Petraeus/Odierno Brief War Progress to Media Blackout
Friday, May 23, 2008 at 03:26PM Did you know LT GEN Ray Odierno and GEN David Petraeus appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday in Washington, DC? Neither did most people because the MSM ignored the briefings designed to promote the generals, Odierno to Multi-National Force-Iraq commander and Petraeus to CENTCOM commander as they sought approval for those positions before the Senate committee. Both were nominated by President Bush.
The MSM had good reason for not covering the hearings, which weren’t even live on C-Span. The news from both commanders about progress and security in Iraq are irrefutable and contradict the logic for withdrawal that has been flaunted by Democrats for the past several years and we all know how liberals in the media want this war to end. Even Democrats on the committee were docile, agreeable and non-confrontational. Violence in Iraq is at a 4 year low. B-O-R-I-N-G. The Obama/Clinton campaign fiasco is so much more important than how the troops everyone supposedly supports are doing in combat.
Here are some highlights that I highly recommend to anyone who wants to know what is going on in Iraq and what the prognosis for its future looks like.
-Senator Lieberman compares generals Petraeus and Odierno to Patton and Eisenhower, Grant and Sherman:
-GEN Petraeus on Muqtada al-Sadr and How Iraqi Troops Saved Basra:
GEN PETRAEUS: “The people in Basra were rejoicing from being freed from the militia. In fact, a man in Basra told me that now he had been liberated twice in recent years. Once by Coalition Forces from Saddam and now by the Iraqi Security Forces from the militia.”
-GEN David Petraeus on the Successful Basra Iraqi Offensive
Nouri al-Maliki earned unprecedented support from Iraqis because of the Basra offensive and demonstrated his ability to fight insurgents, militias and al-Qaeda in other areas of Iraq like Mosul. Political and ethnic reconciliation is taking place as a result. Petraeus talks about the Senator Lieberman called Petraeus’ assessment of the Basra offensive and Maliki’s efforts “nothing short of thrilling.”
- GEN Petraeus on Maliki’s Remarkable Turn Around (VIDEO HERE)
GEN Petraeus describes Maliki’s evolution into a leader for all Iraqis because of the Basra and Mosul offensives. Petraeus summed it up by saying, “At the end of the day, nothing succeeds like a little bit of significant progress.”
-LT GEN Odierno on Cultural Awareness Training of U.S. Troops (VIDEO HERE)
Gee, no wonder you won’t hear much of anything about the Petraeus/Odierno hearing.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1859433
Afghanistan, DOD, Iraq, Petraeus, VIDEO 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (56)
Sensational post Amy! Thanks for a good job and for the excellent videos. They made my day.
Glad you liked it. There was tons more but no one is really interested in the time it takes to listen to all the reports from the ground. It's amazing what is transpiring in Iraq right now.
I voted for President Bush, and I don't regret it, but someone someday needs to do a psychological study to figure out why he and his administration are almost pathologically inept at PR.
I'm not surprised that the media would ignore these hearings. After all, the media told us for years that all was lost, and now most journalists and pundits have been exposed as the lying jackasses they are. So of course they're not eager for the trtuh to get out.
Also, victory in Iraq proves that military force can be used to greater effect than diplomacy. In fact, the UN just concluded that global terrorism has dropped 40 percent since 2001. Killing the bad guys is better than talking to them.
All this being said, there's no excuse for the Bush administration to ignore the Petraeus hearings. The White House should be trumpeting the good news, as should the Republican leadership, but both are simply too incompetent to see that they can turn around public perception.
President Bush has a "turn the other cheek" and "never look back" approach to PR, which has been disastrous. He's allowed the Dems to define him and Iraq, and since he never returns to a subject once it's been dismissed, he never gave support to General Georges Sada, for example, the Iraqi who said Saddam's WMD went to Syria.
Bill Gertz of the Washington Times reported the same thing, adding that Russian special forces helped with the transfer.
But the Bush administration refused to revisit the topic of Saddam's WMD, and now the majority of Americans think the president lied. This had led to a collapse in support for the war. Most Americans stopped supporting the president because he gave them no reason to defend him or his actions.
Essentially, the president neglected to carry out his duties as commander-in-chief, in that he personalized the attacks on his integrity. He "turned the other cheek" when he had no right to do so. He had the obligation to forcefully debunk the accusations against him, in the name of national security and America's international reputation, but he chose not to do so.
That's a huge failing, and I hope someday we find out why.
Utterly and flagrantly false. Anyone can find out just how mendacious this claim is by taking five seconds to run a search on Google News. Note the number of results (as of about 9:00 PM EDT today): 1170 news articles.
Is there some special reason why Amy thinks her readers are all complete imbeciles?
Meat,
Is what they said true?
Exactly the right response, Bob! Be absolutely certain to ignore the fact that Amy's feeding you a load of donkey muffins.
Good doggie. Here's a biscuit.
Uh, please point out what is not factually correct about Amy's post. The Generals were before the Senate Armed Forces Committee yesterday.
If you think the fact that 1170 internet news articles means that the MSM broadcasted the impressive gains coming from Iraq, you are your own worst enemy. Even FOX news barely mentioned the report the generals gave on Iraq's violence being at its lowest in FOUR YEARS.
Robert, if the "they" you are referring to is the generals, why would you doubt their testimony to congress and believe some name-calling internet person who goes by "meat-brain"?
Tom W:
Fascinating analysis that I have not found anyhere else. I have felt the same for the last 7 years but haven't been able to articulate it as eloquently as you have in your post. In the post 9/11 world, information operations (what we in the Army call "IO") are actually more important than lethal operations (bombs and bullets). Great insights.
This was not factually correct:
Amy's claim is false.
I made no claim regarding broadcast reports. But your expertise in the construction of straw men is breathtaking.
Back on April 23, when the change in command was announced, I said almost the same thing about Petraeus and Odierno:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/4/23/petraeus-slated-for-centcom-odierno-to-command-mnf-i.html
"In Petraeus and Odierno, I hope we have found our Grant and Sherman, Marshal and Eisenhower."
I'm gratified the smart folks agree.
Thanks, Johnny, and thanks for your service.
I'll remember the term "IO."
One possibility is that President Bush feels inadequate and illegitimate as commander-in-chief, which makes it impossible for him to confront those who are the "real" leaders, icons such as Ted Kennedy. President Bush was the family screw-up as a young man; this self-image may have carried over into his presidency.
Senator Kennedy was the one who first accused the president of lying. "Week after week after week, we heard lie after lie after lie." Kennedy also said that the threat from Saddam was a "lie cooked up in Crawford."
President Bush has many times referred to Kennedy as his "friend"--a friend who accuses him of lying us into a war that has killed thousands.
This not only makes President Bush look weak, it makes him look stupid, crazy, or guilty as sin. He's none of those things, but he's passively letting his enemies define him as such.
The president also appears to have a problem confronting women, which may stem from issues he has with his hell-on-wheels mother.
Nancy Pelosi went to Syria and destroyed twenty years of American, Arab, and Israeli pressure that had marginalized Assad. According to Syrian opposition groups, Pelosi's visit undid all the gains they'd made. People were imprisoned and executed; uncorroborated reports say that during this trip the late Rep. Tom Lantos met with Kurdish terrorists and encouraged them to cause trouble in northern Iraq so that Turkey would intervene and the Iraq mission would fall apart.
Whether that happened or not, Pelsoi has done incredible damage to the country, by her relentless public insistence that we've lost in Iraq, her propping up of Assad, her attacks on Iraqi PM Maliki, and her helping destroy the FISA bill.
Yet Bush has never once complained. Never. In photos he smiles at her as if he's in love with her.
http://meyerweb.com/pix/2006/bush-pelosi.jpg
She's called him a failure and an incompetent, author of the worst foreign policy in our country's history. These are words that the rest of the world hears. Our enemies are emboldened and encouraged to keep fighting.
President Bush has the responsibility as president and commander-in-chief to forcefully defend our troops, publicize their successes, and make Nancy Pelosi pay some price for her private "diplomacy" and her undermining of our national security.
Yet he never has, and I'm at a loss as to why.
Thanks for the briefing Amy, I am a news hound and hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere but I do know of the tremendous success of the recent ops in Basra, Sadr City and Mosul. I don't need the MSM when I have the new media at my fingertip, and yes Petraeus and Odierno are one of the top teams of Generals in history with a ton of credit to Amb Crocker as well.
Hey meatbrains, you warped words will get you nowhere around here, go back to Kos where you belong where your meatheaded talking points will get some attention. Amy's readers are intelligent and highly informed about the war and our efforts there.
Amy I am short of time tonight but I will get at least one of these clips posted with a link back ASAP.
I watched CNN, C-Span, Fox, MSNBC, none of which covered the hearings. Only the Pentagon Channel did. I was talking about mass media. No one covered the hearings except the Pentagon Channel and how many people have that? I recall the hearings when the war wasn't going quite as well that there was coverage on every media outlet.
By the way, if you went to those MSM websites they didn't carry it, either, except for the occassional headline after the fact. Googling articles under a specific topic isn't the same as widespread MSM media coverage.
Let's be real. You had to do a Google search to see if my assertion was correct!
Wow, way to go, Indigo Red!
Goat said:
That can't be true because meatbrain says it isn't. ;)
Amy! You doll! Fantastic selections, thank you for bringing them forward.
And don't stand too close as the meat beats itself; you KNOW what's coming!
Meat you sound desperate. Why?
And the term "mass media" includes newspapers. As I demonstrated, many of them covered the hearings. Your claim was false, Amy.
That's an amazingly stupid thing to say, Amy. You were expecting that these stories would be filed before the hearings?
BECAUSE! AMY! SAYS! SO!
The fact remains that there was, in fact, widespread media coverage of the hearings. But because Amy didn't get spoonfed when she was channel-surfing, nobody said nuthin'. ROTFLMAO!
Let's be real. When I bothered to check your assertion, I found out you were lying.
So, meatbrain, you like playing verbal semantics? How many msm reporters can dance on the head of a pin? Was that tingle up Chris Matthews' leg real, or was it one of the termites escaping from Keith Olbermann's head?
Point is, the (ever shrinking) big media has its own agenda. Case in point: CSPAN didn't run the hearings because it didn't fit the agenda. That is why blogs like Amy's are gaining in popularity while big media outlets are dying. If you look at popular blogs, they don't make stuff up. They feature legitimate news and information that didn't make the msm marquee.
... and you hang your entire criticism on what the meaning of the word ignore is, when used as a rhetorical flourish. It's a three day weekend, maybe you should go outside and get some fresh air.
http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/05/even-ny-times-says-its-good-news.html
--Nietzsche is Dead
Amy Proctor does.
Nice comeback. Any other examples besides her egregious misuse of the word "ignore"? That's a pretty thin twig to support such a big statement. Perhaps your dyspepsia stems from the good news about Iraq leaking out. Anyway, any other examples to support your weak assertion?
I said nothing about Amy's alleged misuse of the word "ignore". The simple fact is that Amy lied.
Already provided. Pay attention next time.
Meat, of courese newspapers are MSM, but what newsPAPERS was the briefing talked about on the front page? I can't think of any. The links you provided are to cyberpages of newspapers.
The comparison goes to previous briefings in which front page, live TV coverage dominated. Why not this time?
And what is your vested interest in claiming the MSM adequately or proportionately covered it? It didn't. How much searching did you have to do for Hillary and Obama news? Wildfires? Or was it headlining on the news? It was, the hearing wasn't.
I spent the morning trying to find the hearing on anything other than the Pentagon Channel and it WASN'T ON ANY OTHER NETWORK. That's just a fact, jack.
HERE'S PROOF THAT COW DUNG IS MAJOR NEWS TODAY!
Look at the pages and pages of links to MSM outlets reporting on cow dung. Obviously this is BIG news and we know because Google tells us so.
Remember, kids: when Amy says "MSM", from now on she means only the front pages of newspapers... except when she means something else.
Argumentum ad ignoratium. If Amy doesn't know about it, it didn't happen.
Yes, Amy. Newspapers that are part of the mainstream media. Unless you need them not to be, of course. Feel free to change the definition whenever you need to do so. You really can't defend your claim without doing that, can you?
You made no comparison. Your original post mentioned no previous briefings. Your exact assertion was: "..the MSM ignored the briefings...". One can search your original post in vain for any mention of a newspaper's front page.
Of course, now that your claim is in tatters, the heavy equipment comes out and the goalposts are moved.
I made no such claim. Piling one lie upon another isn't going to help your credibility, Amy.
The claim you made in your post is a lie. That's just a fact, Amy.
Is it on the front page of a newsPAPER, Amy? That's your criterion, isn't it?
Thanks for the laugh...
Amy, I don't know why you bother with this mean-spirited, angry person.
We have 200,000 troops in harm's way winning important counterinsurgency battles in OEF and OIF and he wants to fight to the death about semantics and attack you personally. Anyone who has read your blog and sees the awards and invitations for interviews in other forms of media knows that your reputation is impeccable and your reporting is bullet-proof.
LOL on the cowdung!
meatbrain: She was using your own chosen criteria to prove you wrong. Careful how you structure your arguments. Regardless of your protestations, your entire argument hinges on the work "ignore." Besides that infamous statement, what other proof do you have of Amy's nefarious lies?
Now, how do you feel about progress in Iraq? I still think that goes more to the root of your distemper.
If you want to bow down to the msm altar, go ahead. Your argumentum ad exhaustium is quite a technique, I'll give you that.
Finally, I want to make an editorial comment. I have been on your side of the fence in many a left-wing site discussion (pro-abortion, anti-Bush, atheist, radical feminist, etc.). In every instance I had hot coals of vituperation rained down upon me. I've been called every name in the book, troll being a common one. Notice that didn't happen here? A glance back at the posts shows that you haven't been called one name, which I think speaks well of conservatives.
Obviously it isn't, when a simple search can demonstrate that Amy isn't telling you the truth.
But tell you what, Johnny... you get out your camcorder and make a long, tearful emo video telling me to leave Amy alone. Everyone could use the laugh.
What exactly are my "chosen criteria"? Where exactly did I state them?
I smell straw...
Already provided. Pay attention next time.
YOU pay attention, meathead. Proof that a Google search doesn't make Amy a liar. COW DUNG. Big news. Because it's on Google.
Really, swatting at gnats isn't pretty.
I'll repeat what I posted on Gateway Pundit's site:
I've encountered many "meatbrains" over the years on my blog, and on others, and they are virtually the same. The take an unsustainable position to counter the topic of discussion, cloak it in vitriol and maybe some name calling, and continue on painting themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of without leaving tracks proving to everyone that, well, they painted themselves into a corner!
Gateway is a liar, I'm a liar, Bush is a liar, Cheney is a liar, Petraeus is a liar....anyone who doesn't tell these people what they want to hear are liars. As a mother of 4, I cringe at the idea of raising someone like that! Yet another good reason to be conservative.
Also, since Google searches are the litmus test of appropriate proportions for news coverage, I feel it my duty to point out that COW DUNG IS MAJOR NEWS TODAY!
Look at the pages and pages of links to MSM outlets reporting on cow dung. Obviously this is BIG news and we know because Google tells us so.
I respectfully point to the irony of meathead's position: if the news were really that abundant, would he have to do a Google search to find coverage of the Petraeus/Odierno hearing? Did he have to Google Hillary and Obama in order to have any news coverage of their campaign fiascos? No, they were front and center on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc., etc.,
When C-Span doesn't even cover an event live like a hearing on Iraq with the commanding generals who've been compared to Grant and Sherman, Patton and Eisenhower, you know it's been shelved!
Again I ask meatbrain, what TV stations did you see the hearings carried live on, or carried at all? That's what I thought. TV is the main medium for information dispensation. Newspapers are in the tank and laying off workers. Wonder why?
How does a search for an entirely unrelated topic provide proof that your claim (that the mainstream media did not cover the Petraeus/Odierno hearings this past week) is true -- especially given that we know for a fact that the mainstream media did, in fact, cover the Petraeus/Odierno hearings this past week?
You were the one insisting that if an issue can be found on Google the media is not ignoring it. This is obviously a definitional dilemma. Amy maintains if one has to dig deep for news on something this important, the press is ignoring it. You maintain that if one shred can be found anywhere in print, radio, TV, or Internet, the press is not ignoring it. Fine. Is the press ignoring human trafficking? I think so. Not because no information exists, but because one really has to dig for news on it. It is easier to keep up with the latest drunken antics of a Hollywood poptart than it is to stay informed on issues that really matter. News about Iraq suffers the same fate. If it bleeds, it leads.
You may smell straw, but I smell an angry person arguing in circles, still pivoting on the word ignore. What is the point you are trying to make? Obviously, you have failed so far. Again, please provide instances of the alleged lies you speak of. And please don't give us the google link again with the scolding pay attention statement.
Who in this discussion has made that claim, Amy?
Your original post said nothing about how "abundant" the coverage was, Amy. Nor have I said anything about how "abundant" the coverage was. You made the claim that the mainstream media failed to cover the hearings.
Did major newspapers -- which you have already admitted are part of the mainstream media -- cover the hearings, Amy?
Yes or no?
I didn't make any claims about having seen the hearings, Amy. Nor was your claim limited to TV stations. You made the claim that the mainstream media failed to cover the hearings.
Did major newspapers -- which you have already admitted are part of the mainstream media -- cover the hearings, Amy?
Yes or no?
BECAUSE! AMY! SAYS! SO!
And... because those goalposts have got to be moved!
This is relevant how, exactly? Are newspapers part of the mainstream media, Amy? Did newspapers cover the hearings, Amy?
meatbrain. What is your point? Is it to deprecate the larger point by arguing over inanities? If so, good job.
Here's the bottom line: Even Senator Levin praised these great men. They brought an irrefutable success story to these hearings. Compare that to the coverage of one soldier shooting a Koran. Which got more coverage? Quick, go do a Google search!
Amy lied.
Next question?
You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it so. You can cling to your overly tight definition of "ignore" if you want to. Everyone here has tried to explain its usage here to you, but I guess you don't understand context.
Here's my next question: Which got more coverage, the hearing in question or the soldier shooting the Koran? Ignore the question if you want, but that is what this is really all about.
Amy made the claim that the mainstream media failed to cover the hearings.
Did major newspapers -- which Amy has already admitted are part of the mainstream media -- cover the hearings?
Yes or no?
I haven't offered any definition of "ignore". Please keep building straw men. Someday you might get good at it.
False. Amy made no mention in her original post of the coverage of the Koran incident.
Please keep building straw men. Someday you might get good at it.
My point is that your point is pointless. You are arguing over semantics (shifting from "ignore" to "failed to cover") to avoid the main point, which is that the press trumpets bad news from Iraq while whispering good news. Major newspapers covered it, but not loudly like they cover bad news.
You still didn't answer my question about which got more coverage, the hearing or the soldier shooting the Koran.
You think you are undermining Amy's credibility by picking on this minor, debatable point and thereby discrediting everything she says? Sorry, one pinprick does not a cannon shot make. The fortress still stands. You need more than a definitional disagreement popgun shot to discredit someone. You keep repeating yourself... Looks like you're out of ammo.
Amy claimed that the mainstream media -- which, by her own admission, includes newspapers -- ignored the hearings. Here you are stating the opposite. Tsk tsk.
Are you claiming that if a newspaper does cover a story, but not in a manner that you approve of, they have effectively "ignored" the story? Really? Your preferences are the deciding criteria here?
There can be only one response: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
It sounds like you are saying that lying is "minor".
As for whether the fact that Amy lies effectively discredits her -- well, obviously, for you it does not. That will be your problem, not mine.
I think you need a dictionary and some common sense if you are calling her a liar based on your tenuous allegation.
I bet you're a real blast at parties (I'm not implying you'd blow anything up)
Imaginary Party Scene:
Fred: "Check out this sweet gun I just bought!" (displaying it safely, unloaded)
Meatbrain: (Licking Gun) "It doesn't taste sweet to me."
foutsc: (addressing Amy) "Man, look at that!"
Meatbrain interjects: "Amy is not a man. Liar!"
foutsc: "The Cardinals really kicked the crap out of the Giants last night"
Meatbrain: "I watched that game, and I didn't see anyone get kicked. I didn't see any crap on the field either. You're lying!"
Meatbrain's life partner approaches: "Meatbrain, you've been ignoring me all night!"
Meatbrain: "No I haven't. I said 'see ya' as soon as we walked in. I've also glanced at you periodically throughout the evening. Liar. Lying Life Partners and the lying lies they lie about!"
Did major newspapers -- which Amy has already admitted are part of the mainstream media -- cover the hearings?
Yes or no?
Run away now...
We've already established newspapers covered the hearings, but not in the bold, triumphant manner they cover bad news. Once again, you take things out of context and miss the point: Bad news makes the front page, good news doesn't. Here's what Amy said:
"Meat, of coures newspapers are MSM, but what newsPAPERS was the briefing talked about on the front page? I can't think of any. The links you provided are to cyberpages of newspapers.
The comparison goes to previous briefings in which front page, live TV coverage dominated. Why not this time?"
You still haven't answered my question about which event got more press coverage.
meatbrain: You seem like the type of person who, upon seeing someone trapped in a car by a fallen tree, would argue over whether it was a strong gale or a full gale that blew the tree over. Meanwhile, as you utilize your dubious logic skills, the person is still trapped.
The media did not cover this hearing to the extent it covered the soldier shooting the Koran. There, I answered the question for you.
BTW, what the heck is "run away now..." supposed to mean?
You don't make much sense, but you sure do provide good entertainment. Kind of like a one-person Abbot and Costello.
Good. Are newspapers part of the mainstream media? Yes or no?
Amy's claim did not involve a subjective assessment of the "manner" of coverage. She claimed that the mainstream media ignored the hearings -- in fact, that the hearings were subjected to a "media blackout".
Amy's claim did not involve "the front page". She claimed that the mainstream media ignored the hearings -- in fact, that the hearings were subjected to a "media blackout".
A comparison to the recent Koran story was not any part of Amy's original claim. The stench of straw man hangs heavy in the air.
Newspapers are part of the msm. There you go in circles again, pivoting on a fine point while avoiding the larger question of how the media covers events. Once again, you strain a gnat but swallow a camel. Are you alleging there was an avalanche of coverage after the blackout was over?
The Koran story was my question to you. You failed to see the connection to a larger point. I apologize. I'll try to keep it simple from now on.
Again you failed to answer my question regarding what the nanny-like statement "run away now..." meant.
Finally, whatever fetishes you have for straw men, you're probably better keeping them to yourself.
LOL!
Good. Now we know that newspapers are part of the mainstream media, and that newspaper covered the hearings.
Is it therefore true that the mainstream media did, in fact, provide coverage of the hearings?
I'm afraid I don't follow you. When, exactly, was there a blackout in coverage of the hearings in the mainstream media?
There is no connection between the Koran story and Amy's claim.
I state uncategorically: The MSM ignored the briefings. We've already established that your definition and our definition of ignore is not the same. Burying a story is virtually the same as ignoring it, in a colloquial sense. You're going in circles again.
You're the one who first mention a blackout, not me. ???.
If you can't see a connection between what this conversation is about and the difference in media coverage between the hearing and the Koran story, then you are in way over your head.
Go ahead mention odoriferous straw men again... How about another run away statement? You've really corkscrewed yourself into the ground.
meatbrain: Well, I've been stuck inside all day and in need of some mindless diversion. Thanks for providing it. I'll leave you with an old Central Asia saying:
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on...
Rock On Amy!
-- Nietzsche is Dead