Now Is Not The Time For Forced Politeness

Atrios notes that David Gergen, Republican political advisor and part-time cable news contributor, admitted on CNN yesterday what many have been saying for years... that the media abdicated their journalistic responsibilities in the run-up to war, silenced dissent, and enthusiastically cheered on the invasion without asking many questions.

Said Gergen on the program-

"There was a sense, in the lead-up to the war, in which the press, I think, was guilty of cheerleading. We were waving the flags and it was almost unpatriotic to question the possibility of war with Iraq. And then during the time of the invasion itself, when the reporters were embedded, you know, many of them fell in love with the military and I think they reported very accurately.

But there was no question that they were swayed by what they had seen. But since they have been there, I do think the press has been on the cutting edge, been the leading indicator of saying it's not going as well as the administration says. And for those that think that the press is being too harsh, we now have the leak of the Hadley memo this week, which shows, within the administration itself, there's a real difference between what they're telling each other internally and what they're saying publicly.

The internal reporting inside the administration is much grimmer and much more similar to what the press says than what the administration has officially been saying."

History, I believe, will note all of this and shake their heads in disbelief.

Of course, besides being more realistic now in their war reporting, few in the media will openly challenge the White House. After all, they don't want Rush Limbaugh to start foaming at the mouth with rants of 'bias', etc. Keith Olbermann is a notable exception here (his predecessor, Phil Donahue, was fired in early 2003 by MSNBC because they were uncomfortable with his anti-war viewpoint)... Now, this doesn't mean turning nightly newscasts into rants against the current administration (that's going too far in ther other direction), but rather just calling a spade a spade as they turn up. It's not biased to call bullshit when you see it.

In his latest NY Times column (hidden behind their ridiculous subscriber firewall), Paul Krugman uses the recent exchange between the President and Sen.-elect Webb as a lesson for how to stand up to our Bully-in-Chief. He also sums up my feeling on how the Baker commission appears to have caved-- big time. He writes-

...You can understand, if not condone, the way the political and media establishment let itself be browbeaten by Mr. Bush in his post-9/11 political prime. What is amazing is the extent to which insiders still cringe before a lame duck with a 60 percent disapproval rating.

Look at what seems to have happened to the Iraq Study Group, whose mission statement says that it would provide an "independent assessment." If press reports are correct, the group did nothing of the sort. Instead, it watered down its conclusions and recommendations, trying to come up with something Mr. Bush wouldn't reject out of hand.

In particular, says Newsweek, the report "will set no timetables or call for any troop reductions." All it will do is "suggest that the president could, not should, begin to withdraw forces in the vaguely defined future."...

...Even now, it seems, the wise men of Washington can't bring themselves to face up to two glaringly obvious truths.

The first is that Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq for no reason.

It's true that terrible things will happen when U.S. forces withdraw. Mr. Bush was attacking a straw man when he mocked those who think we can make a 'graceful exit' from Iraq .... But nobody -- not even Donald Rumsfeld, it turns out -- thinks we're making progress in Iraq. So the same terrible things that would happen if we withdraw soon will still happen if we delay that withdrawal for two, three, or more years. The only difference is that we'll sacrifice many more Americans along the way.

The second truth is that the war will go on all the same, unless something or someone forces Mr. Bush to change course...

...Does that mean that we're doomed to at least two more years of bloody futility? Not necessarily. Last month the public delivered a huge vote of no confidence in Mr. Bush and his war. He's still the commander-in-chief, but the new majority in Congress can put a lot of pressure on him to at least begin a withdrawal.

I'm worried, however, that Democrats may have counted on the Iraq Study Group to provide them with political cover. Now that the study group has apparently wimped out, will the Democrats do the same?

Well here's a question for those who might be tempted, yet again, to shy away from a confrontation with Mr. Bush over Iraq: How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully's ego?

What he said. We cannot keep repeating this cycle over and over again (but we will).

[PS- Confirmation hearings for Robert Gates are today. Asked by Sen. Levin whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir" (but not losing, he had to add!). He also agreed an attack on Syria or Iran-- long desired by the neocons-- was a bad idea. He further stated his belief that bin Laden will be apprehended eventually, but reliable intel on him has been hard to get. It doesn't seem clear to me what his Iraq policy is exactly (or what his policy on anything is), but at least it appears we are dealing with someone sane. I suppose that's the best we can ask for now from this administration at this point.

UPDATE: Conservative blogger John Cole wonders what Gates' remarks will do to Bush cultist denial.]