The Cool Blue Blog

Listening to the people

According to a Washington Post Poll

Two-thirds of Americans believe that the FBI and other federal agencies are intruding on privacy rights as part of terrorism investigations...

And

Nearly two-thirds rank investigating threats as more important than guarding against intrusions on personal privacy

You know it's funny, but the first part appears at the very beginning of the article while the second part appears in the middle of the article and is followed by statements like

Sixty-six percent of those questioned said that the FBI and other agencies are "intruding on some Americans' privacy rights" in terrorism investigations, up from 58 percent in September 2003.

and

Support for intrusive tactics has dropped even more significantly during that time. A bare majority, 51 percent, feel the tactics are justified, down from 63 percent three years ago.

But if you go to the poll data itself, you find that Question 40 is worded "Do you think those intrusions are justified or not justified?" and it shows that 51% is up from the 49% who thought it was justified in January, but down from the 54% who were asked the question in September.

But the most interesting things about this poll is that these results were obtained by a sample that is heavily Democrat. According to the demographics section, 34% of respondents considered themselves Democrats while 24% considered themselves Republican. And 52% leaned Democrat while 38% leaned Republican.

It would seem that the results were a bit skewed to the left. And if that's the case, my interpretation is that little spying in exchange for security is alright by most people.

I wonder if Congress will continue to allow listening to the people?

No Dummy No More

This weekend, NPRs "On the Media" had a segment about how the media has recently had an epiphany: After six years of the Bush Presidency, they have finally come to realize that he is not a ventriloquist's dummy for Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, or some other (or chorus of) neo-cons

RON SUSKIND: How is it that we didn't really understand this most important thing, of how the President decides what he decides to guide the ship of state? My God, that's right at the top of the list of what the media should be reporting. How could we have not gotten that right?

BROOKE GLADSTONE: The assumption was that even if the President lacked wisdom and experience, he had assembled a group of sage advisors who could guide the ship of state.

RON SUSKIND: I think what's happening now is people are realizing that, frankly, many of those people were discounted or discredited as doubters. And, hey, they are gone at this point. Their value, in terms of guiding the ship of state, was probably overstated, maybe wildly overstated, because at day's end, it was George Bush making decisions for good reason, bad reason or no discernible reason, but nonetheless deciding.

There was also the rumor that Bush picked his advisors from among people who wouldn't disagree with him: the infamous "Echo Chamber". That turns out to not be true either.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Bush's famously preternatural gut, plus the latest dissenting memos leaked from former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have given rise to a new narrative. Democratic strategic Paul Begala.

PAUL BEGALA: The old narrative was that President Bush was dumb and therefore docile. And the new narrative is, well, still not so bright, but much more actually directing things.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Former White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer.

ARI FLEISCHER: So politically it becomes convenient for those who used to say that the vice-President's in charge now to say George Bush is in charge, because it gives them one more criticism to launch at him.

Politics aside, he always has been in charge, and the problems that we're going through now in Iraq – and I say this as a supporter of George Bush – are because of the decisions that George Bush made.

So it's no surprise that we are now hearing reports that Bush, in considering a course correction in Iraq, is thoughtful and serious in considering his council

President Bush, whose series of high-level meetings on Iraq includes a videoconference today with military leaders in Iraq, is "very engaged" and "very sober-minded" in the search for new policy ideas, according to two retired Army generals who met with him on Monday.

"I found him very engaged. I think he's looking for some answers, and the impression I had was there will be some changes," said retired Gen. Wayne Downing in an interview with NBC's Today show. "I think you're going to see some new things come out."

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said the president was "very sober-minded" and listened "intently to different views," including a difference of opinion among the former generals over the Iraq Study Group recommendation that most combat troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008.

For six years the Democrats were let down by a sleeping media, the most important of which was the 2006 Presidential election

PAUL BEGALA: I think a narrative that focuses entirely on President Bush is more accurate. I'm not sure that it’s more helpful in that the reelection is over. The President can't run again. It is probably better for his party for Mr. Bush to be the lightning rod. And we're watching now the Republican presidential wannabees pushing off of Mr. Bush.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: It does seem that both narratives have worked less well for the Democrats than for the Republicans.

PAUL BEGALA: The Democrats – you know what? It's a very, actually, important point about how Democrats deal with media versus Republicans. My party, Democrats tend to be the party of the laundry list. We have four-point plans for everything. We have more solutions than the country has problems.

Republicans, understanding the media better, because they mostly are still disciples of Ronald Reagan, a master of the media, they mostly tell narratives. They tell stories. And stories beat laundry lists every time.

Call it a failure of intelligence. But that's what happens when you decide what the truth is before you gather facts. In Iraq, and with Islamists in general, it is difficult to gather the facts first hand: you have to rely on secondary sources.

But the media has no such excuse. The could have found out who Bush was, but instead they decided formulated the story they liked and found the "facts" to support it.

They are doing the same in Iraq and the War Against Islamists as well.

That's why people like Bill Roggio are so valuable to our knowledge base. He doesn't rely on enemy stringers for his reports. He doesn't stay in his cushy hotel complaining that embedding is too hard. He's our there at the tip of the spear.

the war as seen and posted by Bill Roggio, a former active duty soldier (in the early 1990s) and current blogger embedded with marines in Iraq. His site is www.billroggio.com. Mr. Roggio is no small-time Web scribe. He has written for The Weekly Standard, National Review, and the New York Post. And his posts, such as his recent ones filed from Fallujah, have created a buzz among conservative bloggers.

Roggio's view on the conflict in Iraq is decidedly personal and naturally one-sided, but it is engaging. When he's embedded with troops, as he is now, Roggio offers something not often seen in the media - stories about soldiers on the job in dangerous places.

Maybe if the mainstream media would decide to stop being the Dummy for the enemy's media ventriloquist, perhaps we'll begin trusting them again.

And perhaps, all of a sudden, we'll find out the enemy isn't doing as well as we think.

But the epiphany on the enemy's information war, and their complicity in it, has yet to occur.

The hated profession

Bill Roggio is again in-country in Iraq as a self-funded reporter, working for his own press service. He has made his way to the al Anbar province and is currently in Fallujah.

He scoffs at stories that it is more difficult these days to become an embed or that embeds do not have sufficient independence. In an email to supporters of his trips, Bill dispells both notions

I am bewildered at the recent stories about difficulties with embedding and the military censoring the media. These reports are completely contrary to my experiences. I encountered minimal bureaucracy since I started the process - so little it is almost uncomfortable. The military approved my embed request in about 9 days after me submitting the packet (trust me, that's fast).

They approved the embed under my newly formed media company, Public Multimedia, Inc., showing they are willing to recognize new media and be flexible. The PAO sergeant here in Kuwait has been nothing but helpful since I started the process. He even picked me up at Kuwait International and has arranged for my travel once I begin to leave the theater. No one is escorting me around Ali Al Salem. The only snag so far is with getting my passport stamped for Iraq – I was hoping it would have been taken care of at 2 am so I could fly to Baghdad this morning. I picked it up at noon, and should fly tonight.

While there are certainly problems with the embed process, and it can be streamlined in many ways, if I can get this done, a media organization with assets far greater than my own have no excuse.

Perhaps giving the impression that it is difficult, or too oppresive, to become an embed is because reporters do not want to become embeds. One, because it is dangerous and two, because the troops seem to genuinely despise reporters

In nearly every conversation, the soldiers, Marines and contractors expressed they were upset with the coverage of the war in Iraq in general, and the public perception of the daily situation on the ground. The felt the media was there to sensationalize the news, and several stated some reporters were only interested in “blood and guts.” They freely admitted the obstacles in front of them in Iraq. Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them.

During each conversation, I was left in the awkward situation of having to explain that while, yes, I am wearing a press badge, I'm not 'one of them.' I used descriptions like 'independent journalist' or 'blogger' in an attempt to separate myself from the pack.

What a terrible situation to be in, having to defend yourself because of your profession. I've always said that the hardest thing about embedding (besides leaving my family) is wearing the badge that says 'PRESS.' That hasn't changed. I hide the badge whenever I can get away with it.

Proving it takes real guts to be an embed, mostly because of the sins of the media. Of course the media claims they are not anti-war; that they have no agenda other than reporting the facts. Yet Jim A. Kuypers, an assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech says he has found that the facts of the matter are different and has presented his research in a new book Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006)

“What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,” said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.”

This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. “In short,” Kupyers explained, “if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.”

Bill Roggio reports that the same is true in Iraq; the media are reporting on a different war

At the transient tent (where you get to sleep and store your gear while waiting), I spoke to an Explosive Ordinance and Demolitions (EOD) contractor. These are the guys that blow up the leftover explosives and munitions from the Saddam era. He told me about how the media isn't telling the full story about the nature of the enemy, and specifically complained about the manipulation and distortion of the Kay report. He said he's run across bunkers and the equipment and chemical precursors to WMD buried in the deserts of western Iraq.

During a smoke break, an Army private discussed his time in Balad. He said mortars (which are blind-fired) are the greatest threat his unit faces. Not IEDs, I asked? Nope. While waiting to board the flight to BIAP, a Marine Major complained about how the progress in western Iraq has virtually gone unnoticed, and was furious over the characterization of the Devlin report on Anbar province. I gave him my card....

While waiting to catch the flight to the Green Zone, I spoke to two Army captains, one who works in Civil Affairs, the other with the Military Transition Teams. Both explained how the situation could look very different based on your job, but that the Iraqi police and Army were making real progress. They said the Iraqis' skills ranged from poor to excellent, but they always saw improvement....

While waiting to manifest on the flight to Fallujah, CNN played a news segment of President Bush announcing there would be no “graceful exit” from Iraq, and that we'd stay until the mission was complete. Two sergeants in the room cheered. Loudly. They then scoffed at the reports from Baghdad, and jeered the balcony reporting.

It's really too bad when a person has to be ashamed of their profession because the people you are supposedly reporting about assume you are lying, or making things up. So I'm not surprised that most reporters don't want to be embeds: they don't want to know the real story and they certainly don't want to face the people they've betrayed on a daily basis.

After all, the media have a "higher purpose" to serve than merely relaying the facts on the ground. They have to end this war. Bring the US down a notch or two in the interests of internationalism. And confusing reporters with the truth would just complicate things. I mean, isn't that whole "bring democracy to savages" thing really pie-in-the-sky? Something only a stupid President would think of.

Bill is our eyes and ears on the ground. I find it interesting that he has to be self-suppoting to tell the real story.

You may want to consider supporting him too.

Baqubah

Baqubah Still Functioning, Military Commander Reports American Forces Press Service

BAQUBAH, Iraq, Nov. 30, 2006 – The city of Baqubah is fully operational despite media reports to the contrary, the senior coalition forces commander for Iraq’s Diyala province said here today. “The erroneous reports are clearly an effort by some individuals to paint a picture of disarray and hysteria to destabilize the province,” Army Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, said. The city’s government center is open and most of the ministries are present for work, as are the city workers, the health care providers, and ambulances, Sutherland said. "The mosques are open, and the market in Baqubah has seen a rise in business as fresh fruits and vegetables are arriving and being sold daily,” the colonel said. “We also see construction projects progressing in the area, people going to the markets and walking the streets daily.” Iraqi police are manning seven critical checkpoints, and the Iraqi army is manning four others, Sutherland said. Another checkpoint is jointly manned by both forces, he added. Sutherland acknowledged that Iraqi police fled when the Buhriz police station was attacked Nov. 27. He said the station will be rebuilt, fully manned and operational soon, and that the incident doesn’t represent the quality of the police force throughout the city. "That's not indicative of the situation in all the other stations in the city," Sutherland said. "The IPs are going through challenges with their leadership, logistics, and training. However, day in and day out, they show up to work. Even with the friction created by leadership challenges, the majority of the Iraqi police remain at their post, ready to continue their work. I am very impressed with the loyalty and dedication of the individual policemen." According to coalition forces reports, about 985 police officers work in Baqubah, and about 9,550 are assigned throughout the province. Additionally, an Emergency Response Force is manned and ready to respond to any crisis, he said. "I'm not going to paint a pretty picture - insurgent and terrorist organizations are attempting to destabilize the security forces, the government and the population through violence and misinformation," said Sutherland. "However, the government and the security forces are in control." Coalition soldiers are patrolling around the clock with Iraqi soldiers in Baqubah, Sutherland said. "We are fully committed to support the government in establishing a safe environment -- one that allows economic growth, infrastructure development, and most importantly, security for the people of Diyala," he said. (From a Multinational Corps Iraq news release.)

Casualty Report

Today, a UN report is in the headlines

The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq's sectarian bloodbath.

The U.N. tally was more than three times higher than the total The Associated Press had tabulated for the month, and far more than the 2,866 U.S. service members who have died during all of the war.

But that was Ramadan, this is now

Nov. 20, 2006
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON – As expected, violence in Iraq has dropped following the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, a coalition spokesman said in Baghdad today.

Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said civilian and Iraqi security force casualties were at the lowest levels since the government was formed in May.

So far this month, the civilian casualty count is well below the casualty count in October and below the six-month average. The security force casualties reduced 21 percent over the past four weeks, and are at the lowest level in 25 weeks, he said.

“In Baghdad, there was a 22 percentage drop in casualties related to sectarian violence and executions,” Caldwell said during a televised news conference. “Coalition forces will continue to work closely with the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces to control the sectarian violence and terrorist attacks.”

Remember, it's an unusual case where you can trust the normal media channels to give you context.

Mythmakers

New York Times Involved in Mythmaking

DOD asks editorial page to correct error

Oct. 24, 2006 —The Pentagon today asked the New York Times to correct an editorial, which claimed that “There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals.”  Whether the Times believes there were (or are) enough troops in Iraq, it is demonstrably untrue that troop levels in Iraq are the result of Secretary Rumsfeld’s “not listening to his generals.”

Generals involved in troop-level decisions have been very clear on this matter, making numerous statements that are not new—or difficult—to find, such as extensive commentary in General Franks’s book, American Soldier.  The implication is that the New York Times either believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. The Pentagon would vigorously dispute both characterizations.

Read what generals themselves have to say about the subject, in a Pentagon letter to the editor.

UPDATE: The New York Times has declined the Pentagon’s request to correct its editorial.