Falling for the Spin

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 9:40 AM

President Bush got the headlines he wanted with his Labor Day drop-by in Iraq.

New York Times: "Bush, In Iraq, Says Troop Reduction is Possible."

Los Angeles Times: "Bush Hints at Troop Reduction."

Washington Times: "In Anbar, Bush Optimistic for Pullout."

But when you stick a fork into what he actually said, the souffl? collapses. A troop reduction is no more likely today than it was yesterday. The president himself gave away the game in his interview with Katie.

COURIC: But just hearing those two words, "troop reduction" -- Do you think it will win some people over who are uncomfortable with this war?

BUSH: That was just speculating. It's not going to win anybody over until it becomes a reality.

Just speculating--and yet that became the media's lead.

Which leads me to another question: How come Bush gets to ask everyone to wait for the Petraeus report, but he can go on about the surge's progress and how it would be a mistake to pull out? The wait-and-see admonition doesn't apply to him?

It was obviously a PR coup for the president to be photographed with the troops in Anbar, a place where the military has clearly achieved results, and to dominate a slow news day. But I happened to be in a hotel breakfast place when news of Bush's surprise trip broke on a local newscast. No one looked up or started talking about it. I wonder whether many Americans have tuned Bush out on Iraq.

The president's memory is a bit cloudy, as this NYT piece demonstrates:

"A previously undisclosed exchange of letters shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq envoy in May 2003 of a plan to 'dissolve Saddam's military and intelligence structures,' a plan that the envoy, L. Paul Bremer, said referred to dismantling the Iraqi Army.

"Mr. Bremer provided the letters to the New York Times on Monday after reading that Mr. Bush was quoted in a new book as saying that American policy had been 'to keep the army intact' but that it 'didn't happen.'

"The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents. In releasing the letters, Mr. Bremer said he wanted to refute the suggestion in Mr. Bush's comment that Mr. Bremer had acted to disband the army without the knowledge and concurrence of the White House."

The LAT isn't quite as high on the surge as Bush:

"Military and government officials highlight progress on the local, neighborhood and even street level. Much of it hinges on the future of deals struck with former insurgents who until recently were aiming their guns at U.S. forces. 'There are . . . if you will, mini-benchmarks where things are happening,' U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Aug. 21."

Mini-benchmarks?

Captain Ed pleads for patience:

"Kimberly Kagan makes a powerful case for a substantial change in fortunes in Iraq, and not just in the west. In the Wall Street Journal, Kagan argues that the metrics and the momentum have shifted to the American and Iraqi security forces throughout the country as commanders ended the whack-a-mole campaign for good with the surge . . .

"It will take longer than ten weeks to definitively declare the tide has turned. We should take care to acknowledge this, as I'm certain General [David H.] Petraeus will underscore in his report. If the enemy adapts successfully to this latest strategy, declarations like this will give defeatists even more ammunition to declare the entire effort a waste of time. We should be clear about the success, but give Petraeus time and room to make necessary adjustments and not get too ahead of ourselves in building our own narrative."

Why wait for Petraeus and the debate that follows? Atrios has divined the game plan in advance:

"Here's the basic outline of The Deal:

"1) Democrats, to court Republicans, agree to declare a bit of victory ('situation improving . . . ')

"2) They compromise on a bill which suggests very strongly that maybe, just maybe, if security conditions 'continue to improve' that Bush should consider, if he wants, bringing some troops home. But, you know, nothing that constrains his authority as Supreme Leader to do whatever the hell he wants.

"3) Since troop levels can't be sustained, this is in fact what happens beginning April so that by November of 2008, the number of troops in Iraq is just about precisely what it was two years (!) previously, when the awesome surge began."

Bill Kristol takes a big swipe at Joe Klein:

"On August 19, the New York Times published an op-ed by seven enlisted soldiers critical of the Iraq war. At midnight on August 24, the Weekly Standard posted on our website a response by seven Iraq vets. The Times had rejected the vets' response.

"The piece carried the straightforward headline 'Iraq Vets Respond . . . to the New York Times seven.' It was a sober rejoinder to the arguments in the Times op-ed. It suggested the antiwar soldiers' analysis was incomplete and 'misguided.' The vets emphasized, 'We understand the frustration our fellow soldiers feel . . .

"At 10:21 that morning, Joe Klein of Time posted the following on his blog, under the headline 'Heroes Trashed':

" Well, I suppose it was inevitable that the Weekly Standard would figure out some way to trash the 7 enlisted men from the 82nd Airborne, who wrote the courageous Op-Ed piece about the unreliability of our Iraqi allies in the New York Times last Sunday. At least the piece is written by other Iraq war vets and the tone is respectful . . . although the neocons continue to try to use Anbar, an all-Sunni province, as an avatar of what will happen in the rest of Iraq, which is utter nonsense.

" But where on earth are the Democratic politicians on this? Why haven't they embraced the grunts from the 82nd the way the Republicans have embraced the 'liberal' Brookings scholars? It's just very frustrating and truly outrageous.

"Now Joe Klein prides himself--quite often, in print--on being different from nutty, hysterical, suffering-from-Bush-derangement-syndrome left-wing bloggers. But here he is exhibiting nutty, hysterical, Bush-derangement syndrome himself. After all, how had the Weekly Standard 'trashed' the seven enlisted men? By publishing a substantive op-ed that called no one's motives into question, that expressed good will to the seven antiwar soldiers--and whose tone Klein himself called 'respectful'? . . . It does suggest that even the respectable elements of the antiwar movement have jumped the shark."

We anxiously await Joe's response.

First Larry Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in an airport men's room, then he said he wished he hadn't. Last week he said he was quitting the Senate, and now he's . . . reconsidering?

The guy is nothing if not decisive, huh? Does he really want several more rounds of the media examining his toilet habits?

"If he remains in the Senate," notes the L.A. Times, "Craig would face an embarrassing Senate Ethics Committee investigation. Additionally, Senate Republicans have stripped him of his leadership positions on several committees."

While two of Craig's kids gave a painful interview to "GMA" yesterday in which they said of course their dad is not gay, Arianna breaks from the liberal mockery of the Idaho senator:

"Given that chilling assessment, isn't it the height of madness to use America's finite law enforcement resources to seek out and arrest people for tapping the foot of a cute undercover officer in a restroom?

"Don't get me wrong, I'm not wild about walking into a public restroom and seeing a couple using the a stall for something other than, as Sgt. Dave Karsnia, the arresting officer in the Craig case put it, 'its intended use.'

"But that is not what Larry Craig did. If he had, someone in the restroom could have done what most people do when they see a law being broken: Go get a cop.

"And as it happens, since Craig was arrested in an airport, presumably there were plenty of law enforcement officers nearby looking for, you know, real threats -- like explosives or folks on a Watch List. Assuming, that is, they weren't all hunkered down in other bathrooms across the airport, protecting the public against people who might be thinking about having sex.

"Let me be clear: I'm no fan of Larry Craig. Indeed, I disagree with almost everything he stands for. And I'd much rather he not be in the United States Senate. But I'd also rather have had his exit be the result of his constituents voting on his ideas and policies, instead of a ridiculous sting operation in an airport bathroom."

Arianna, it should be noted, had been married to former congressman Michael Huffington, who turned out to be gay.

Ann Althouse thinks Arianna has it backwards:

"So -- in Arianna's world -- if you have an airport bathroom that's become a notorious place for gay sex, you don't need to station an undercover cop inside to catch anybody and deter the behavior, you can just hang back and wait for the bathroom-goers to see the sexual beharior and to do what 'most people do.' These busy travelers will officiously run around the airport looking for a cop. That doesn't sound to me like the way 'most people' react to sleazy quality-of-life crimes. I think most people would be disgusted, immediately leave the bathroom and plan to avoid that bathroom -- and maybe that airport -- in the future . . .

"I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that the sting is cost effective. One police officer, carrying out very few arrests, ruins the reputation of this bathroom as a place for sex encounters."

Andrew Sullivan, just back from vacation, has more sympathy than you might expect for a proponent and a practitioner of gay marriage:

"While it is possible to note (and rightly so) the hypocrisy of Craig, and while it is sensible to believe that a sitting senator should not be putting himself in such compromising positions, the large implications of an almost laughably petty misdemeanor are revealing of problems deeper than one man's personal tragedy. One problem is the cruelty of public discourse. Yes, Craig is a public figure, but he is also a human being, and a gay human being, and I feel for him, for the lies he has told himself and others, for the psychic pain that led him to this place, and for the obvious lack of self-control that his profoundly split identity entailed. I don't think he even knows he's gay.

"Yes, he deserves criticism for poor judgment, for trying to use his position to get out of a sticky situation, for opposing gay equality and dignity, while being gay himself. But this was a victimless incident, in which no one tried to harm anyone else; and he also needs support and help and compassion. The glee at his exposure came from both sides. It was ugly wherever it came from.

"The incident should also tell the GOP something they still don't want to face, but need to urgently. It is that gayness is as deep a part of someone's psychic core as can be found. It is not a sin; it's an identity. The attempt to stigmatize, deny, suppress or criminalize this identity simply cannot work in the long run."

The Massachusetts Democratic Party has set up an anti-Romney Web site, complete with video. Is this the future, where all oppo goes online?

The Boston Globe quotes online analyst Lee Rainie: "For many campaign cycles, oppo research was treated as a covert black art, practiced by people in the shadows and disseminated by whispers from people who started their conversations by saying, 'This is on deep background.' This effort is different because it taps into the new realities of politics in the Internet age."

Fred Thompson's campaign kickoff plan doesn't win rave reviews from the New Republic's Michelle Cottle:

"Fred, Fred, Fred. If you and your team want to quash the widespread grumbling about your being a spoiled, lazy candidate basing a White House run on little more than your Hollywood celebrity, why do you keep behaving like one?

"After months of good ol' Fred's jerking voters around with his Hillybilly Hamlet act (should I? could I? dare I not?), now comes word that he has finally finished testing the waters and will take the plunge this week. But instead of making up for lost time by heading to New Hampshire to mix things up with fellow Republicans in Wednesday's debate, what is Fred doing? He's delaying entering the race until 12:01 a.m. Thursday morning and instead spending his Wednesday in Burbank, taping a sit-down with Jay Leno.

"Defending her man's choice on 'Meet the Press' Sunday, Thompson adviser Mary Matalin pointed to Leno's large viewership and insisted that the show was, in fact, ideally suited to Fred's 'message-driven campaign.'

"Sure, if Fred's message is that he's too good to be bothered with actually running for president.

"Far be it from me to champion the sound-bite freakshows that currently pass for presidential debates. But if there is one venue even less conducive to a serious discussion of ideas, it's late night TV."

And in the huh? category, David Brody unearths this from the Des Moines Register:

"God's will is for Iowa to have the first-in-the-nation caucus, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson told a crowd here today . . .

"Several people in the crowd snickered after Richardson made the comment."

And how exactly does the governor of New Mexico know this?

Daily Kos is a media operation, not a fundraising vehicle, the FEC says.

Finally, for everyone who's ever gotten ticked at a smug, condescending journalist, comes this report in London's Daily Mail:

"If he didn't believe in karma before, Piers Morgan must surely do now.

"The ex-newspaper editor, now a columnist for the Mail on Sunday's Live magazine, took great delight in making fun of President Bush for falling off a Segway -- the two-wheeled, motorised, gyroscopically balanced scooter that, its makers promise, will never fall over.

"His paper, the Daily Mirror, ran the headline in 2003: 'You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you Mr President.' It added: 'If anyone can make a pig's ear of riding a sophisticated, self-balancing machine like this, Dubya can.' So, it seems, can Mr Morgan.

"He broke three ribs after falling off the Segway at 12 mph in California."

And there's video.