Thankyou Frank. It needs vigilance eh? Just mindless or slimy with it, d'you think? Not that it makes much difference I suppose. So much for the 4th estate, or at least the owned portion of it. FAIR is also covering this:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3029 Debating the Iraq "Surge" on PBS They don't seem to think it's just an unintentional oversight. Best Keith > >From http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/media-surge-escalation/ > >Media Misleading Americans By Using 'Surge' To Describe Bush Policy >Research compiled by ThinkProgress shows that when "surge" was first >adopted by the mainstream media in November 2006, the term was >specifically defined as a "temporary," "short-term" increase in U.S. >forces. In fact, we now know that the Bush administration and the most >prominent advocates of escalation all reject a short-term increase in >U.S. forces. Rather, they advocate a long-term increase of forces >lasting at least 18 months. > >The media, in other words, has continued to use the term "surge" even >though its definition has fundamentally changed. > >The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released >Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation >of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a >"short-term troop increase," the number jumps to 45 percent approval >(48 percent disapproval). > >Every time the media repeats the word "surge," they are helping to >mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being >proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to >stop using the term to describe President Bush's policy. > >Digg It! > >Details below: > >'SURGE' ORIGINALLY DEFINED AS 'TEMPORARY,' 'SHORT-TERM' INCREASE IN >TROOP LEVELS: > >NOVEMBER 20: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS MCCAIN WANTS 'SHORT-TERM SURGE': >"In Washington, a leading Republican supporter of the war, Senator >John McCain of Arizona, said American troops in Iraq were 'fighting >and dying for a failed policy.' But Mr. McCain continued to argue >vigorously for a short-term surge in American forces, and he gained a >vocal ally in Senator Lindsey Graham of South CarolinaÖ" [New York >Times, Brian Knowlton, 11/19/06] > >NOVEMBER 20: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY SURGE': >"Speculation over a temporary surge in troops has been fueled in part >by sources close to administration deliberations on Iraq strategy." >[Christian Science Monitor, Howard LaFranchi, 11/20/06] > >NOVEMBER 20: WASHINGTON POST REPORTS ON 'SHORT' 'TEMPORARY' TROOP >INCREASE: "Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor >inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about >140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short >period, the officials said. The purpose of the temporary but notable >increase, they said, would be twofoldÖ" [Washington Post, Thomas >Ricks, 11/20/06] > >NOVEMBER 21: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS SENIOR BUSH OFFICIALS BACK >'SHORT-TERM' 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: "Pentagon officials conducting a >review of Iraq strategy are considering a substantial but temporary >increase in American troop levels and the addition of several thousand >more trainers to work with Iraqi forces, a senior Defense Department >official said Monday. The idea, dubbed the 'surge option' by some >officials, would involve increasing American forces by 20,000 troops >or more for several monthsÖ 'There are people who believe that a >short-term surge would have a beneficial impact, but there isn't >universal agreement on that yet,' said the senior official." [New York >Times, David Cloud, 11/21/06] > >NOVEMBER 21: NBC NEWS REPORTS ON 'SHORT-TERM SURGE' OPTION: Let's talk >a bit about some of the plans that the Pentagon is supposedly >considering. First of all, sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq, a >short-term surge in an effort to try to stabilize Baghdad. [Andrea >Mitchell, MSNBC, 11/21/06] > >NOVEMBER 22: FOX NEWS REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: "The new Marine >Corps commandant General James ConwayÖsaid the idea some people are >now suggesting of creating a temporary surge of U.S. forces in Iraq >could be accomplished with the current force of about 180,000 Marines, >but would have an undesirable impact later on." [Brit Hume, Fox News, >11/22/06, available on Lexis] > >NOVEMBER 22: ABC NEWS REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: "A temporary >increase in US force levels in Iraq. And what General Conway said is >that the Marine Corps could facilitate a temporary surge of no more >than 60 days, really. He said that's about the limit." [ABC News, >Jonathan Karl, 11/22/06, available on Lexis] > >IN FACT, WHITE HOUSE IS PLANNING LONG-TERM ESCALATION OF U.S. FORCES: > >TIME REPORTS BUSH PLANNING ESCALATION FOR 'UP TO TWO YEARS': "Sometime >next week the President is expected to propose a surge in the number >of U.S. forces in Iraq for a period of up to two years." [Time, >1/4/07] > >DECEMBER 27: ARCHITECTS OF THE ESCALATION PLAN ADMIT IT WILL NOT BE >SHORT-TERM: In a joint Washington Post op-ed, retired Gen. Jack Keane >and right-wing scholar Fred Kagan said they needed to "cut through the >confusion" and admitted a troop increase would require "at least >30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is >likely to fail." [Washington Post joint op-ed, 12/27/06] > >JANUARY 8: NEW U.S. GROUND COMMANDER IN IRAQ ANTICIPATES ESCALATION >FOR 'TWO OR THREE YEARS': The New York Times reported on Lt. Gen. >Raymond T. Odierno. "The new American operational commander in Iraq >said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be >deployed in Baghdad under President Bush's new war strategy it might >take another 'two or three years' for American and Iraqi forces to >gain the upper hand in the war. [New York Times, 1/8/07] > >JANUARY 9: MCCAIN SAYS 6 MONTHS IS TOO SHORT & 'THE WORST OF ALL >WORLDS WOULD BE A SMALL, SHORT SURGE': "There are two keys to any >increase in U.S. force levels: It must be substantial, and it must be >sustainedÖThe worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of >U.S. forces." [Sen. John McCain, Sacramento Bee op-ed, 1/9/07] > > > >On 1/12/07, Frank Navarrete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The involvment of Lieberman and McCain certainly hints that Israel is > > one of the hands in the glove for sending more troops. > > > > On 1/12/07, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Push behind the Surge > > > By Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn | January 11, 2007 > > > > > > Neoconservatives and their allies are practically the only supporters > > > of the "surge" idea to send more troops to Iraq. But this doesn't > > > seem to bother the president, who was given a brand new blueprint for > > > "victory" last week, gift-wrapped by the same ideologues at the > > > American Enterprise Institute who helped lead the country into war. > > > <http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3898> > > > Full story below. > > > > > > The Hawks' Hawk > > > By Jim Lobe | January 11, 2007 > > > > > > J.D. Crouch, the deputy national security adviser, played a key role > > > in shaping the Bush administration's "surge" strategy in Iraq. > > > <http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3897>Read full story. > > > > > > See Also: New Right Web profile of > > > <http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1259>J.D. Crouch II > > > > > > Right Web Profile: ><http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1240>Frederick Kagan > > > Neoconservatives are riding a wave of optimism about Iraq, led by > > > Kagan's assertion that victory there is attainable - with tens of > > > thousands more troops, that is. > > > > > > Right Web Profile: <http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1347>Randy > > > Scheunemann > > > Expected to be Sen. John McCain's foreign policy guru during the 2008 > > > presidential campaign, Scheunemann's experience includes serving as a > > > lobbyist for gun groups and founding the Committee for the Liberation > > > of Iraq. > > > > > > Right Web Profile: ><http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1306>John Negroponte > > > The man slated to be the next number two at State has a reputation as > > > someone who gets the job the done - however "dirty" or undiplomatic. > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3898 > > > Right Web | Analysis | The Push behind the Surge > > > The Push behind the Surge > > > > > > Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn | January 11, 2007 > > > > > > IRC Right Web > > > rightweb.irc-online.org > > > > > > President George W. Bush's plan to "surge" more than 20,000 > > > additional U.S. troops into Iraq without any deadline for withdrawal > > > has garnered little support, except from neoconservatives and their > > > increasingly isolated allies in the hawkish wings of the Republican > > > and Democratic parties. Not only are the new Democratic majorities in > > > both houses of Congress lining up in opposition to the surge plan, > > > but a growing number of Republican lawmakers-including some staunch > > > Bush loyalists-are also voicing serious reservations. For the > > > neoconservatives, on the other hand, the only problem with Bush's > > > plan is that it doesn't go far enough, arguing in their own recently > > > released plan for "victory" that troop levels should be boosted by > > > more than a third. > > > > > > A good example of the opposition Bush is facing is Sen. Norm Coleman > > > (R-MN), an erstwhile supporter of the war who faces reelection in > > > 2008 and just returned from visiting Iraq. He told the Los Angeles > > > Times last week: "Baghdad needs reconciliation between Shiites and > > > Sunnis. It doesn't need more Americans in the crosshairs." > > > > > > Even retired Lt. Col. Oliver North, a far-right talk-show host who > > > gained fame as the White House coordinator of what became the > > > Iran-Contra affair 20 years ago, reported that his recent interviews > > > with officers and soldiers in Iraq persuaded him that adding more > > > troops to the 140,000 already deployed there would be a mistake. > > > > > > But the tepid support for what critics call an "escalation" has not > > > dampened the enthusiasm of the neoconservatives. At the American > > > Enterprise Institute (AEI) last week-with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and > > > Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) in attendance-neoconservatives unveiled > > > a new report: "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq." The AEI > > > report argues that substantially increasing U.S. troop strength in > > > Iraq is essential to avoiding a defeat that could lead to "regional > > > conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and increased global terrorism." > > > > > > The two senators, who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to > > > Iraq, have been heavily criticized on both the left and right for > > > their support of the surge plan. "McCain and Lieberman talked to many > > > of the same officers and senior NCOs [non-commissioned officers] I > > > covered for FOX News during my most recent trip to Iraq," North > > > asserted in his syndicated column last Friday. "Not one of the > > > soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen, or Marines I interviewed told > > > me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly > > > all expressed just the opposite. 'We don't need more American troops, > > > we need more Iraqi troops' was a common refrain. They are right. > > > > > > "A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever > > > the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq > > > isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help > > > themselves is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more > > > targets," North wrote. > > > > > > Like the administration's surge idea, the new > > > neoconservative-supported report, written by AEI scholar Frederick > > > Kagan, whose brother Robert and father Donald are both influential > > > figures in neoconservative circles, calls for a sustained increase in > > > the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that "victory is still an > > > option" if the nation remains committed. Among the AEI plan's > > > proposals: a "surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to > > > support clear-and-hold operations" beginning this spring, which would > > > be aimed at securing "the Iraqi population and contain[ing] the > > > rising violence"; lengthening the tours of ground troops and > > > increasing deployments of National Guard forces; making a "dramatic > > > increase in reconstruction aid for Iraq"; and mobilizing military > > > industry "to provide replacement equipment" for troops. > > > > > > The AEI report warns that the number of additional troops that Bush > > > plans to send to Iraq will be inadequate. "We are going to be very > > > uncomfortable with any force level that is below" five more brigades > > > in Baghdad and two in Al Anbar, said Kagan at the conference. "We are > > > not really prepared to compromise on that." Kagan had previously > > > called for adding at least 50,000 troops to gain control of Baghdad > > > alone. This position was echoed by other neoconservative-inclined > > > commentators, including the popular blogger Andrew Sullivan, who > > > charged that Bush's surge plan was "anemic." Writing immediately > > > after Bush's Wednesday address, Sullivan wrote in his Daily Dish > > > blog: "If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to > > > grapple with this new situation-a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a > > > game-changer-then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. > > > 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose." > > > > > > The release of the AEI report represents the latest effort by > > > neoconservatives to win back momentum lost during the past two years > > > as the war they vociferously championed has gone steadily downhill. > > > Their declining influence was underscored by the Bush > > > administration's decision early last year to agree to allow Secretary > > > of State and Bush family confidant James Baker, an early opponent of > > > the war, to produce a new plan that could extricate the United States > > > from Iraq. Baker's Iraq Study Group (ISG), which he co-chaired with > > > former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), concluded in a long-awaited final > > > report released in December that there was "no magic bullet" that > > > could solve the debacle in Iraq. It argued that the United States > > > needed to approach Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, as > > > part of a "diplomatic offensive" aimed at easing tension in the > > > region. And although it called for a short-term increase in the > > > number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the increase would be largely > > > devoted to training Iraqi soldiers, with the goal of bringing U.S. > > > troops home by early 2008. (For more on the ISG, see Leon Hadar, "The > > > Baker-Hamilton Recommendations: Too Little, Too Late?" Right Web > > > analysis, December 12, 2006.) > > > > > > The Baker-Hamilton report seemed to provide impetus for the > > > neoconservatives, spurring AEI to create a study group of its own to > > > counter the ideas of the ISG. The AEI shadow study, the Iraq Planning > > > Group, was led by Frederick Kagan and retired Gen. Jack Keane and > > > included about a dozen other AEI scholars (most notably Michael > > > Rubin, Thomas Donnelly, Danielle Pletka, Gary Schmitt, and Reuel Marc > > > Gerecht). Other participants included several retired army officers > > > as well as Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow at the Washington > > > Institute for Near East Policy. > > > > > > Responding to the tremendous attention garnered by Baker's ISG, the > > > AEI group hurriedly put out in mid-December an early version of > > > Kagan's "Choosing Victory" report, a 52-page bullet-pointed PDF, > > > "easily translatable into the Pentagon's indigenous language of Power > > > Point," as Spencer Ackerman of the American Prospect derisively > > > commented. The authors were then given the opportunity to present > > > their plan to Bush and five other national security higher-ups. > > > > > > The neoconservative media machine quickly got into gear to champion > > > the AEI plan. "Alone among proposals for Iraq, the new Keane-Kagan > > > strategy has a chance to succeed," declared the Weekly Standard, > > > which, like the AEI fellows involved in the Iraq Planning Group, > > > pushed for going to war in Iraq. > > > > > > However, despite the neoconservatives' efforts to build support for a > > > surge, it seems clear that the public, unlike during the buildup to > > > the war in Iraq, is disinclined to rally behind the effort. According > > > to recent public opinion polls, nearly three out of four U.S. > > > respondents now say they disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, while > > > confidence in his overall leadership has fallen to record lows. > > > Despite having ostentatiously devoted most of the past month devising > > > a new strategy for Iraq, a CBS poll last week found that the public > > > does not believe Bush has a "clear plan" for dealing with the > > > situation there. > > > > > > The same poll showed that the war in Iraq is also considered far and > > > away the most important priority that people want the new > > > Democrat-led Congress to take up, a finding that no doubt encouraged > > > the two Democratic leaders, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) > > > and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), to announce in a > > > letter to Bush released last Friday that they will oppose any > > > increase in U.S. troops in Iraq. > > > > > > "Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and > > > stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain," > > > wrote the two leaders, citing recent testimony to that effect by > > > senior U.S. military officers, including the outgoing commanders of > > > U.S. forces in Iraq and the Middle East. > > > > > > "After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. > > > casualties, and over $300 billion, it is time to bring the war to a > > > close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that > > > call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq," they added in > > > what a number of political analysts described as a surprisingly > > > strong stand, given traditional Democratic fears of being depicted as > > > weak on defense. > > > > > > "This is a great statement," said Jim Cason, an analyst at the > > > anti-war group the Friends Committee on National Legislation, in an > > > interview with the Inter Press Service. He noted, however, that short > > > of denying funds for the war, Congress has few tools with which to > > > stop Bush from going ahead with a deployment. > > > > > > One such tool, however, could be Bush's anticipated request for $100 > > > billion, in addition to the $75 billion already approved by last > > > year's Republican-led Congress, to fund U.S. military operations in > > > both Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2007. > > > > > > While no one expects the Democrats to oppose the budget request as a > > > whole, the critical issue is whether they will attach conditions to > > > the defense appropriation. Cason said Democrats should at least > > > impose conditions requiring Bush to adopt key recommendations of the > > > Iraq Study Group and set a timetable for withdrawal. Sen. Edward > > > Kennedy (D-MA) announced a day before the president's announcement > > > his intention to introduce legislation that would force the > > > administration to get congressional approval for any additional troop > > > deployments and funding. > > > > > > Even before his Wednesday address, Bush had all but rejected the > > > ISG's most important recommendations, including the call to withdraw > > > virtually all U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 15 months and to > > > engage Syria and Iran as part of a regional effort to stabilize Iraq. > > > But the ISG's recommendations have been largely endorsed by the > > > Democratic leadership and by moderate-and even some > > > right-wing-Republicans, pointing to the possibility of a relatively > > > strong bipartisan majority in Congress opposed to escalating the war. > > > > > > "To be successful, the opposition has to include some Republicans, > > > and it's clear that more Republicans are challenging the president's > > > Iraq war strategy," according to Cason, who noted that some > > > Republican aides have reported a substantial rise in anti-war mail > > > from constituents since the Democrats' victory in the November > > > elections. > > > > > > Aside from constituent pressure, Republican lawmakers are also likely > > > to be impressed by a recent poll of U.S. military personnel conducted > > > by the Military Times that found only about one in three officers and > > > enlisted service members approve of Bush's handling of the war and > > > that nearly three in four said they believe the armed forces are > > > stretched too thin to be effective. > > > > > > Despite the growing opposition, the neoconservatives remain > > > undaunted, with some extreme elements of the political faction urging > > > more dramatic action than a mere troop surge. In a January 9 "Memo to > > > the President," the hardline Center for Security Policy commended > > > Bush for heeding the advice of those who reflect the president's > > > "laudable determination to prevail." The memo then argued that any > > > modifications to the plan in Iraq also must have as a goal taking on > > > Iran and the threat of "Islamofascism": "Your new strategy must make > > > clear that it is being designed to counter Islamofascist Iran both in > > > terms of its subversion in Iraq and with a view to working with the > > > Iranian people to bring down a government that they hate as much as > > > we do." > > > > > > Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service > > > and a Right Web contributing writer. Michael Flynn is the director of > > > the Right Web project at the International Relations Center > > > (rightweb.irc-online.org). > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
