Burying the Lead

Over on The Huffington Post, there was an article about who is actually going to be writing the Septmber report on the "progress" in Iraq. Unbelievably, after all the "let's wait for General Petraeus' report" talk, the political hacks in the White House will be writing the report. I'm sure it will all be factual and about what's really happening on the ground...

Anyway, the bigger surprise to me was reading the original Los Angeles Times story. They totally buried the lead, instead going with:

Intent on demonstrating progress in Iraq, the top U.S. general there is expected by Bush administration officials to recommend removing American troops soon from several areas where commanders believe security has improved, possibly including Al Anbar province.

I wouldn't even have read past that paragraph! But, towards the end of the article, comes this news:

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

The senior administration official said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,' " the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.' "

Read the whole article here.

Depressing Confirmation

I think many of us living in the real world, with some sense of human nature (the good and the bad) have been saying this for a while, but it's finally coming from within the Bush Administration. Let's hope they listen (but again, those of us in the real world doubt it will make a difference):

The latest National Intelligence Estimate concludes that al-Qaeda and its leader have only grown stronger since the inception of Bush's war.

While the president diverted the military to Iraq, the real terrorist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan intensified. If he reads the estimate, he will weep for the more than 3,000 lives lost and billions of dollars spent in a war that's only heightened the hatred of Americans in the Islamic world and increased their desire to kill us -- here.

Read more from Margaret Carlson/Bloomberg here and from the Christian Science Monitor here:

The nation's 16 intelligence agencies began compiling the report last October and completed their assessment in June. Though the report indicated that Hizbullah may become a threat if the US takes action against Iran or seriously threatens or attacks the Islamic organization, the majority of the report focused on the "rejuvenating effect the Iraq war has had on Al Qaeda."

For the last few years intelligence officials have suggested much of Al Qaeda's central leadership has been neutralized, and that the primary national security threat came from splinter groups [Osama] bin Laden inspired but doesn't command. Yesterday's assessment summary concludes that the same organization that meticulously planned and executed the September 11th attacks is alive and well.

"This clearly says Al Qaeda is not beaten," said Michael Scheuer , who formerly headed up the CIA's bin Laden search team.

Is this news?

As reported everywhere today:

President Bush offered two-year-old information about Osama bin Laden's connections to al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq on Wednesday, as he used a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to try to bolster his long-held contention that Iraq is a central front in the "war on terror." (from the Washington Post)

Is this really news? Don't we all know that al-Qaeda has been in Iraq as long as we have? They weren't there before we got rid of Saddam (the two didn't exactly see eye-to-eye), but of course they came in to recruit and to operate out of this newly chaotic environment that we created.

If Bush thinks this is proof that Iraq is a central front on his "war on terror," does he also see this as HIS fault?

The Medal of Freedom

I really thought I would be buying George Tenent's book, At the Center of the Storm, today, but after reading just a little about it - and after the 60 Minutes interview - I have no need to buy a book from a man who should have told the American people the truth and stopped this war before it started. I guess this was going to be his attempt to salvage his public reputation, but it's too little, too late. But hey, he got a medal of freedom (which he should have returned before publishing this book) and $4 million for telling us all what we have already figured out...this administration lies and those who should have been blowing the whistle are now making millions confessing their roles in this mess.

I really wonder how Tenent sleeps at night.

Take a minute and read this open letter to Tenent from a small group of former CIA intelligence officers. It begins:

Dear Mr. Tenet:
We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the "damage to your reputation". In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.

The Return of Bill Moyers!

I already have my Tivo set for Weds and the following Fridays...

Bill Moyers returns to PBS with a look at how the mainstream media "got it so wrong" when it came to reporting on the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm curious to see what he comes up with, and how the reporters and producers he interviews respond. I've always wondered why I was so sure Saddam didn't have any more bad weapons, yet the media kept repeating the Bush Administration's theories about those weapons as fact. If I could gather enough info to know that the weapons inspectors had done their jobs and Saddam had been disarmed in the 1990s, why couldn't the MSM? And why couldn't Congress??

So many lives (American and Iraqi) - and so much money - gone. I'd like the decision makers to explain their actions, but I'll be happy to start with the media's explanations!

Check your local listings!