This NY Times reporter has made a career out of carrying water for Bush’s lies in Iraq. He was formerly Judith Miller’s errand boy in the run-up to the war, and in the aftermath, and has survived her, but continues as the favored go-to reporter on the Times, for stories (or slants on stories) that really aren’t quite true.
Today’s article illustrates this very well. Bush wants the American public to think he’s doing something in Iraq besides “stay the course, harder”; so he sends off a general (Bush has been told now that he has no cred; only generals will speak about Iraq) with the craven Michael Gord0n in his pocket.
Admiral Fallon, who is in charge of the United States Central Command, used a whirlwind trip to Iraq to reinforce Washington’s public and private message that political progress was lagging. It is a message that has been delivered by several other American officials, but the deadlines have often been allowed to slip. This reporter, who is accompanying Admiral Fallon on his trip to Iraq, was allowed into the meeting. It was only at the end of the meeting that American officials agreed that it could be on the record.
If that doesn’t disturb you, you haven’t been paying attention. Remember that McClatchy News Service, the only reporting group that got it right on the invasion of Iraq, has been excluded from DoD flights for three years.
Here is the money quote, notable by what it doesn’t say:
When President Bush decided in January to increase American troop levels in Iraq, the purpose was not to win a military victory but to improve security so the Iraqi leaders could carry out a program of political reconciliation. But now that the troops are in place, the Iraqis have little to show by way of political progress.
Except that the security hasn’t improved. Killings, kidnappings, bombings, shellings, inside the Green Zone and out…. The Bush administration thanks you, Michael Gordon, for ignoring the fact that their “surge” idea did not provide the needed security, nor did it provide the jobs and reconstruction that it also promised, which were also supposed to make things tamer. So what Gordon has done has essentially what Bush wanted him to do, make the “surge” sound like a success instead of a complete and total failure, and shift the blame to the Iraqis.
Does the NY Times have any plan to assign Michael Gordon to some sort of special editor, or put him in time out, or in some way stop him from being used by Bush to deceive the public? Or is the Times happy that his “truthiness” has earned him a favored spot in the pocket of the Bush administration, where he will be fed morsels of bullshit, which he can then regurgitate onto the front page of the Times?