Parry: Bush WH and NYT rolling out new war theme

Karl Rove once said that you don't roll out new product until September. Well, it doesn't look like they intend to wait that long this time.

Their friends at the NYT are once again helping them sell the case for war - this time an 'open-ended' war.

Robert Parry analyzes the new push for open-ended war at ConsortiumNews.

The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda

By Robert Parry
July 30, 2007

No need to wait until September. It’s already obvious how George W. Bush and his still-influential supporters in Washington will sell an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Iraq – just the way they always have: the war finally has turned the corner and withdrawal now would betray the troops by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

At one time, the Iraq story line was how many schoolrooms had been painted or how well the government security forces were doing. Now there are new silver linings being detected that will justify a positive progress report in September – and the U.S. news media is again ready to play its credulous part.

President Bush signaled the happy-news judgment of his hand-picked commander, Gen. David Petraeus, in a round of confident public appearances over the past two weeks. With his effusive praise of "David," as Bush called the general at a White House news conference, the President acted like a smug student arriving for a test with the answers tucked in his pocket.

Another key element of the coming propaganda campaign was previewed on the op-ed page of the New York Times on July 30 as Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution portrayed themselves as tough critics of the Bush administration who, after a visit to Iraq, now must face the facts: Bush’s "surge" is working.

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with," O’Hanlon and Pollack wrote in an article entitled "A War We Just Might Win."

Yet the authors – and the New York Times – failed to tell readers the full story about these supposed skeptics: far from grizzled peaceniks, O’Hanlon and Pollack have been longtime cheerleaders for a larger U.S. military occupying force in Iraq.

More at link:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

•  I figured this out last week.

  Anytime you see more than one general out running the circuit, somethings up. Then, throw in a possible gut feeling about a terror attack, and there you have it. Just Impeach the idiots and save us all.

  by Owllwoman on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:09:29 PM PDT

•  back in June

  I wrote about Septembers Propaganda Today. This is all so predictable. Over at Pat Langs blog,http://turcopolier.typepad.com/... he has a inside look at what will probably be part of the Sept. report also. By Sept. Bush is hoping to have enough support built up to push through another Extension for our Troops imho.

  by OneCrankyDom on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:11:59 PM PDT

•  Who are these people? Do they have any

  credibility? Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have op-ed pieces in the NYT today. They are using the new buzzwords from the WH talking points - "sustainable stability".

  "Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
  (skip)
  Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
  (skip)
  Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
  (skip)
  But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

  http://www.nytimes.com/...

  Unfortunately this is behind the firewall. The title of the piece is - wait for it -

  A War We Just Might Win!

  by madgranny on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:15:59 PM PDT

  •  Pollack is supposed to be a lefty but

    he's a lefty like Bill Clinton's called a lefty.  He's not but they put him out there as if he is for TV and print news when they need a mask for their imperialism.

    I'm pretty sure Pollack is also married to CNN reporter Andrea Koppel.

    by Jail the BFEE on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:20:44 PM PDT

  •  I saw the man on CNN this afternoon

    and wolfie was questioning him. Didn't sound so great then. He also said that he didn't name the article. The Times did. His answers there were fague and once wolf started questioning a little harder he didn't sound so sure.

    by Owllwoman on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:26:28 PM PDT

    •  Jeebus...they're getting TV time too?

      'Wonder how hard the admin worked to get these people to put out their message. Why is the media rushing to put a smiley face on the war? It's still very telling (to me) that they used the new and improved WH meme "Sustainable stability". That isn't a phrase that just pops in your mind.

      by madgranny on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:30:58 PM PDT

      •  tuck the f*ck had him on too

        nothing really new, he just restated his editorial.  Emphasized how high morale was and said how he could walk down the street in ramadi w/out body armor.

        big whoop... I wanna see pictures of that. NOt that I don't believe him, but.........

        by dougymi on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:12:53 PM PDT

  •  O'Hanlon have credibility?

    Ha hah hahhh.

    O'Hanlon did not oppose the splurge. Instead, he said we might as well go along with it because it was likely to fail; thus, a year later when the splurge had failed, Bush would be forced to come up with the Plan B that's he was avoiding.

    I listened to him saying this on Radio Times on WHYY (Philadelphia), agog. O'Hanlon showed not the slightest concern for all the death and devastation a wasted year of splurging would bring.

    O'Hanlon is a dope, plain and simple. Look at his bio at Brookings, for example. He claims to be an expert in a dozen or more areas, including (most preposterously) the Far East. His foreign languages? French...that's it. The kind of foreign expert whom the Bush administration adores: Ignorant, and proudly so.

    by smintheus on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:03:03 PM PDT

•  The goalposts are on rails

  Funny how "victory" and "winning in Iraq" have disappeared, to be replaced with "sustainable stability."

  And isn't it funny how "terrorist attacks" have been redefined as "dramatic terrorist attacks"? Whatever metric doesn't support clapping louder is now removed from the algebra.

  They just shift the goalposts until they show something good. We really have no idea what's going on over there.

  If you disbelieve the previous sentence, ask yourself how many photos you've seen from Iraq lately. The only thing I'm seeing are pictures of troops. Close up. Helmet, goggles, etc.

  by The Raven on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:27:27 PM PDT

•  Thanks for posting this JBEE

  I hadn't seen it.

  Also, have you seen this video?  Some people are warmongers who want the rapture and they are trying to incite war in the middle-east.  

  http://www.youtube.com/...

  by Silence is Complicity on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:28:05 PM PDT

  •  Thanks - hadn't seen it.

    .

    by Jail the BFEE on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:54:45 PM PDT

•  The good news is that this will wipe out the GOP.

  The GOP congress people up for reelection are already getting restive. They are going to commit political hari-kari for loyalty to Bush? No way to sell this BS to the public come the election. If they declared victory and redeployed by then, he GOP will get wiped out.

  by tjfxh on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:43:08 PM PDT

  •  The bad news is that Bush doesn't CARE

    and is not worried at all about the fall of the GOP in 2008.

    He's covered either way knowing that it will be another GOP or another Clinton.

    Just like his father was protected in 1993.
    http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

    by Jail the BFEE on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:52:54 PM PDT

    •  Bush doesn't care, but the GOP may. n/t

      by tjfxh on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:31:26 PM PDT

      •  True - but they aren't exactly the ones wielding

        any power, either, the last 30 years.  "THEY" do as they're told.  And many rank and file Democrats are now doing whatever Clintons tell them to do.

        How conveniently that always works out for BushInc, eh?
        http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

        by Jail the BFEE on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:39:46 PM PDT

•  The clear choice:

  Do you believe the absolutely massive amount of evidence and reports from all over the world on Iraq, or do you believe Mike 'n' Ken's 8-day backpacking trip?

  by dov12348 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:46:46 PM PDT

•  I no longer buy the NYT or read it regularly but

  I do often read used (i.e. free/leftover) copies at my local coffee shop.

  I read today's op-ed piece (referred to in diary above, and entitled "A War We Just Might Win") by two Brookings Institute hacks about how the Iraq debacle is actually turning a corner with a giant load of salt.

  Everything about the piece reeked of the by now all too familiar propaganda, but the money quote for me was the last two sentences of the very last paragraph, which I quote here:

  "...These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008..."

  Wow. How friggin' convenient that the editorialists advise sustaining the "surge" until 2008. Geez, gues what else happens in 2008, like a National Election here at home? Oh but that would not have factored into the editorialsts' thinking, now would it? Un-freaking-believable.

  by gnat on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:55:50 PM PDT

•  Went to the library today

  to read Krugman. Read this crap too.   Renewed vow never to spend a dollar on the NYT again.

  by Van Buren on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 05:33:09 PM PDT