Newsweek Uses Sleight-Of-Hand Wordplay To Smear, Undermine Petraeus

Ken McCracken • September 11, 2007

This is the big headline over at Newsweek right now:

The problem is that the “internal” Pentagon report expected to “differ substantially” from Petraeus’ isn’t really what Michael Hirsh at Newsweek is making it out to be. As Pat Dollard explains:

Newsweek is doing some serious sleight of hand by mentioning the “alternate” Pentagon report “differing substantially” from Petreaus’ recommendations of how to win in Iraq. It’s not a plan drawn up out of consideration for victory in Iraq, but one drawn up as a contingency in the event the Pentagon were to decide that it was more important to have a reserve of troops on hand for other possible conflicts. The so-called dispute with Admiral Fallon is not based on Fallon having a differing view of how to achieve success in Iraq, but of Fallon’s desire to have a ready reserve available for surprise conflicts. Newsweek would have you believe that there’s some report being drawn up that will claim that Petraeus’ Iraq assesment is wrong or even untrue. Not the case.

The idea of our military having contingency plans is nothing new. At one point, our country even had a plan for invading Canada. It didn’t mean that we should have invaded Canada, or that we would. It was just there in case it was needed.
Hirsh and the editors at Newsweek know that, but they aren’t going to let facts get in their way.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror

http://Array robert108

I don’t believe that the Constitution or the founding principles have much to say about the war in Iraq or about when any given war is appropriate or not.

It’s about defending the American principles and the Constitution from those who wish to destroy it. That includes individual independence, which the Islamofascists absolutely hate. Duh.
MikeAdamson

r108

…the real question is: “How do we eliminate the threat of Islamofascism in this world?”

I agree that this is the real question…well put.

You want to factor in the propaganda efforts of the MSM, and I want to go straight to the real American consciousness. Interesting.

I’m interested in hearing how you get straight to the real American consciousness.

However, only one side of the story is generally presented to the public, which makes your poll question heavily agendized.

If one accepts that the Media distorts the news to such an extent that the Media’s account of the war is the opposite of what is really happening then my question would be agendised. What concerns me is how you are so certain that the war is going better than the media portrays. I know that we rely on different sources, generally speaking, but I consider your sources very agendised just as you are suspicious of mine and I worry that many who support the war see themselves as some type of vanguard working in the interests of western civilisation whether western civilisation likes it or not. I am dubious of claims to truth which are not supported by concrete evidence.

HG…we’ll have to agree to disagree I’m afraid.
robert108

If one accepts that the Media distorts the news to such an extent that the Media’s account of the war is the opposite of what is really happening then my question would be agendised.

What I actually said was that the MSM only reports one side of the news; the agendized version, which makes your question agendized by definition.
If you think we are getting both sides of the story from Iraq, presented with equal emphasis, I congratulate you on your naivete.
I never said “opposite”; I said “one-sided”.
In the dichotomy of war, if we are not losing, we are winning. We haven’t won yet, but we are certainly only losing in the propaganda war, not in the real war.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

One thing I had never heard until recently, was that Gen. Petraeus has a PhD from Princeton! So you’d think at least a few of the pointy-headed academic types would cut him some slack!
(Though, apparently NOT the Move-On.orcs living in their Mom’s basement!)
HG

We seem to have become more and more tolerant of this sort of thing as Americans. Maybe its due to an inability to discern between “dissent and disloyalty”, between free speech and defamation. Maybe such speech is more tolerable in light of the anti-war efforts tolerated during Veitnam. Maybe we have lost our honor to some degree in that we as citizens do little more than express our frustration at the sound of anti-war, anti-American drumbeat from extremists on the left. Whatever the reasons, what kind of example are we setting for future generations? Will they too suffer from the same inability to act?

We know the rhetoric is not merely dissent for a couple of reasons. One, many of the voices resonate from hatred of America. And two, most of the voices would not support any war no matter how just or necessary. We know the current betrayal of our military General is not just dissent rising from the perceived military impossibilities, but a defamation of character in wartime for military progress and successes. We recognize the duplicity of the voices and given the above we know it to be perfidious.

Why then are we so tolerant? Why do we not shout them down? Why do we not boycott the media outlets that peddle this insanity? Why aren’t our Senators mailboxes, voice, email, and post office, overflowing? Why are we so tolerant of disloyalty to our nation in time of war and what the hell will it take to wake us up?
HG

I think it’s because disloyalty is the wrong word and dissent is right.

Mike,

I fail to see how an anti-war, anti-american attempted defamation of a military general simply because he reports facts which show progress and successes is anything but disloyalty.

Rest assured I am not dismayed at all the disloyal rhetoric, rather I am dismayed at the lack of real action. We Americans got more worked up about illegal immigration and stopped the political madness with no less support among the population than there is loyalty to America in time of war.
MikeAdamson

Why then are we so tolerant? Why do we not shout them down? Why do we not boycott the media outlets that peddle this insanity? Why aren’t our Senators mailboxes, voice, email, and post office, overflowing? Why are we so tolerant of disloyalty to our nation in time of war and what the hell will it take to wake us up?

I think it’s because disloyalty is the wrong word and dissent is right. I think you’re frustrated that more Americans don’t agree with your position on Iraq and you’re hanging on to whatever explanation vindicates your position.

IMO…respectfully submitted.
MikeAdamson

HG

I agree there has been a leadership vacuum to some degree. That doesn’t mean Americans don’t want win or think victory is not possible.

Americans did and do want a victory and of course such a victory is possible but Americans seem no longer convinced that the cause is worth the sacrifice. When the gain isn’t worth the cost then the public will just isn’t there. IMO of course.

The lack of action is not on the part of those who disagree with this war or any war, rather a lack of action on the part of those who agree with our war effort and the tolerance for rhetoric which is beyond dissent.

I understand that point but perhaps you misunderstand mine. It’s easier to oppose dissent when the majority of Americans support your viewpoint. Since support for the war has dwindled to a minority position, war supporters are less inclined to speak up.

lik

What? Where did this come from?

I think that you sometimes just string words together Mike.

Your view on the war used to be the majority view and now it’s not. Majorities eventually win out in democracies so you won’t see much of an outcry against criticism of a general supporting the White House’s Iraqi policy.
robert108

MikeA: It’s not a simple right and wrong issue, as you try to make it. You might be right in the context of your premise, but the real question is: “How do we eliminate the threat of Islamofascism in this world?”
Right and wrong are just sophistry, IMO. We need to win, or we lose everything. Read up on what is happening in London as we speak:

http://currentviewpoint.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=11&command=shownews&newsid=955
MikeAdamson

I fail to see how an anti-war, anti-american attempted defamation of a military general simply because he reports facts which show progress and successes is anything but disloyalty.

If I saw an example of such action then I might agree with you.

Rest assured I am not dismayed at all the disloyal rhetoric, rather I am dismayed at the lack of real action.

It is easier to be on a bandwagon when it’s full than when it’s emptying. If the public doesn’t agree with your viewpoint then you can’t very well expect it to take action.

We Americans got more worked up about illegal immigration and stopped the political madness with no less support among the population than there is loyalty to America in time of war.

This is the part I don’t understand. If Americans don’t see the benefit of a war then it is up to the leadership to clearly demonstrate the benefit. If the leadership can’t persuade the public then it’s basically pooched and the leadership’s supporters are reduced to complaining about lack of loyalty and media manipulation.

It sucks to live in a democratic society sometimes but it’s still the best system we have.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

If the leadership can’t persuade the public then it’s basically pooched and the leadership’s supporters are reduced to complaining about lack of loyalty and media manipulation.

“Reduced to” pointing out serious issues. Nice way of putting it Mike.

It sucks to live in a democratic society sometimes but it’s still the best system we have.

What? Where did this come from?

I think that you sometimes just string words together Mike.
HG

If I saw an example of such action then I might agree with you.

Mike,

I don’t doubt you’re blind to this, you’ve been against our efforts in Iraq from the begining.

If the public doesn’t agree with your viewpoint then you can’t very well expect it to take action.

The majority of the American public agrees victory is possible and is willing to pursue it.

This is the part I don’t understand.

See my first response above.

If the leadership can’t persuade the public then it’s basically pooched and the leadership’s supporters are reduced to complaining about lack of loyalty and media manipulation

I agree there has been a leadership vacuum to some degree. That doesn’t mean Americans don’t want win or think victory is not possible.

You didn’t listen to my answer to your first post on this thread. The lack of action is not on the part of those who disagree with this war or any war, rather a lack of action on the part of those who agree with our war effort and the tolerance for rhetoric which is beyond dissent.
HG

Since support for the war has dwindled to a minority position, war supporters are less inclined to speak up.

Yeah, I definately got your point but disagree with the assumption that support for the war is a minority position. There is a huge difference between not liking the way the war was prosecuted at times and not supporting military victory. I too have been disappointed in the prosecution of the war and the apparant lack of leadership evident at times throughout this war, but I have never given up on supporting victory.
robert108

…Americans seem no longer convinced that the cause is worth the sacrifice.

I think you’re confusing agendized propaganda polls with the real view of real Americans about defeating terrorism.
MikeAdamson

r108

I think you’re confusing agendized propaganda polls with the real view of real Americans about defeating terrorism.

If by “real Americans” you mean those Americans that agree with you then you’re probably right.

HG

There is a huge difference between not liking the way the war was prosecuted at times and not supporting military victory.

True that but there is also a difference between a war the public perceives to be in the national interest and a war that the public does not so perceive. Unless one subscribes to the view that you rally round the flag no matter what or why, a position that doesn’t seem in keeping with the American values I know, then opposition to a bad war seems almost an American’s duty.
HG

Mike,

Perception is important. That is a battle that has to be fought as well as fighting in Iraq in large part thanks to the Dems and their cronies in the media. They’ve got useful idiots thinking that this war is a “bad war” as you put it. To many of them all war is bad so it doesn’t take much but dropping a few lines like “Bush lied”, Bush “played on our fears”, or “Bush’s war” to get their feathers ruffled. It didn’t stop there and now our General, who has made a career of duty, honor, and country, has his picture and his integrity maligned for no other reason than he is succeeding in Iraq. That is way beyond dissent. Moveon.org deserves a nice fat defamation of character lawsuit, but, judging by our sides “turn the other cheek” attitude, it isn’t likely.
robert108

MikeA: If you really want to know what Americans think, the proper polling question to ask is: “Do you want us to defeat the terrorists, or do you want us to be defeated by the terrorists?”
If you don’t ask that question, you don’t really know how many Americans support the war, unpleasant as it may be. The consequences of defeat are much more unpleasant.
robert108

How about asking the American public how much
relevance the Iraqi war has to the war with global jihadism and see what you get.

You want to factor in the propaganda efforts of the MSM, and I want to go straight to the real American consciousness. Interesting. Since the American public gets almost no news about Iraq besides that which is filtered through the Dem Ministry of Propaganda, the answer to your question is obvious. However, only one side of the story is generally presented to the public, which makes your poll question heavily agendized.
As far as your other question is concerned, it is conditioned by your basic premise. GIGO
If one is committed to winning in Iraq and in the other aspects of the war against the terrorists, the answer is that we do what it takes to win.
We have chosen to seek the path of trying to do both military and political simultaneously(despite the lies from the Dems), which is a much harder path than simply wiping out the enemy, then establishing the political structure. Not my choice, but at least we are fighting them now, instead of pretending that they are “a bumper sticker”.
MikeAdamson

r108

If you really want to know what Americans think, the proper polling question to ask is: “Do you want us to defeat the terrorists, or do you want us to be defeated by the terrorists?”

Missed this comment. How about asking the American public how much relevance the Iraqi war has to the war with global jihadism and see what you get. One difference between our positions is not that we don’t both want to see jihadism defeated but that you think “winning” in Iraq has something to do with that whereas I don’t. If I’m wrong, then why is the American government supporting Sunni enemies of the Iraqi government? It makes no sense to me.
MikeAdamson

If you think we are getting both sides of the story from Iraq, presented with equal emphasis, I congratulate you on your naivete.

I think we’re getting the important bits although I wish the media would report more on the internal politics and daily life of Iraq since how the parties engage and play off each other adds needed context to the stories we read.

In the dichotomy of war, if we are not losing, we are winning. We haven’t won yet, but we are certainly only losing in the propaganda war, not in the real war.

I’ll return your compliment.
MikeAdamson

HG…FWIW I thought the Move On ad was over the top although not out of line. War supporters are certainly entitled to support the general against such ads although I’ve certainly read nasty comments made by war supporters about generals who have made it clear that they don’t agree with the President. I’m not suggesting you have for war supporters to invoke honour and service in cases of military men and women they approve of and to slag those they don’t suggests to me that at least some of the angst is an extention of the political battle.

I appreciate your comments and your good nature.

r108…sorry that you took my last comment to you as snotty. I don’t believe that the Constitution or the founding principles have much to say about the war in Iraq or about when any given war is appropriate or not. It’s not even a conservative/liberal issue anymore as much as it is a cold calculation of America’s national interest and the costs and benefits accrued through continued occupation…as it should be IMO.

Send all the troops after the Taliban for example and you’ll get no beef from me. Target the current terrorist threats to western security and leave the Wilsonian democracy building to a day when you can afford it…IMO of course.
robert108

If by “real Americans” you mean those Americans that agree with you then you’re probably right.

How snotty and dismissive of you. I mean Americans who believe in the Constitution and the founding principles of America.
HG

I’ve certainly read nasty comments made by war supporters about generals who have made it clear that they don’t agree with the President.

True, but have you read them in a full page ad in the NYT? Have they been echoed by elected officials and the MSM? I have to disagree with you that the Moveon ad wasn’t out of line. Disapproving of the war in Iraq is one thing, but it cannot be repeated enough that attacking the character of a many for his success in an effort to obscure the military progress in Iraq is to put one’s anti-war, anti-American ideology before country. This then is not mere dissent by disloyalty.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

I think it’s because disloyalty is the wrong word and dissent is right.

“Dissent” is lying and then rooting for the country’s loss?

Get a grip Mike. You’re not pulling that one past this crowd.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Newsweek Uses Sleight-Of-Hand Wordplay To Smear, Undermine Petraeus

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments