The Times Front Pages Good News From Baghdad

From the front page of the Wednesday Times comes good news from Baghdad:

Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ALISSA J. RUBIN  

 

BAGHDAD — Iraqi forces rolled unopposed through the huge Shiite enclave of Sadr City on Tuesday, a dramatic turnaround from the bitter fighting that has plagued the Baghdad neighborhood for two months, and a qualified success for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

As it did in the southern city of Basra last month, the Iraqi government advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias.

This was a hopeful accomplishment, but one that came with caveats: In both cities, the militias eventually melted away in the face of Iraqi troops backed by American firepower. Thus nobody can say just where the militias might re-emerge or when Iraqi and American forces might need to fight them again.

Even MSNBC manages some upbeat coverage of the "civil war".

Comments

[Rick Ballard]

The MSM might have noted that Maliki is actually running an operation in Mosul this week. He's going to be in very good shape for the October elections if he keeps it up.

It's odd how quiet the Copperhead Caucus for Surrender has become. Are the Blue Dogs sitting on their heads to muffle the noise?

[SteveMG]

Unfortunately, I think the public (generally speaking) doesn't care about these improvements, remarkable as they appear to be, in Iraq.

Other concerns, rightly or not, have overtaken the issue.

Obama vs. McCain re Iraq? A wash.

[Neo]

I wonder how the Obamaniacs would respond if Bush declared that things had stabilized enough, say the morning of Obama’s acceptance speech in Denver, for a major draw down in US forces.

[hit and run]

SteveMG:
Unfortunately, I think the public (generally speaking) doesn't care about these improvements, remarkable as they appear to be, in Iraq.

Pew Research released a report last week. Seems anyone who talked about it honed in on the "72% think the media should not declare Obama the winner". Which makes sense, since the title of the report is Public Says Press Should Not Declare Obama the Winner.

But also in the report was a media coverage/news interest section.

While 35% of the public was following news of the election very closely -- the media devoted 46% of their coverage to the race.

While 29% of the public was following news of Iraq very closely -- the media devoted 1% of their coverage to it.

You know what that means if you watch your cable news network of choice for an hour?

Gone in 30 seconds

Other concerns, rightly or not, have overtaken the issue.

Yes -- "news interest" does not necessarily mean voter interest. A voter can be very interested in watching the news from Iraq, but not base his vote on it.

And when Iraq is going well, it may be like when the economy is going well...a voter focuses his voting decisions on other things*.

Not realizing that making the wrong choice in your vote could spell disaster on that which is going well...

------------
*Or if you're a small town Pennsylvanian and the economy is doing poorly, you cling to your religion and guns and antipathy for people who look like Obama.

[MikeS]

Those who pretend that Iraq was heaven on earth before OIF will never admit that war was the lesser of two evils in Iraq.

The facts are that Iraq still has some dark days ahead, but Saddam is gone. A.Q. Kahn's Nuclear Bazaar is out of business. Libya has given up its nuclear program. Iran, for a time, stopped enriching uranium. Syria is out of Lebanon. The World has had a chance to compare al Qaeda to the U.S.Military and guess what happened?

War is hell. It is never a panacea. It is never a 'good' choice, but in spite of that sometimes it is still the best choice.

[Rick Ballard]

H & R,

The exit polls reflect an even stronger interest by voters:

Most Important Issue

Iowa
Economy (35%)
Iraq (35%)
Health Care (27

Oregon
Economy (45%)
Iraq (31%)
Health Care (20%)

I think it's cute of CNN to plug this one:

Has Recession Affected You?

Given that there is no recession and all. No bias there.

[SteveMG]

H&R:
Good post.

Re "I think the public (generally speaking) doesn't care about these improvements, "

I should have written "care" as in considering it as a factor in the Presidential elections.

My sense is that Iraq is "background noise" as most Americans just wish it would go away.

Again, unfortunately (yes, I too wish Iraq would disappear; but wishes are for children).

[vnjagvet]

Here is one member of "the public" that is interested in the outcome in Iraq. And in the threat from Iran. And with the continued success in bottling up of much of the senior al queda leadership in the wilds of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Strategically, after 9/11 we have been successful in taking the initiative in one way or another against all of the nations that could give aid and comfort to those who sought to advance their cause by conducting spectacular attacks on US soil. Keep in mind that 9/11 killed nearly as many people (and more civilians) than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

The notion that there would have been no further attacks but for our taking the multi-front initiative are naive -- and wrong.

Moreover, the resilience of the nation's without WWII type rationing or price controls is another significant achievement which will be studied for years to come.

But the passage of time without significant further ill effect has dulled the senses of outrage, fear and vigilance of much of the citizenry.

This is the real challenge.

BHO has decided to appeal to those who think we have been lucky. McCain will have to appeal to those of us who believe the aggressive approach taken was right. So far, he is doing that, IMO.

[vnjagvet]

resilience of the nation's economy

Sorry.

[hit and run]

Rick:
I think it's cute of CNN to plug this one:

Has Recession Affected You?

You know, Rick, I saw that too. I was looking for "When did you Bush stop beating your wife?" as a question.

SteveMG -- thanks -- and I definitely knew what you meant when you said "care".

[Cecil Turner]

The MSM might have noted that Maliki is actually running an operation in Mosul this week.

You'd think, wouldn't you? And they might've even noted the Mosul operation depended on the Sadr City one (so the mostly Sunni/Baathists wouldn't interpret the crackdown as sectarian), and the Sadr City version was predicated on the Basra model. That's three big ops in a couple months, and by all indications they are a rousing success. Add in the increased oil production and various reconciliation initiatives, and this is starting to look like real progress. But if you depend on the national news services, you'd think the last important occurrence was either:

1. The Iraqi Army losing (and running away) in Basra;
2. Maliki having to accept an ignominious cease-fire (in Basra) brokered by Tehran;
3. The Iraqi Army running away in Sadr City.

I mentioned to a coworker last week that the Basra cleanup was pretty much complete, and he said: "I thought we lost that one." Don't know much longer they can keep the lid on, but so far "the narrative" is holding.

[dking]

They still had to add the so "far". What a bunch of bums.

[sbw]

Press Should Not Declare Obama the Winner.

Nope. It's up to Obama to declare "Mission Accomplished" and go home to Chicago.

[vnjagvet]

Rove is doing it again. The magnificent bastard is timing Maliki's Iraq victory for his quadrennial October surprise.

And the MSM hasn't prepared its breathless audience for it.

I hear Dan Rather is dusting off some Navpers memos relating to one of McCain's leaves. This time he has borrowed an IBM Selectric just to make sure.

[clarice]

Well, How convenient. Soylent's back in town and we havewn't had a Friday night live in ages!

[hoosierhoops]

Unfortunately, I think the public (generally speaking) doesn't care about these improvements, remarkable as they appear to be, in Iraq..

I know all the military families care about how it's going in Iraq.
And i think the general public does also..but there is so much background noise being generated and unfortunately fatigue over this war that americans have turned thier eyes to domestic issues.
I know one thing.. over the last year many of the bloggers at JOM and other sites have offered such strong support for our family.
I really can't thank all of you enough for the words of encouragement, the prayers..
My gawd..you people are beautiful..
As I look over at the couch and see Jordan kicking back taking a nap in his home, my heart is full of warmth and joy.
Gosh.. I have a son that is a hero..and i'm so damn proud of him.

[MikeS]

I have a son that is a hero..and i'm so damn proud of him.

Hell Hoopster, I'm proud too and I don't even know him!

[centralcal]

Ditto, Mike S.

And, Hoosier - We all felt like a son returned home to us, when you got Jordan back home safe and sound.

[Ann]

HH,

I am going to send you a bill for my mascara! Beautiful, indeed!

Your family and son are the beautiful heroes. We are proud of all of you.

I think of you whenever a soldier comes homes and says " I thought we were winning until I came home."

[vnjagvet]

Yeah, Ann. That memory still hurts 40 years later. I got back in May 1968 thinking we had really kicked ass in Tet and thereafter.

What a bummer when I found out we had "lost".

HH -- glad things are peaceful at last. I bet that extra time at the beach was great.

[Ralph L]

dusting off some Navpers memos
I believe it was still BuPers in McCain's day--we'll see if they get that correct.

OT, did anyone see Brian Lamb interview Jeffrey Rosen about his John Mitchell book? Worth seeing if they replay it. They had a tape of Nixon, Haldeman, and Kissinger discussing the Pentagon Papers. Dr. K's German accent was barely detectable, unlike his TV appearances.

[vnjagvet]

Ralph:

That's what I get for guessing. Ex-Army guys aren't real good at Navy jargon. I should have checked with my brother:>)

[Ann]

vnjagnet,

I wish we could CHANGE that for you.

I had an incredible boss when I was younger that received three purple hearts in his great service to this country during the Vietnam War. I learned more about life from him than any other male in my life.

He gave me one of his purple hearts when I left the company and I cherish it to this day. It is framed and placed in my house where I see it every morning. I think of him and you and bless this country that we have you, Jordan, Soylent, and so many that make this country great. God bless all of you.

[Neo]

On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits.

Oil profiteering ?

[sylvia]

Awesome. Maliki is one cool cat, as Bush said once, (or something to that effect). He bid his time until the Iraqi troops and plans were more in order, acting all permissive and undecided to Sadr and company, and then when he had the power, bamm! he cracked down hard on everyone. He used the element of surprise.

This is sounding better and better. I think the Iraqi's aren't idiots and they must realize, that with the oil prices so high, good times are going to come their way if they get together and work something out.

I think Bush gets the credit for this. He was the most severely underrated President that I can think of. In fact there was a post here from TM a while back criticizing Bush. Something about the inept way he ran the war. I wanted to comment but didn't have time. But I think that is way exaggerated. The war in Iraq has been on for what, 5 years?, and yes there have been mistakes, but I think all and all, it was run about as well as we could have, given the amount of resources we wanted to devote to it. We couldn't devaote all resources like some wanted because we had to hold something back in reserve in case it was needed elsewhere.

Even if the war was run perfectly, it still would have taken years to have the Iraqis come around emotionally, and to get the army and the government built up and settled. It pretty much all went on a reasonable time schedule. Plus the surge and getting Petraus in there was brilliant. So I think all in all, the right thing done and also fairly well done. Bush should get the credit.

[vnjagvet]

Thanks, Ann.

BTW, the fatality count this month for our troops through today is 14. The rate is .73/day. With the reservation that one fatality is too many, this is the lowest rate for the entire war.

This site has the stats.

The next lowest was .83/day last December.

Even with the stuff going on in Sadr City, even the Iraq death toll is way way down. That, I think, is even more remarkable, and is contrary to the impression I had even reading the milblogs.

I haven't seen seen this information in the press or on TV, has anyone else?

One month is not a trend, of course, but this looks encouraging.

[SlimGuy]

Neo

I noticed the oil execs in town for the grilling today in congress just flat owned the place and showed the posers there for what they are.

Some excellent oil economics 101.

[BOATBUILDER]

Hoops--Jordan and his fellow soldiers are the best. Period.
Sylvia--you are right about Bush. For all the carping and negativity, he will be missed when he's out of office. And he will remind the country and the world how a classy ex-president condecuts himself.
History will treat him well.

[BOATBUILDER]

er . . . "conducts himself."

[kim]

BB, did you see Koch's encomium for Bush yesterday, or Rove's slam of Obama, today?
======================

[Neo]

Something about the inept way he ran the war.

NO, but I don't think I would have too many disagree that they ran the PR pretty darn badly.

I don't think the Bush White House understood just what all those photo-ops that Clinton had were for .. to remind people that he is still there .. open of business. This, more than anything, is why Bush's approval number are so low. Most Americans think he is hiding in some hole. The White House has done a lousy job of injecting themselves into the media stream of consciousness, even when the media don't want him there rewriting their narrative.

I noticed the oil execs in town for the grilling today in congress just flat owned the place and showed the posers there for what they are.

I don't know .. from what I saw in the recaps it didn't look that good. Once again the PR goes badly.

I think that most Americans just don't understand that the Democrats in Congress are busily implementing Kyoto .. on their dime .. even when the global temperatures have been more or less steady during the Bush years and are now dropping. This means that all solutions that involve adding to CO2 output are off the table .. even if that means super high prices and eventual rationing.

By the time any of the alternative energy products, that Obama and the Democrats are pushing, are ready for public use (after OHSA, FTC, DOE, EPA, the Serra Club, Public Citizen, AFSCME, Environmental Defense Fund, Earthjustice, GreenPeace et al are done with them), most of us will be long dead.

[BOATBUILDER]

"...the PR goes badly."

There is really only so much any president can do when the opposition party and the media are prepared to break every rule of decency and honorable discourse to undermine, distort and malign everything his administration does. As I recall, the PR went badly during the Reagan administration as well--the circumstances that Reagan himself had some skill (he wasn't quite as good as we remember) in taking the PR initiative, and that the preceding Carter years were so ungodly awful made it a little easier to present the case.
I don't think that Bush--or anyone--could have truly anticipated the ferocity, intensity and duplicity of the opposition--or the degree to which the opposition would attack their country's best interests--to undermine the Bush presidency.
The fact that "Global Warming" is now accepted as established fact, in spite of the abundant evidence to the contrary, is indicative of what we're up against.
I don't think that there is any major issue on which Bush did not begin by offering an olive branch to the opposition--and got little or no credit. I include the Iraq war in this assessment.

[centralcal]

BB: "I don't think that Bush--or anyone--could have truly anticipated the ferocity, intensity and duplicity of the opposition--or the degree to which the opposition would attack their country's best interests--to undermine the Bush presidency."

I couldn't agree more. The media, especially, all came out of the closet these past few years (objectivity? not) and have no intention of going back in.

[Neo]

I don't think the Bush White House understood just what all those photo-ops that Clinton had were for .. to remind people that he is still there .. open of business. This, more than anything, is why Bush's approval number are so low. Most Americans think he is hiding in some hole.

But they didn't even understand this.

During the Reagan years, there was this meme about watching the news with the sound off. The Reagan folks knew that images make more of an impression than words. They showed a scathing piece on Reagan, but if your turned off the sound .. it looked like a Reagan campaign ad .. and that is what stuck in people's minds.

The Bush White House doesn't seem to get this. They have to exploit every opportunity they can make for themselves.

[Neo]

those photo-ops that Clinton had

As a point of clarification, Clinton had, what I used to call, the "daily million dollar give-away." Everyday they had Clinton in a photo-op giving away some grant that the Bush Administration probably still does quietly. It may have looked patronizing or such, but it show Clinton doing something .. anything .. even in the middle of impeachment.

I came to realize that this helped keep Clinton's approval numbers up, when everybody thought they should be going down.

[boris]

Did the MSM give Clinton more favorable coverage? Earth to Neo ...

[boris]

Boy that Mission Accomplished thing worked out great didn't it?

[clarice]

I just did a review of War and Decision which should be on AT one of these days..The interesting thing is the chart showing the consequences to the administration's poor communications. OTOH we all know that even if the greatest communication team in the world were handling this for Bush the media is bound and determined to get a liberal in the WH and will distort or ignore or simply lie to accomplish that end.

[vnjagvet]

You've got something there, Clarice. Back in the day, both parties had columnists and newspapers they could count on to get out their side of the news.

With the concentration that has taken place in the media over the past 50 years has come a homogenization of opinion to the left(Democratic) side of the spectrum.

To some extent, the blogosphere is counteracting that trend (e.g., American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Instapundit,JOM) but it hasn't yet overcome it.

Whether it will or not remains to be seen.

[Pofarmer]

Isn't "melted away" another term for quit?

[Pofarmer]

It would have made no difference what Bush tried to do with communications. He would be giving major speeches, and the only way you could hear them would be to go to Whitehouse.gov. The networks would actually start, and if he started to hit a few licks they would turn to something else. The coverage this President has gotten is dispicable.

[bio mom]

I really like Michael Gordon. He is one of a very few reporters at the NY Times I respect. John Burns also. Too bad he is no longer in Iraq.

[BOATBUILDER]

Any guesses as to how the clearly stated, entirely rational and quite convincing testimony of the oil execs will be presented on this evening's news--and tomorrow's papers? If it's presented at all?
What we will get is screen shots of fat and/or uptight looking execs sweating, and sound bites of grandstanding congresscritters.
If all the sunshine patriot pundits would acknowledge that it is very hard for the president to fight every battle, and maybe come to his defense on a few of them, we'd get somewhere. Many of the geniuses who now urge us conservatives to stop criticising McCain for the many positions with which we disagree are the same folks who bailed on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, Global Warmism, Abu Graib etc. when the going got a little rough on the cocktail party circuit.

[thelonereader]

BB-Many of the geniuses who now urge us conservatives to stop criticising McCain for the many positions with which we disagree are the same folks who bailed on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, Global Warmism, Abu Graib etc. when the going got a little rough on the cocktail party circuit.

Say it again, a little louder!!!!!

[ajacksonian]

Gordon and Burns have been excellent, Burns the moreso as Bureau Chief and unable to get the NY staff at the Times to actually give any space to what he was seeing. That harsh difference between those in NY and what Burns was saying clearly points to the NYT spin - it would not let an experienced and veteran journalist who they put in charge of their own bureau in Baghdad get any time or editorial space. He was not one of the 'Hotel Media' and that is a major achievement for him. Needless to say he got promoted so he can't give such dangerous views from Iraq and will now give them in London... I expect to see some glimpses of his views of Europe sneaking around the editorial board in NY now and again.

I remember reading when Yon crossed paths with Gordon and let folks know that at least he was on the scene, even if a bit late, and the articles then showed competence and capability, even when filtered through the NYT editorial board. From the impression then, Mr. Gordon has a very harried schedule...

As for me the names I have come to trust are those that are on the ground with the troops - Yon, Totten, Ardolino, Roggio and Mr. Roggio is forming up his own media group to get independent reporters to Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines and elsewhere as he understands this is a long war needing journals and those who write them to see it. And I don't see any MSM in the Philippines or Colombia doing COIN reporting, and yet these are just as vital to our security as Iraq and Afghanistan. Pity the MSM wants to play politics instead of just report the news...

[clarice]

A little background on Feith's "war and Decision" or how the WaPo and NYT decide which books to review.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/war_and_decision_samizdat_hist.html>Censors

[Jane]

Nice article Clarice. I find it amazing that the NY Times was utterly relentless in their treatment of Feith, but have no interest at all in what he has to say. It's almost as if they had/have an agenda.

[clarice]

Thanks, Jane. And don't forget how the WaPo's Pincus ran a front page scorching tale of Feith which they falsely said was from the IG when it was in fact a press release( iirc from Waxman).

[boris]

Good one C.

My basic agreement with the following includes a quibble:

This had the ironic effect of focusing the public debate on the past rather than the future -- the opposite of what White House officials intended And the emphasis on building a stable democracy in Iraq redefined success in such a way that many Americans stopped believing that success was either possible or worth the sacrifice

Government by elected representitive stabalized and ensured by US forces may not be "Perfect Democracy" but it's good enough for me. The problem with the administration's rhetoric is reliance on conventional public response when that path became a minefield effectively booby trapped by MSM IEDs. For example the Mission Accomplished photo op and others.

IMO it is a mistake to claim that detailed analysis and complicated arguments would have worked better given how easy it has been for the copperheads to sabotage conventional PR and Feith's fact based detailed exposition. Seems to me that premise is refuted in your article itself.

[boris]

The damage gleefully inflicted by MSM on Abu Graib was simply beyond the ability of an administration to deal with. The MSM was in a position to shoot holes in the bottom of the lifeboat and that's what they did.

[centralcal]

Poynter commissioned Zogby to do a poll on war coverage by the media. Only 18 percent approved of the coverage.

LUN

[clarice]

Boris, you have a point on the issue of whether a better argued case would have made a difference.And, yes, Feith's treatment, supports the view that it would not---much. But the next time you are at a book store go to p. 476 and see how the Administration switched its argument for war from the threat/and Saddam's record to Iraqi Democracy/Political future when it became apparent no WMD stockpiles would be found.

I do agree with Feith that this diminished the necessity of war in the public's eye, led to argument that this was an impossible aim ( wrongly tagged as a neo-con objective) and made stronger the argument that this was not a war worth fighting .

Had the administration from the outset done a better job explaining the complex interrelationships between the terrorist groups and state sponsors and the many things that had to be put in play to prevent more large scale attacks it is *possible* the war's detractors would have had a more difficult time.

But then again--who knows? It's hard to overestimate the degree of the detractors' stupidity and mendacity, isn't it?

[boris]

diminished the necessity of war in the public's eye

Mainly by diminishing the value of democracy itself. Who are WE to think democracy is "better" than murderous dictatorship ??? What Arrogance ! What Hubris !!!

How Stupid to suggest it's even possible to force it on Another Culture.

Should the administration have expected that? Maybe that is their real failure. No defense against the postmodern left and its pervasive control of education, news and entertainment.

[kim]

boris, that last sentence is a humdinger. "No defense against the postmodern left and its pervasive contol of education, news, and entertainment.

This is why I came to like Thompson over Romney. Thompson would have made an effort in that direction; I've a feeling Romney would have acted more like the traditional executive Bush has been, and missed that component of politics. When it takes 30 years of life to overcome the propaganda in the first 15 years of schooling, Houston, we have a problem.
===========================

[boris]

The real WMD danger was production capability, not stockpiles. Would that have been a better stand than "democracy"?

Perhaps, but I never had much luck using the argument in blog battle.

[clarice]

That last sentence is a humdinger, Boris. And Kin, I liked Thompson for much the same reason you did.

[clarice]

Ki**M*****

[Gmax]

OT

I would guess PUK is dancing an Irish Jig right now as another byelection for an open seat brought a stunning victory for the Conservatives. It would seem that Gordon Brown is on the ropes, he might even get shivved by his own party if they had anyone better to take the PM position. I think the vote swing was +17 for the conservatives. Labour may soon enough be the party of Wales and Scotland.

[Soylent Red]

Clarice and Boris:

One of the big problems, from my personal perspective, is that the Admin is not glib enough to condense an as yet unformed national strategy into a thirty second soundbite.

Afghanistan was about Vengeance, Bin Laden. Got it. That one is easy.

Nuclear counterproliferation. Reducing threat to world oil supply. Pressure on Iran. Limited footprint on the Arabian Peninsula. Conflict of global capitalism and pluralism with religious extremism and isolation.

All very, very difficult concepts for your average "Real World" viewer to grasp.

That, I believe, will be the difference between a McCain loss and a McCain victory -- his ability to articulate a simple counterpoint to Obama's "War=Bad" meme.

Also, like Truman-Kennan-Containment, McCain needs to face the fact that the next President will necessarily be forced to develop the new grand strategy WRT Islamist extremism, China, North Korea and Iran, and then articulate that fact.

That alone cuts Obamessiah's nuts because it requires a skill set and degree of wisdom that he doesn't have (obviously to all but the Obamabots).

There are real opportunities that GWB missed, or simply ignored (I'm no fan of Feith BTW), that McCain can capitalize on for his own good and for the long term good of the country.

[clarice]

I hope you're right, Soylent. I think you are.

[kim]

Gmax, Britain is in the throes of a Kyoto revolt. As Leebert points out at Watt's Up, an Englishman can earn a criminal record for accidentally leaving an apple core in recyclable material. The burden of meeting Kyoto requirements is becoming especiallly galling in places where real sacrifices are being mandated, and the population is becoming increasingly suspicious that CO2 is not the bogeyman the warmistas have made it out to be.

Rick et al, you'll like this: Leebert calls the AGW environmentalists Watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside. He's a commenter newly ensconced at DotEarth. He's a soot freak, but as well as he has the other climate issues characterized, maybe he's right about that, too.
========================
==========================

[boris]

not glib enough

While more glib or less glib might have theoretically worked better, it misses the point that MSM has been able to sink all attempts by the administration. My perception is those attempts were no less glib than most of BJ's eye roller but effective PR stunts. ISTM the difference in reception was entirely a function of MSM spin.

So the whole "if only W was more like BJ" sounds like blame the victim to me. This is a real and serious problem. It's okay with me to put W's legacy in the hands of future historians. It is up to us to make sure, for everybody's sake, that future historians are not postmodern leftists.

[kim]

b, historians are on the way to succumbing to the same lure that journalists have, that of activist politics.
=====================

[Soylent Red]

Ah well, "glib" may not be the right word. Let's use "effective communicator", "persuasive visionary" or whatever you prefer. Point is that the POTUS must sell those policies that aren't slam-dunk motherhood and apple pie. GWB hasn't done that.

And while you are right about the MSM being in the bag for Clinton, and predisposed against GWB, that doesn't absolve the President of the responsibility to communicate and sell. Which he, by my estimation, has not done..

Pretty hard for MSM to negatively spin direct appeals to the nation, in the form of (almost nonexistent) national addresses and in well crafted SOTU speeches. His last two, at minimum, have been sorely lacking IMO.

Sure they can do it after the fact, which is why you have speech writers and policy types to craft messages with unassailable logic and persuasive verbiage.

[boris]

Point is that the POTUS must sell those policies ... by my estimation, has not done...

Is this not where we disagree? The early efforts of the administration were very good, as good as I've seen. I remember the last 2 years of Reagans's terms and how the MSM was able to diminish his now obvious talent. The assault on W has been an order of magnitude more intense.

[boris]

national addresses and in well crafted SOTU speeches

Thing is I remember that exact request a few years back. Acted on assertively and IMO well done, NRO thought so too (at the time). If you don't recall that effort perhaps because it was successfully ignored back pedaled and mocked.

[clarice]

boris, review in your mind (by way of example) the events leading up to the Libby debacle--Ari Fleischer's comments that the 16 words were from fake documents,for example--In fact, consider the entire 16 words fiasco.
Your broader point--media lies and distortion is absolutely right, but the Administration often in critical ways dropped the ball on communications.

[boris]

Perhaps I would call that a forced error. Indicitave of the administration attempt to treat domestic opposition as reasonable instead of hostile. Still miniscule compared to Abu Graib, Torture, Katrina genocide, and Koran Commode.

[boris]

TANG memos ?

[JM Hanes]

"The damage gleefully inflicted by MSM on Abu Graib was simply beyond the ability of an administration to deal with"

That damage was exacerbated by the PR void in which it emerged. The public at large had almost no idea and virtually no other pictures of what our troops were actually doing in Iraq. At even the most elementary level, there were plenty of potential visuals and human interest stories every time a soldier was awarded a medal, or celebrities toured with the USO, or countless privately initiated support groups unloaded trucks of donated supplies to grateful Iraqis -- not to mention potentially iconic images like the one Michael Yon shot. With the exception of the Jessica Lynch story, which was quickly compromised, there were virtually no other visuals, and no other narratives to ameliorate the effect of the Abu Ghraib images when they emerged.

Early on, the Bush Administration decided to circumvent the MSM and talk directly to the people on air and in local media, which left them with a single spokesman who could command such attention, the President. Unfortunately, he was also this Administration's least skilled communicator. They never geared up anything like the kind of industrial strength PR operation they needed, and they paid dearly for that mistake. They thought the war would be over quickly, and paid dearly for that miscalculation too.

Bush made a couple of great speeches, but other than that we got almost nothing but the same repetitive clips of him reciting the same two or three slogans in front interchangeable (captive) military audiences. He did the same lousy job selling the war effort that he did selling everything from faith based initiatives to social security to immigration reform. He wouldn't empower surrogates to do it for him, including his own press secretary whose job was not to represent the Prez and get his message out, but to stonewall the MSM, with predictable results. This was a completely unforced error.

I don't underestimate the venal role played by Democrats, but the Bush White House treated Congress with contempt, and the Dems amply returned that favor. Cheney's divide and conquer m.o., confirmed just last week by George Packer, only exacerbated that ill will. When the right was furiously complaining about the arrogance on display during the comprehensive immigration battle, the left was quick to observe that they knew the feeling.

The vacuum where pro-war propaganda should have been was enthusiastically filled by anti-war propaganda to which the White House only rarely responded and and managed to sound self-righteously defensive when it did. I lost count of the times when I was tangling over the war in other venues and thinking in frustration that it sure would have been nice to have some help from the Administration I was defending. The emphasis shifted to WMD when Bush agreed to go the U.N. route, because there was no other basis for argument in that venue, but if the White House had been consistently and aggressively making the larger comprehensive case all along, that shift would not have turned into the disaster that has been threatening to derail success ever since.

I'll give Bush plenty of points for a lot of other things, but he defaulted on the war narrative to the undeniable detriment of the war effort -- and the future conduct of foreign policy. It was a weakness of tragic proportions; the very concept of democratization and reform is routinely dismissed as hapless idealism on both left and right. On the right, cynical "realism" once again holds sway, while the left indulges in hapless fantasies about restoring America's moral leadership on the international stage with the magic wand of diplomacy.

[Rick Ballard]

"craft messages with unassailable logic and persuasive verbiage."

Doesn't work with dolts. Panties on the head and "Haditha Massacre" works with dolts. Sort of like the substitution of islamofascism for islam - that's slicing the loaf a little thin for Joseph Sicspach.

Lincoln could turn a phrase and make an argument but it didn't help with his Copperhead Caucus. His electoral sweep in '64 masks a 55/45 split just as Roosevelt's sweep in '44 masks an even closer 53/46 split.

[clarice]

I do think that once again JMH has said what I intended to far better than I did.

[boris]

Bush made a couple of great speeches, but other than that we got almost nothing but the same repetitive clips of him reciting the same two or three slogans in front interchangeable (captive) military audiences.

This is a huge difference in our perceptions. What the reality actually was will have to be left to historians.

If the perceptive freeper hadn't noticed and LGF proved the TANG memo's were fake Kerry would now be president. Your laments about PR ineffectiveness seem like witness apathy during Kitty's murder.

[boris]

I don't underestimate the venal role played ...

Luvya JMH but that's just wrong.

[JM Hanes]

Boris:

It might have been clearer if I'd said but Bush also treated Congress with contempt. The Democrats were certainly in no mood to be united, but with only one or two notable exceptions, Bush's isolation of the White House from both MSM & Congress was a matter of his own design.

"If the perceptive freeper hadn't noticed and LGF proved the TANG memo's were fake Kerry would now be president. Your laments about PR ineffectiveness seem like witness apathy during Kitty's murder."

When all it takes is a fake TANG memo to sink a Presidency, I'd say it reinforces the very criticism of Bush's PR ineffectiveness I've lodged. Do I lament the consequences? You bet. You're promoting Bush as a helpless victim instead; color me unpersuaded. That assessment hardly throws him in a more flattering light. I have no clue what you're trying to sell as "witness apathy" which I suspect history will find just as bizarre as I do.

[boris]

I have no clue what you're trying to sell as "witness apathy"

How about "all it takes is a fake TANG memo to sink a Presidency". And who's to blame for that? "Bush's PR ineffectiveness".

You can say a better president could overcome fake TANG memos and Abu Graib with PR. I scoff and suggest you are giving a pass to a serious problem.

[boris]

BTW Bush got the 2nd term and has the war won (not irreversibly unfortunately). Not a helpless victim at all. My point is the MSM and dimorats have behaved criminally. Giving them a pass is borderline enabling.

Would Tony Snow as PR guru from day one have made a significant difference? Answer "yes" and you're kidding yourself. Answer even Tony Snow wouldn't have been "good enough" and admit your POV is miracle based.

[clarice]

Well, I'm still torn on this issue.
I do think the administration communications efforts were bad.
I also think that the media and Dems have behaved criminally and distorted the truth about the war at every opportunity. I suppose no one will ever be able to completely resolve whether a better effort in the face of this would have mattered. It's just that I think on occasion (16 words,i.e.) the administration handed the psychopaths a loaded gun.

[JM Hanes]

By what logic does critiquing the President equal giving the opposition a pass? What's more enabling than unconditional love in politics? (see: Obama, B. H.) The idea that good PR can't ameliorate bad PR makes no sense; nor does ceding the microphone and the visuals to your opponents. When the Democrats are about to confirm a nominee based on PR alone, it's a distinctly odd moment to be trivializing its importance.

[kim]

You two are both touching the elephant; Bush is, for whatever reason, poor at PR, and the press is criminally biased.
====================================

[MikeS]

I'd say it reinforces the very criticism of Bush's PR ineffectiveness I've lodged.

I agree will all that you have said on the matter, and as always, you have said it very well. Bush of course bears the ultimate responsibility, but I think the whole damn Republican party is piss poor at the PR game. We're about to start a new season of PR onslaughts with new characters, but the same old masterminds.

The same people who manufactured a recession out of thin air in 1992 are about to do it again. The same people who convinced half the world that "Bush Lied" by telling the truth about Saddam's WMD programs are warming up for a new game.

[clarice]

Well, sharpen your saber,MikeS. I'mworking on my stilleto.

It's easier to distort when the media is a willing accomplice, but Rather is living testimony to the fact that an alert and able opposition is not utterly without power.

[JM Hanes]

kim:

If I were defending the press, the elephant analogy might apply. I'm no one's apologist here, and that includes Press, Prez & Congress. When it comes to the President's vision in the foreign policy arena, I'm a bona fide dead ender. I just think he made some strategic errors when it came to leading the country where he wanted to go -- errors which compounded the difficulties he faced in a task that would not be easy under any circumstances and which will make it harder for those who follow to consolidate and build upon his legacy. That does not mean that I think errors of omission are even in the same ballpark as the egregious sins committed by other malefactors.

I admire Bush's refusal to capitulate to the Baker crowd which must have been the unkindest cut. I admire the dramatic strategic revision which put Petraeus at the helm and what appears to be his concomitant decision to shoe horn virtually every other foreign policy issue in a holding pattern in order to secure what could still be a paradigm shifting success in Iraq. I believe history may eventually grant him heroic status, but I also believe that history which ignores heroic weaknesses is profoundly unedifying and considerably less inspiring.

[RichatUF]

JM Hanes-

Great comments, think I have to bookmark this page for reference. Also I enjoyed the review Clarice and I'm getting the book this weekend.

[clarice]

Thanks, Rich.

[boris]

By what logic does critiquing the President equal giving the opposition a pass?

Again: "When all it takes is a fake TANG memo to sink a Presidency, I'd say it reinforces the very criticism of Bush's PR ineffectiveness"

If you still don't see it then words and logic fail me.

[boris]

BTW that was not "all it took", that's just the one that got caught.

[boris]

When the Democrats are about to confirm a nominee based on PR alone, it's a distinctly odd moment to be trivializing its importance.

Maybe PR is just more effective when they're already on your side. Ya think?

[kim]

Thanks, JM. I've occasionally wondered if that 'heroic weakness' of his simply stems from his strongly felt need to be President of all the people, not just Republicans.

But, yes, I'm so angered by the belittling of his strengths, that I gloss over the weaknesses. If future press can become, and future history remain, objective, some of his apparent weakness will be charged to press bias.
=====================