PBS's Washington Week and guest "journalists" join corporate media in campaiging for McCain.

[JohnWxy]

On the Friday, JUly 25th broadcast of Washingtron Week the individuals pretending to be real journalists were repeating McCain-speak to the Republican party's delight. After worrying about whether Obama was getting too favorable coverage by the press, to that of their favorite son McCain, they once again took up the McCain chant that Obama was "not admitting" ..."that the 'surge' had worked in Iraq." Now this is a bit of twisto-speak disinformation Herr Goebbles would surely envy. During their chant they never bothered to Report on what obama actually said when asked about the surge - that would be too much like actual fact based journalism.

NOte use of the word "admit" presupposes the proposition that "adding" (basically by overextending already over-extended troops for even longer tours) 20,000 or more troops has single handedly brought down the violence and improved security in Iraq is true, ignoring the impact of the Iraqis getting fed up with Al Qaeda and the increased reporting to our troops of Al Qaeda activity along with the SHia militias standing down have had. Of course our troops brave and very skilled performance (I am amazed by how good these guys have performed in such extremely tough situations) was an important part of the decline in the violence - it helped win Iraqi's over to trust us more. But the Shia militias standing down and the Iraqi's finally getting fed up with Al Qaeda (seeing how Al Qaeda didn't care how many Iraqi's they killed and that they didn't have any long term interest in the welfare of Iraqis) were at least equally important factors. It wasn't JUST the small (a surge would have been something more like 70,000 additional troops. 20,000 or so extra troops is more like a squirt than a surge) addition of troops that produced the decline in violence as the Repubs want us to think.

This is just what Obama said but not one of the pretend journalists could be bothered relating to listeners just what OBAMA ACTUALLY SAID. They preferred to keep repeating the McCain attack rhetoric that Obama isn't "admitting" that "he was wrong about the surge". IT's hypothesis that the extra troops brought about the reduction in violence all by itself and that the stand down by Shia militias and the fact that the Iraqis have gotten fed-up with the Al Qaeda played no part in this change in Iraq. But if you believe that the second two factors did not play a very big part in the decline in violence, then you deserve to have another Republican President who has nothing but contempt for us serfs in this corporate fuedalism we now endure.

Well, I hope PBS and the pretend journalists get their pats on the head and 'attaboys' from Repub politicos. Gradually thosse are the only people who will be watching you (I only watch so as to report on their mutilations of the truth in an effort to not get too confused by their twisto-speak).

I have to admit it's getting to be tuff to keep up with the job.

[elehhhhna]

1. McCain is not admitting that invading & occupying Iraq was bad & wrong.

Let's talk about the future.

[otohara]

2. Over At The McLaughlin Group

they all had pretty positive things to say about Obama - stupid Monica Crowely tried to spin the surge thing, and Eleanor Clift repeated 8 times to Monica - "you are misrepresenting Obama's views on the surge", "you are misrepresenting Obama's views on the surge". It was pretty funny.

Even old Mort Zuckerman couldn't deny Obama's most excellent week.

[Carrieyazel]

3. Yes, Gwen Ifill's show is the most pro-McCain show I've seen this weekend.

Very different spin than the others so far, that have been mostly positive for Obama.

[JohnWxy]

4. DON'T YOU mean Gwen Awful?

[DogPoundPup]

5. Read Juan Cole's 'A Social History of the Surge '

<snip>
Proponents are awfully hard to pin down on what the "surge" consisted of or when it began. It seems to me to refer to the troop escalation that began in February, 2007. But now the technique of bribing Sunni Arab former insurgents to fight radical Sunni vigilantes is being rolled into the "surge" by politicians such as John McCain. But attempts to pay off the Sunnis to quiet down began months before the troop escalation and had a dramatic effect in al-Anbar Province long before any extra US troops were sent to al-Anbar (nor were very many extra troops ever sent there). I will disallow it. The "surge" is the troop escalation beginning winter of 2007. The bribing of insurgents to come into the cold could have been pursued without a significant troop escalation, and was.

Aside from defining what proponents mean by the "surge," all kinds of things are claimed for it that are not in evidence. The assertion depends on a possible logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. If event X comes after event Y, it is natural to suspect that Y caused X. But it would often be a false assumption. Thus, actress Sharon Stone alleged that the recent earthquake in China was caused by China's crackdown on Tibetan protesters. That is just superstition, and callous superstition at that. It is a good illustration, however, of the very logical fallacy to which I am referring.

<snip>
As best I can piece it together, what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65% Shiite to at least 75% Shiite and maybe more. My thesis would be that the US inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods.

Everyone should read this at http://www.juancole.com/2008/07/social-history-of-surge.html to debunk this 'surge' nonsense.