LT GEN Odierno Corrects AP Reporting Error
Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 06:43PM Bottom Line Up Front: The AP either made a mistake or purposely omitted some of LT GEN Odierno’s comments about the state of security in Baghdad, asserting that only 40% of the city is fully secured.
On June 17-18, the Associated Press attributed a statistic to LT GEN Odierno, Commander, Multinational Corps-Iraq that made news regarding security in Baghdad. Yahoo’s version of the story, written by AP writer HAMZA HENDAWI, reported:
The end of the lockdown came a day after Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, a top U.S. commander in Iraq, acknowledged that security forces have full control of only 40 percent of Baghdad, now in the fifth month of a major U.S.-led security push that may be the U.S. military’s last.
The surge has NOT been in full force for 5 months and it’s full force is only now being implemented. That’s simply bad reporting.
USA Today’s version of the AP story reported:
He said only about “40 percent is really very safe on a routine basis” — with about 30% lacking control and a further 30% suffering “a high level of violence.”
The U.S. ground forces commander discussed the new offensive and the security situation in an interview with two reporters as he visited an American outpost near the main market in the capital’s southern Dora district, a major Sunni Arab stronghold.
“There’s about 30% of the city that needs work, like here in Dora and the surrounding areas,” Odierno said. “Those are the areas that we consider to be the hot spots, which usually have a Sunni-Shiite fault line, and also areas where al-Qaeda has decided to make a stand.”
However, John Roberts asked LT GEN Odierno yesterday on CNN’s American Morning asked about the comment in this exchange:
ROBERTS: You recently said the city of Baghdad itself is only 40% secure…
LT GEN ODIERNO: “What I really said is I think about 70% is in pretty good shape in Baghdad and there’s 30% that is…still.. we still have a lot of work to do, is really what I said.”
The media’s reporting of a 40% security rate as sign of the surge’s failure is as irresponsible as their misreporting of the contents of the so-called Pentagon report on Iraq (Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq - Report to Congress). Note that the “30% lacking control and a further 30% suffering” isn’t in quotes from the general. It’s a mathematical error at best or deceitful omission at worst, but either way, AP got it wrong.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1112984
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (12)
No agenda, nothing to see here, move along...
Fairly typical of the left, can't win on facts so we manipulate the data or out and out lie. Not for nothing but AP seems to be the worse offender.lately.
The more critical and 'operational' mathematics is that something in the range of 70% of Americans don't support Bush's War. This rather than the results of a troop escalation ('Surge'), will determine the direction and policy of USA participation in Iraq.
Parse the reporting on the Iraq War any way you want, but doing so is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The fact is, I think clear, the Iraq War is over for the USA. It is now just a matter of that body realizing it is dead ... or more politically accurate, for the Bush Administration to stall until '08 and he can try to blame the (D)z for the failure of his war. In fact I think the (R) party is also Dead On Arrival in the '08 election because of the Bush War.
Anywayz, to argue for time for an Escalation to work, 4+ years into the War after arguing against it for 4+ years, is in itself an admission of 4+ years of incompetence and an admission of responsibility for the Mess 'O Potamia ...
Snerd
I doubt 70% of Americans don't support the war effort, but if that were so it is because 70% of Americans don't understand the war. Essentially, we're running the same counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. Soldiers there are dying.... why not pull them out? Because Iraq is a political football to Democrats and nothing more.
Failure in this war? What failure? If anything we're having astounding success, particularly if you use American history as the backdrop. With our help, Iraq has been able to create it's own government and representatives, Constitutions, etc., in a shorter time that we in the U.S. did.
People who think the war is a failure because there are casualties and bombs going off CLEARLY don't understand the nature of war.
The only way we will lose this war is if we pullout prematurely. I suspect that in the unfortunate event of a Democrat in the White House in 2009, by then we will have already assured victory in Iraq and won't need the sort of troop levels anywhere near what they are now.
Then what'll Dems do? Take credit for it, probably.
The media tries to treat us like mushrooms, keeping us in dark and feeding us BS. The interent has prevented them from succeeding :)
The problem in Iraq is NOT President Bush, it is terrorists, and more important those sending in new terrorists and new weapons. The largest supporter of keeping the terrorism going in Iraq is, in my opinion, Iran.
I have said this before, and each month more information comes out supportng my belief that to win the war on terrorism the Islamic Republic of Iran must fall.
Here is a newstory:
MORE: BAGHDAD, June 22 Iran has responded to the U.S. surge in Iraq with its own surge, the commander of the multinational force said Friday.Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno told journalists increased Iranian backing for Iraqi militants apparently started in March, CNN reported."I think as we talked about surging forces ... I think maybe Iran decided to surge more money, conduct a bit more training and surge a few more weapons into Iraq at the same time," Odierno said. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/75470.html
Good morning, Amy.
The majority of the MSM's method of operation is to be irresponsible. I don't think they know how to be anything else anymore. I agree with Roxie... we need to deal with Iran because they are the fly in the entire ointment in Iraq.
"Note that the “30% lacking control and a further 30% suffering” isn’t in quotes from the general. It’s a mathematical error at best or deceitful omission at worst, but either way, AP got it wrong."
Yours truly was a caller on the Laura Ingraham show this morning griping about the latest ‘Fairness Doctrine’ that Senator Feinstein is touting. Her comments were along the lines of 'talk radio incites people to opinions that aren’t based on facts'. My comment was who holds the Main Stream Media accountable for their inaccuracies that incite people to opinions NOT BASED ON FACT.
My point here is the media reports 'mostly facts' but almost always from a biased liberal angle. This AP article is a perfect example of the careless (or mischievous) reporting that continues to go unchecked. How many agencies picked up and reported the first inaccurate quote from the General, but then neglected to correct it I wonder?
Gawfer, well congrats for making it on Laura Ingraham! She's great. Your comments are right on the money as usual. The "fairness doctrine" is censorship and a liberal hissy fit because their radio shows all suck and no one wants to listen to them.
GEN Peter Pace said in a news conference on June 21, 2007, at the Pentagon that violence in Iraq is not the proper metric for determining failure in Iraq.
Could the general please tell us what the bench marks are that can establish success? In fact what is the proper metric to determine failure?
Amy and her support crew are still dwelling over the election that they submit justifies the means of US control and occupation; however as the Iraqi government still has little to do outside the green zone. There is yet to be evidence in Iraq that a government exists at all. There are no regional government representatives, offices or officers to listen to constituents. We have no evidence that Iraqis support the occupation, just the message from safe within the Green Zone.
Therefore how can we determine if there is in fact a democratic representative government in office?
The support for this war is the same as support shown for the last athlete in a marathon, we are on our last leg in sight of the stadium in 300th place and our family is cheering but we will not win the race.
Of course we are still running, its expected, we can't collapse just because winning is now impossible. however there is also little point in unleashing a surge of energy as the winner takes his place on the podium. So we should wave to our supporters and cruise home saving our strength for battles to come.
I remember when MSM gave the Iraq war its full support. I also remember when GWB was rarely questioned or his intentions doubted. However since we were all made to swallow the lies of WMD and mission accomplished MSM have been forced to report the truth.
On this site and others you can still find pre WMD deception and a great deal more in-depth analysis and useful discussion, but to benifit and move forward you first have to admit more is going wrong than GEN Peter Pace will admit.
With this kind of denial Vietnam would still be going on.
One would think your resident libtard's arms would grow weary from beating the same drum over and over.
Not trying to be a smart alec here, but what he described sounds strangely familiar to our own lack of representation.
The problem still occurs when people want results, and they WANT THEM NOW! That mentality is what defines an adult from a child. However in this case, adults are behaving as children.
Grow up and realize that it took nearly 200 years to invent a microwave, instant coffee and jiffypop popcorn. And may I remind you that the President was very clear from the onset that this war on terror was going to take a long time. It was never intended to be a military action, but an all out war covering many years. I believe our only problem is restricting the military too much, but there's our representitive government stepping in again.
And may I remind you that the President was very clear from the onset that this war on terror was going to take a long time...Gawfer
This is very true, however when he said "this war on terror was going to take a long time' Iraq was not part of the war on terror and Saddam had nothing to do with the war on terror.
So your point is? a little silly.
If war on terror is going to take a long time because America will continue to attack Middle Eastern nations, then your right thi war will take forever. However us grownups should not support a bully should we ? After all this is our playground as well. If you believe in Democracy.
Simon, I believe in this republic, not a democracy... Look it up.
The Middle East is only one geographical point of interest in regards to terrorism. Indonesia, the Philippines, South and Central America, and anywhere else they raise their vile heads are all candidates for wrath.
It's nice to know however, that there are still Americans around willing to mock the principles of freedom that is currently being fought for. And it was for people like you that I served, along with many others. Perhaps you are so antagonistic because you are ashamed to have something you didn't earn. Not to worry, there are many like us willing to carry your ungrateful sorry butt and never say boo.
If you want to use an illustrated speech about bullies, give this a read:
http://gawfer2001.blogspot.com/2006/05/dont-close-your-blinds.html
Maybe it’ll give you more to think about.