Great post Glenn.

I think, out of all this, the one thing that strikes me is the lock-step way in which Gordon has adopted the chief Bush talking point: that the sole actor in Iraq is Al Qaeda.

I'd love to ask Gordon, how exactly does he KNOW that the only people waging war in Iraq are part of Al Qaeda, since the clear evidence suggests otherwise?

This entire deal reeks of desperation.

And his comments on Charlie Rose aren't worthy of comment. Although, in truth, those comments make Gordon sound like a perfect fool. If we were going to try to "win" in Iraq--and for purposes of discussion I'll say that "win" means pacifying the country entirely...no more sectarian violence--we would have had to put at least a million combat troops in-country, with a platoon on every street-corner, armed to the teeth, and properly trained in winning hearts-and-minds. A pipe-dream if ever there was one.

Now? Now I suspect NO amount of firepower would pacify or unify that country. We blew it, plain and simple. 'course, we should never have gone in there in the first place, but that's another discussion. For Gordon to say what he did on Charlie Rose, he's either a fool, or a stooge. There's no other state-of-being available to him.

http://nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08pubed.html

The Public Editor
Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner
By CLARK HOYT

July 8, 2007

"Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story.

So is the question of how well their version of events squares with the facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground.

But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically . . . "

- - Clark Hoyt

Is that Judith Miller?

I actually didn't do that on purpose (at least not on the conscious level), those I confess to having laughed after reading your correction.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/07/eveningnews/main3027794.shtml

If you didn't know better, it sounds like the Iraqi central government is about to unravel.

Kinda defeats the purpose of this Surge and occupation, doesn't it?

"...who have not expressed such admiration for a media figure since Judy Gordon's departure"

Another thing that's happening on the war promotion front is that the right is once again promoting Michael Yon as the leading war reporter. A war romantic rather than just a war supporter, Yon is popular with right-wing bloggers.

The WaPo:

Facing increased public disapproval and eroding Republican support, Bush has stepped up his warnings that a sudden U.S. withdrawal would allow al-Qaeda or Iran -- or both -- to take over Iraq.

This is what a "sudden withdrawal" looks like:

http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/saigon-helicopter.jpg

Let's hope Bush is right for once and that doesn't happen, it's not like we will have any say in the matter.

What is more likely, several officials said, is a deeper split between competing Shiite groups supported in varying degrees by Iran, and greater involvement by neighboring Arab states in Sunni areas battling al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Kurdish region, officials said, would become further estranged from the rest of Iraq, and its tensions with Turkey would increase.

"I can't say that al-Qaeda is going to take over, or that Iran is going to take over," an official said. "I don't think either are true. But I do think that a lot of very, very bad things would happen." If the administration decided to have troops retreat to bases inside Iraq and not intervene in sectarian warfare, he said, the U.S. military could find itself in a position that "would make the Dutch at Srebrenica look like heroes."

For its part, the military has calculated that a veto-proof congressional majority is unlikely to demand a full, immediate withdrawal. But however long the troops remain, and in whatever number, the military intelligence official said, they see a clear mission ahead. "We're going to get it as stable as we can, with the troops we have, and in the time available. And then, we'll back out as carefully as we can," the official said.

It's not like packing up the family station wagon and heading home from the cabin at the lake. Whether they want to call it a retrograde maneuver, a strategic withdrawal, or some other euphemism for retreat, it's far more complicated and dangerous than it sounds when people are still shooting at you and backing "out slowly and carefully" will probably be how it goes down.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2000/0400saigon1.jpg

And a graph of the Nixon de-escalation

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/viet/Change5.gif

Fret not. If you glance at the list of most popular articles in the NYT, you'll notice none of their reporting and analysis ever shows up in the top ten. The "newspaper of record" has become just another lifestyle magazine:

Today's NYT list of most popular articles:

1- A Hipper Crowd of Shushers

2- Heart Therapy Strains Efforts to Limit Costs

3- Portugal’s Hidden ‘Dream Places’

4- Op-Ed Contributor: Mental Malpractice

5- The Gregarious Brain

6- Beyond the Myth, Art Endures

7- For Elderly Investors, Instant Experts Abound

8- Editorial: The Road Home

9- Essay: Jazz Messenger

10-Wealthy Stake $25 Million in a War With the Sea

….if one's knowledge of the war in Iraq were confined to the news pages of The New York Times, one would believe that we are (yet again) making Great Progress there, that things are going swimmingly well, and that Victory is right around the corner..

Why doesn’t the editorial board of the New York Times take their own reporters seriously? Here’s what they wrote today:

But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

Where do they come up with such outlandish ideas? Why don’t they believe Michael “victory is just around the corner” Gordon’s latest report from Iraq?

It’s as if they know their own reporters (at least certain ones) have become the “designated stenographers” for the latest propaganda out of Dick Cheney’s office. It’s almost as if the Times has cut a deal with the administration to continue to report Cheney’s latest talking points as “fact” in their news pages in return for continuing to be allowed to give a completely different viewpoint on their editorial page.

There is no way that today’s editorial could be written if the editorial board actually believed what Michael Gordon writes. That contradiction needs to be explored further.

Do they even expect us to believe reporting from Gordon anymore? Or, do they expect us oh-so-savvy readers to know that he’s just “Cheney’s mole in the liberal media.”