not occupations, especially occupations where you are working with the population to leave a stable environment and to get out ASAP.

bhkad · 07-22-08, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singularity

Well, I think I do! Let me see if I got this right...

According to you, we were losing the war in Iraq up until the Iraqi troop surge in 2007. Apparently these rag-tag Iraqi insurgents were somehow kicking our butts all over Baghdad despite the fact that our military is an incredibly well-armed and well-trained force. Nevermind that we had in excess of 132,000 of our well-armed, well-trained soldiers in Iraq before the surge. They were in danger of losing the war if not being totally driven out by those not-as-well-armed, not-as-well-trained insurgents. But in a "last ditch effort to save things" (your words), we sent 20,000+ additional troops over there, which saved us from being driven out of Iraq!

But let's put this theory of yours to the test. Can you link me a reputable source that actually says we were losing in Iraq prior to the surge? I'd love to read about it, because poor lil' ol' me assumed we had conquered the country, captured Saddam Hussein, oversaw the creation of a sovereign government, and our forces were never once in danger of being forcibly driven out of Iraq despite the insurgency.

Oh sure, I read all that liberal spin and watched as the panic-stricken bloggers stated how we are losing because some terrorists blew up a pipeline, bombed a building, killed civilians and attacked soldiers, as i'm sure you did, too. But did you ever actually believe it? Did you ever think for a moment that our military could actually LOSE this war to a gang of terrorists?

Hogwash! They never stood a chance against our military machine!

But then again, maybe I don't "pay attention much", as you say! And I look forward to reading your sources!

Actually, I asked you for clarification and statements where major news organizations or large groups of citizens have specifically said they wanted America to lose this conflict. While appreciate your attempt at rationalization, again, that isn't what I asked for. I would like specific statements, please, not interpretation and exaggeration.

The loss would have been effected here in the United States.

That was how we lost Viet-Nam despite never losing a major military engagement.

And that is the formula the opposition was banking on in Iraq.

The short-sighted cynical Islamism-ignorant leftists and liberal opposition here and the variously motivated anti-American, anti-Westerner, anti-Democracy, anti-Occupation, anti-law & order & stability, anti-strong central moderate government, anti-sectarian opposition was banking on the losses being suffered in the battlefield to prompt the domestic US leftists/libs/Democrats to increase their pressure on the US government to end the war.

So, yes, despite the fact of our military superiority we very well could have "lost" in Iraq and the losses would have reached far beyond the geographical boundaries of that nation.

Osama bin Laden said that America was weak and would run from a fight as soon as we got our noses bloodied. And because the images broadcast to the world show nothing but the fun, sexually promiscuous, drug addicted, petty, criminal, show biz side of America, the liberal portrayal of America depicted by a liberal media from a liberal Hollywood, no wonder OBL thought we'd run.

And he was right.

The liberals wanted to run.

The only thing the liberals didn't fear was the US government. Because they knew the laws would protect them. So they fought Bush to show how tough they were.