November 29, 2006
Damned if you do . . .
It's hard to know what to make of the New York Times. In its latest escapade, the Times has published an article titled, "Bush Adviser's Memo Cites Doubts About Iraqi Leader," which excerpts a classified report from National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley to the President. The memo supposedly questions Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's ability to control sectarian violence in Iraq and recommends that steps be taken to bolster his position.
The memo was reportedly produced by Hadley after a trip to Iraq and a meeting with Maliki that took place on October 30th.
Stop for a moment and completely disregard the content of the memo. Instead ask yourself: how long has the Times had this information? The memo is exactly one month old. Now ask yourself: why are they releasing this story on the very same day that Bush is set to meet with Maliki?
It is really hard to know what to make of the Times.
Posted by Chester at November 29, 2006 12:59 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
The timing may be suspect, but the content doesnt hurt Bush's position I think. It actually seems to present a fairly honest, if critical intepretation of circumstances. It goes out of its way to give Maliki the benefit of the doubt and reassure American belief that he can be the right guy.
I generally hates leaks (and dont get me started on the NYT) but i suspect this one may have been intentionally let out. If Maliki is paying attention, it will show him that he is in a precarious position (and if he doesnt know this he is truly in trouble) but that it may be retreivable.
This would be the perfect ground clearing for our regaining control of the IA. We have a opportunity to say to the Iraqi government- "look, you guys agree security is disintegrating. There is a state of emergency and we are going to appoint a Supreme Allied Commander to manage the crisis".
Posted by: Mark Buehner at November 29, 2006 2:18 PM
You want some subtle public manipulation, much more widespread than the NYT? My wife (not a major student of politics or international affairs) noted last night that on CBS evening news, Katie Couric and the reporter in the field both said "Mr. Bush" rather than "President Bush." I regularly heard the same thing on NPR in the 1992 election coverage: "Mr. Bush" and "Governor Clinton." I'm sure such terminology is CBS News protocol. Hopefully, this bias is just as obvious to all normal people-on-the-street.
Posted by: Paul K. Davis at November 29, 2006 4:42 PM
I'd like to know how they keep getting all those memos.
Posted by: Maggie45 at December 5, 2006 10:53 AM