Belated Reaction?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:03 AM

It's official: Things are getting better in Iraq.

The New York Times says so.

I'm being only slightly facetious here. I've been wondering for some weeks now when the improving statistics out of Iraq would achieve some kind of critical mass in the media, rather than just isolated pieces (on ABC and in The Washington Post, for example).

And let's get this straight: Americans are still fighting and dying in Iraq, and modest progress at this late date doesn't magically erase 4 1/2 years of a mismanaged war or change the public's verdict on that war. But if attacks and casualties are dropping, that is news, just as it inevitably would be if attacks and casualties were increasing.

It's hard to overestimate the impact of the Times on the media agenda, especially on the network newscasts. And because the paper's editorial page has been harshly critical of President Bush and demanding a pullout from Iraq, when it reports something positive, critics are quick to intone: Even the New York Times. . .

So the lead story in yesterday's paper--a four-column spread with pictures of a couple getting married and a thriving restaurant, with the headline "Baghdad Starts to Exhale As Security Improves"--has the feel of a turning point. Not in the war, necessarily, because who knows how long this will last, or whether Iraq's fragile government will ever be able to achieve reconciliation. But it is a noteworthy event in terms of the war's coverage.

The Times actually started with this Monday report:

"The American military said Sunday that the weekly number of attacks in Iraq had fallen to the lowest level since just before the February 2006 bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra, an event commonly used as a benchmark for the country's worst spasm of bloodletting after the American invasion nearly five years ago."

Then came yesterday's front-pager, which began with the tale of a woman whose family had fled and now had moved back to her middle-class neighborhood:

"The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad's streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

"As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army."

So is the paper getting credit from the right for being fair and balanced? Not quite. Captain Ed rips the Times report:

"Well, for most of the rest of us, that hardly qualifies as breaking news, as we have tracked the decline in violence and the rise of commerce for the last three months.

"Just two months ago, the paper gave MoveOn a price break to run an ad that accused General David Petraeus of treason and perjury even before he testified about the security improvements. The editorial board called Petraeus' testimony 'empty calories' and complained of his 'broken promises and false claims of success' and asserted that Petraeus had not given an 'honest accounting' in his Congressional briefings.

"The Times waited until the success of Petraeus could no longer be denied to publish the truth. With every other news agency in the world reporting on the drop in violence, the rise in commerce, the flight of the militias even from Baghdad, and the unifying efforts such as the rebuilding of St. John's Catholic Church in the heart of the capital, the Times has no other choice but to rescue its credibility with an acknowledgment of reality. Even then, they use the hoary device of individual anecdotes to temper the news, as if to assert that even success cannot be enjoyed if even one individual feels fear of entering a specific neighborhood.

"One wonders how many Times execs wander freely through the Bronx at night, or even in the daytime.

"Now that the Times has finally acknowledged the success of the surge and the reality of Petraeus' testimony, will they apologize for disparaging the American commander so viciously?"

In Slate, Christopher Hitchens says things certainly appear to be getting better--and echoes the GOP complaint that the left doesn't want success:

"I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either."

At RedState, Pejman Yousefzadeh suggests that war opponents have been in denial:

"You know, I happen to think that the surge had a great deal to do with the improvements Baghdad--along with the rest of Iraq--is witnessing and experiencing. But frankly, I don't care who takes the credit so long as the reconstruction effort continues to proceed as successfully as it has over this past year.

"Kinda makes you wonder why it is that the 'reality-based community' hasn't taken much notice of these improvements. Or why it wants once again to short-circuit them with yet another debate over withdrawal that is destined to fail being planned in Congress."

But the latest refrain sounds awfully familiar to Kos contributor Devilstower:

"The news this morning is full of signs of peace settling over Baghdad as increased troop levels help to quiet the insurgency.

"Officials said privately that they hoped to foster a sense of normalcy and encourage limited travel to Iraq, particularly by business people and aid workers. They mentioned that Baghdad International Airport is preparing to reopen in a few days.

"Wait, wait, wait. That was 2003.

"No, here's how nice things are in Iraq.

"Ammar Hussein finally felt it was safe enough to keep his pizza shop open until midnight. Life was returning to normal in Iraq's capital. Most nights, families crowded around plastic tables outside his shop to eat pizza and ice cream.

"Darn it, that was 2004. This must be the right article.

"The amazing realisation is that somehow normal life continues. Shops open, people go to work. Even the Crazy Frog mobile phone ring tone has become the latest fad in Baghdad.

"Sorry again, 2005 . . .

"Don't misunderstand. I very much hope that this period does represent a real, sustained move toward normalcy in Iraq . . . But there have been a number of 'lulls' in violence, and what we're now looking at as the 'lowest number of attacks since February 2006' only means that 'normal' has been redefined as worse than anything in 2005, or 2004, or 2003."

And one ex-Marine isn't buying the notion of progress:

"House Democrats' point man in the war-funding showdown with the White House Tuesday dismissed U.S. military gains in Iraq and vowed to tighten the purse strings until President Bush accepts a pullout plan," the Washington Times reports. 'Look at all the people that have been displaced, all the [lost] oil production, unemployment, all those type of things,' said Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of House Appropriations defense subcommittee. 'We can't win militarily.' "

Did Scott McClellan throw Bush under the bus?

"In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby were 'not involved' in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

" 'There was one problem. It was not true,' McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Monday. 'I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself.' "

Now he tells us?

Don't miss the Huckaboom:

"Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, buoyed by strong support from Christian conservatives, has surged past three of his better-known presidential rivals and is now challenging former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for the lead in the Iowa Republican caucuses, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."

It's Romney 28, Huckabee 24, Thompson 15 and Rudy 13.

Hillary and Obama are starting to drop the euphemisms in ripping each other. Obama:

" 'I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia. If you don't understand these cultures then it's very hard for you to make good foreign policy decisions.' "

Clinton: " 'Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that.' "

Obama's campaign: " 'Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have spent time in the White House and travelled to many countries as well, but along with Hillary Clinton, they led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation and are now giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.' "

Obama, meanwhile, tries some candor on the trail:

" 'I will confess to you that I was kind of a goof-off in high school as my mom reminded me. You know, I made some bad decisions that I've actually written about. You know, got into drinking. I experimented with drugs. There was a whole stretch of time that I didn't really apply myself a lot. It wasn't until I got out of high school and went to college that I started realizing, 'Man, I wasted a lot of time.' "

Maybe this helps him with the formerly-young-and-irresponsible vote.

You might have thought Mormons would be one group pretty solidly for Mitt. But there is a problem, as Josh Patashnik reports in the New Republic:

"Mitt Romney has a well-earned reputation as a flip-flopper. But it's one thing to flip-flop on your politics, and quite another to flip-flop on your faith. So it came as something of a surprise when, during an interview earlier this year with George Stephanopoulos, the presidential candidate disputed the suggestion that Christ would someday return to the United States rather than the Middle East. Mormons, he said, believe 'that the Messiah will come to Jerusalem . . . It's the same as the other Christian tradition.'

"This was both technically correct and completely misleading: The church's position is that, while Christ will indeed appear at the Mount of Olives, he will also build a new Jerusalem in Jackson County, Missouri, which will serve as the seat of his 1,000-year reign on Earth. Romney had conveniently neglected to mention this part of his church's doctrine.

"Needless to say, his fellow Mormons were none too pleased. 'Brother Romney is playing a little bit of a political game with his answer,' one church official told Lee Benson of the Deseret Morning News--in a column noting that Romney's comment had 'caused more than a few members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints . . . to scratch their heads as if to say, "What the flip?' '' Callers to a Utah talk-radio show lambasted the candidate for misrepresenting church teachings. And the Mormon blogosphere--known as the Bloggernacle--buzzed with discussion of the quote. One post on the blog Mormon Mentality condemned Romney for being 'evasive,' while another complained, 'If he were so proud to be a Mormon, he should tell the truth.' "

Some early Obama fans are losing hope, among them Josh Marshall:

"I think Hillary is much, much less likely to suffer a Dean-like implosion than Dean did. But the truth is that Obama really isn't that far behind and Hillary's lead isn't nearly as prohibitive as the conventional wisdom suggests.

"My disappointment with Obama's campaign to date is that it's really, ironically, been pretty old politics to me. And I mean that in this sense. Going back several cycles, you've often had some version of the Gore v. Bradley campaign in 2000. One candidate who's the establishment party figure and another who talks about new stuff and change and principle and generally whets the appetites of the party's cerebral types but then never quite delivers with anything specific and gets crushed by the well-oiled campaign of the establishment candidate. I've seen different versions of this in Mondale/Hart, Clinton/Tsongas, Gore/Bradley. And the same result every time.

"The reason it seemed like it might be different this time is that Obama was raising the kind of money that would allow him to match Hillary dollar for dollar in ads, foot soldiers and infrastructure. But so far I haven't seen a case made for Obama over Hillary behind the fact that it'd be cooler to have him as president than her -- a point I concede, but one I doubt is sufficient to get him the nomination.

"And the truth is that however we got to this point, he needs to take the initiative and change the dynamic of the race. Or else the conclusion we're headed toward looks pretty clear."

Finally, I'm always fascinated by the inspiration for songwriters, so I immediately clicked on this:

"Neil Diamond held onto the secret for decades, but he has finally revealed that President Kennedy's daughter was the inspiration for his smash hit 'Sweet Caroline.' "