September 08, 2003
GUARDIAN MAINTAINS ACCURACY RECORD
It’s kind of difficult to square George W. Bush’s speech with The Guardian’s prediction:
The President will make a dramatic U-turn on Iraq in a TV broadcast tonight to try to salvage his hopes of re-election amid Americans' growing hostility to the casualties and chaos.
George Bush will attempt tonight to convince the American people that he has a workable 'exit strategy' to free his forces from the rapidly souring conflict in Iraq, as Britain prepares to send in thousands more troops to reinforce the faltering coalition effort.
And so on, and on ...
Posted by Tim Blair at September 8, 2003 12:30 PMNot an exit strategy in sight. More money please. More folks to work under American authority please. Step up, Iraqis. Nothing will change til there is genuine defeat of terrorists. Seems to me he sitll has his eye on the main game - terrorists and getting the hell rid of them.
Posted by: W at September 8, 2003 at 01:16 PMThis article reads like a gossip column lifted from Woman's Day, or some such. How can anyone take The Guardian seriously?
Posted by: Dan at September 8, 2003 at 01:19 PMJust goes to show that the Guardian, like the rest of the American mainstream media, just has no clue and would rather work to undermine President Bush than actually report the reality of the situation.
Posted by: Big Dog at September 8, 2003 at 02:11 PMThe press is already suggesting this is a . Plenty of room for left spin on that angle.
Posted by: ilibcc at September 8, 2003 at 02:20 PMSorry Dan, I didn't realise that anybody ever did in the first place?
Posted by: Todd at September 8, 2003 at 04:48 PMA very Political article, with little to guess about the political orientation of either the author or "The Guardian".
Most thinking people understand that the Iraq action by the USA was not, primarily, about WMD or saving the Iraqui people from Saddam, rather the objective was to try to achieve greater stability in that region where Saddam's objectives,and the power he had to further those objective, were outside the mainstream of other Arab/powers-- even compared to Iran.
A situation where the oil price went beyond about US$35/ barrel would cause a domino collapse of the western world economies, most of which are already teetering on the edge.
An extraordinary analysis -- everything in it is dead wrong.
Posted by: Conrad at September 8, 2003 at 06:43 PMSome countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America ... Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.
That's not a U-turn?
And I wonder why exactly the President said the following, if he wasn't trying to reassure us that the administration has a workable exit strategy:
Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators ... Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution and for free elections.
Posted by: Mork at September 8, 2003 at 06:44 PMBush has always wanted other countries on board (and indeed, has several) - that's why he went to the UN twice trying to get them to authorize action vs Iraq. So going another time isn't exactly a U-Turn.
Of course, I imagine the same thing will happen as before - the French & Germans will oppose anything.
Mork, Bush is indeed saying that he has a workable exit strategy. The point is that this is no U-turn. From the beginning, the consistent message of the US has been that it will liberate the country, help establish a representative Iraqi government and then leave. Only the idiot lefties who didn't take Dubya at face value in the first place see this as a U-turn : "Ha, ha, his plans for eternal domination of Iraq are foiled"
Posted by: Alan Anderson at September 8, 2003 at 07:53 PMAlan: You got the wrong deal I got a life time supply of oil and slave girls for my support.
Posted by: Gary at September 8, 2003 at 09:04 PMWell, here's what I seem to remember:
Act I, in which the administration tries to enlist UN support and fails.
Act II, in which the adminstration pours scorn on the UN, and tells the world that it has no use for those no good do-nothings and says that all it needs is iteself and the "coalition of the willing".
Which brings us to Act III, in which the coalition of the willing turns out not to be sufficient, and the UN is needed after all. In my book, that's a U-turn. Of course, I could be wrong ... maybe it's just an S-bend.
Oh, and can someone tell Tim that the Guardian and the Observer are not the same newspaper. Of course, it would be petty to point out that it's a little embarassing to assail a newspaper for their errors and name the wrong one ... which just goes to show that I can get into the spirit of things, too.
Posted by: Mork at September 8, 2003 at 09:07 PMThe administration poured scorn on the UN? I wish.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 8, 2003 at 09:11 PMUm... by the way, Mork, the Observer is a subsidiary (or whatever it is called) of the Guardian. Type "www.observer.co.uk" into the address bar of your browser and it resolves to "http://observer.guardian.co.uk." Try it yourself. And the header graphic in the top lefthand corner says "Guardian Unlimited." And at the very bottom of the Observer page it says "Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003." And so on. So sorry, I know how you hate being contradicted, disagreed with, and proved wrong.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 8, 2003 at 09:15 PMExit strategy: We win, then we go home. What's so hard to understand about that?
What the lefties mean by exit strategy is the spin they would put on surrendering to the Islamists. More of that fabled transnational progressive sophistication.
Posted by: R C Dean at September 8, 2003 at 09:55 PMUmmm . . . Andrea, in what newspaper did the article appear?
That's not a difficult question, is it?
Posted by: Mork at September 8, 2003 at 10:07 PMI just said, the Guardian and the Observer are the same paper. Lots of people refer to the Observer as the Guardian -- especially when the Observer's header graphic says "Guardian Unlimited." No, it wasn't difficult at all.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 8, 2003 at 10:24 PMNo, Andrea, they are not the same paper. They are different papers owned by the same company.
Just like the Houston Chronicle and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer are different newspapers, even though they are owned by the same company.
Posted by: Mork at September 8, 2003 at 10:41 PMMork, The Observer is a part of The Guardian.
Therefore, if The Observer is wrong, the The Guardian is wrong.
-That is called logic and deduction.
Posted by: Dan at September 8, 2003 at 11:57 PMTo use a sports metaphor, we started the game with a game plan. The game plan has succeeded beyond our wildest expectations. Now, midway through the third (first?) period, we can learn from what has taken place, and can improve the game plan by making some modifications to it.
The naysayers take the position, "Nope, we shouldn't learn. We had a game plan, and we shouldn't make a single modification to it. Is there a way to do it even better? We shouldn't do it. Cheaper? We shouldn't do it. Get some other players in the game so we can use our resources elsewhere (Iran? North Korea)? Nope. Shouldn't do it."
I'd love to see someone with that view try to run a sports team or a business ("We build the best buggy whip in the indstry, and we're going to keep on building 'em just the way great grandpa did").
Posted by: RJGator at September 9, 2003 at 12:03 AMMork,
None of what you quoted suggests a U-turn at all. The US has always wanted UN help. It's that the US will never cede control to the UN. The real U-turn will occur when the UN finally agrees to the US terms in order to be involved in Iraq.
If you have been reading the mainstream press since the end of the war you have a terribly skewed view of what's happening in Iraq, and what the US military's true capabilities are. If you believe that the US cannot complete this mission without the UN you are mistaken. The US military is only somewhat stretched thin in the middle east because we have troops in Kosovo and Korea. That and the fact that the US Navy and Air Force are barely involved in Iraq anymore. That we would like help from other nations is true, but if help is not forthcoming, as was the case with Turkey, it will not affect the outcome, it will just take a little longer. I don't really know how the US State Dept. feels about this, I can guess, however, but I know how Americans generally feel. And by that I mean that our feelings toward our so-called allies and how we deal with them is forever changed. Other than Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, the Eastern European nations, and various smaller nations the Europeans are, for the most part, now on their own.
Posted by: Imam Pshyco Muhammed at September 9, 2003 at 12:48 AMThe Guardian and The Observer are technically not the same paper, granted. But they are both shite.
Posted by: JonT at September 9, 2003 at 02:17 AM"From the beginning, the consistent message of the US has been that it will liberate the country, help establish a representative Iraqi government and then leave."
Kool. Great mission statement. What's the hold up?
Although WTF was a "consistent message" that you can point to?
As a balking hawk, or aggro dove, I'd say it was a good cause fucked up by an incompetent, greedy, stupid and arrogrant administration.
FDR, Truman and Churchill (two democrats and a liberal/conservative) developed(and sold) a successful exit strategy from the worse war in history, before it was over - and despite Uncle Joe's spoiling tactics.
BushCo couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery.
Posted by: Elitims For the Typos at September 9, 2003 at 02:17 AM
FDR, Truman and Churchill (two democrats and a liberal/conservative) developed(and sold) a successful exit strategy from the worse war in history, before it was over - and despite Uncle Joe's spoiling tactics.
??? The exit strategy on the western front was to completely annihilate Germany's infrastructure and industrial base. Didn't have to sell that one to the American public.
If you mean post-war exit strategy, wasn't the Marshall Plan unveiled in 1947 because post-war reconstruction was going so poorly? My calculator tells me that is two years after World War II ended.
Posted by: Tongue Boy at September 9, 2003 at 02:49 AMArticle synapsis:
Bzzzz bzzzz bzzzz quagmire. Bzzzz bzzzz American public turning against the war. Bzzzz bzzzz bzzzzz French were right (aren't they always?). Bzzzzz bzzzz bzzzz not enough troops. Bzzzz bzzzz bzzzz Bush Administration turns to the true font of moral authority (no, not the Bible!) for a bailout.
[hits snooze button]
Wake me when the al-Guardian / al-Observer figure out that "American opinion" does not necessarily mean "West 43rd Street opinion". Paul Harris should sashay his pretty little ass over to NASCAR Country and find out what the flyover hicks think of his analysis. He'd probably find out more about tractor pulls than he really wanted to know...
Posted by: Tongue Boy at September 9, 2003 at 03:00 AMfurther to mork, the observer is only incorrect in predicting "a dramatic U-turn".
Posted by: adam at September 9, 2003 at 03:22 AMIn fact, as Tongue Boy discusses, there was no single "exit strategy" of WWII on FDR's part. He in fact deliberately allowed different camps in his adminstration to develop completely contradictory post-war plans for Germany. The most extreme was the infamous "Morganthau Plan" that called for the complete deindustrialization of Germany - a plan that didn't even provide for enough capacity for Germany to feed itself. This plan got a lot of press coverage during the war and probably itself resulted in increased German resistance and the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives. FDR's own preference was unknown as he allowed each camp to believe they had his support. See Michael Beschloss' "The Conquerors".
Posted by: Robin Roberts at September 9, 2003 at 03:27 AMTongue-boy hits it right on the head.
You don't NEED an exit strategy when you are waging total war. It's called "unconditional surrender," and it's not an exit, it's a goal.
Oh, and Truman had darn little to do w/ that, especially in Europe, since by February 1945, the war was over except for the final push into what was left of the German defenses---it's not like Harry could've changed the game at that point.
Yet, for all that, notice all the carping that rises about Harry's performance on the other side of the world, especially around August 6th or so.
Not telling your Vice President what you, as President, have in mind might have something to do with that. And methinks that Douglas MacArthur had far more of a free-hand in Japan than the likes of Elitism would allow today....
Posted by: Dean at September 9, 2003 at 03:38 AM"From the beginning, the consistent message of the US has been that it will liberate the country, help establish a representative Iraqi government and then leave."
Kool. Great mission statement. What's the hold up?
I love these sort of comments. 'What? You aren't done over there yet? You've had, like, four or five months already! Damn, you should just pack it up and admit defeat.'
Never mind that the vast majority of the country has been wallowing in squallor for the past thirty years - hurry up and fix everything already!
Posted by: amy at September 9, 2003 at 03:41 AMInteresting.
When the left was urging the world to give communism more time, its argument was, "Communism has only been around for 50 years. Capitalism has been around (???) years. We have to give communism more time."
Now that the Coalition is trying to build a civil democratic republic in Iraq, a country with about zero experience at living in a civil democratic republic, their argument is, "You've had FOUR WHOLE MONTHS. How inept can you get to be unable to build a country [without much help outside of the Coalition, while people are shooting at us] in FOUR MONTHS?"
Posted by: RJGator at September 9, 2003 at 04:37 AMI was utterly gobsmacked by the Guardian piece - which I read ahead of the speech. I generally know how to mentally delete obvious Guardian bias. And sort of truffle out the facts beneath the soggy piecrust of opinion. And we all know "big" speeches get carefully leaked in advance, so there's a fair chance some media outlets will get the gist right. But reading that article just made me splutter: "this isn't NEWS - or even informed speculation - it's bloody propaganda. The writer hasn't the first clue about the real contents of the speech. He's just completely making stuff up." I feel that's the real outrage.
Posted by: Jody Tresidder at September 9, 2003 at 04:41 AMFor what it's worth, I described this as from The Guardian to save people working through a clumsy line like "from The Observer, The Guardian's Sunday edition".
Which I figured most people would understand. You know, like The Age and The Sunday Age.
Posted by: tim at September 9, 2003 at 04:44 AMUnconditional surrender is not an exit strategy, from either side. Exit strategies are about what is an acceptable negotiated conclusion to a conflict.
There was no exit strategy in WWII. For the Allied side, it was war to the hilt from the beginning, thanks primarily to Churchill. Win or die. Get it?
For the Islamist War, win or die is also the only outcome, because that is the way they want it. Get used to a lack of exit strategies, because this is a war of extermination, not a minor readjustment of the status quo.
Posted by: R.C. Dean at September 9, 2003 at 05:39 AMI suspect what the left wants to see in an exit strategy is something along the lines of: "We'll be out of there in six months."
There are two problems with this approach:
1) We've never yet exited on time, regardless of the administration, and all this will do is provide ammo for the Dem candidates, and
2) it just tells the islamonuts how long they need to hold up the democratizatoin of Iraq.
"FDR, Truman and Churchill (two democrats and a liberal/conservative) developed(and sold) a successful exit strategy from the worse war in history, before it was over - and despite Uncle Joe's spoiling tactics."
That "successful exit strategy" meant decades of misery for the nations of Eastern Europe.
Posted by: Catbert at September 9, 2003 at 06:53 AMAs RJGator points out, the Loony Left (my term), as well as many mainstream liberals (American definition) held communist governments to an entirely different standard on economic development than they do the Coalition Provisional Authority, lead by the U.S. There's something quite, well, Freudian about the Loony Left's unconscious faith in the Amerikkkan's ability to fulfill their stated goals attending from the high standards to which they hold those crazy cowboys.
Posted by: Tongue Boy at September 9, 2003 at 07:01 AMFor what it's worth, I described this as from The Guardian to save people working through a clumsy line like "from The Observer, The Guardian's Sunday edition".
Not exactly, Tim. The correct description would be "the Sunday newspaper published by the publishers of the Guardian".
They have different editors and different staff, although some feature writers write for both. In short, they are different newspapers.
Posted by: Mork at September 9, 2003 at 08:59 AMJesus, Mork, who gives a shit? Fine, they are different papers. Whatever. You fucking win. Your pissant, anal-retentive, check-the-stove-burners-eleven-goddamn-times-to-make-sure-you-shut-them-off OCD world view rules. All hail Mork, Keeper of the Niggling, Pointless Details! Happy now?
However, I will continue to call the "Observer" the Guardian, because it obviously makes your day that much less perfect. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 9, 2003 at 10:23 AMYou are right, Andrea.
It's just badge engineering. The poor old Poms don't know what anything is called any more.
A Mini is a BMW. So is a Rolls Royce. A Bentley is a Volkswagen. A Jaguar is a Ford. So is an Aston Martin.
The Daily Telegraph is still the Daily Telegraph last time I looked. Thank God.
Posted by: pooh at September 9, 2003 at 11:57 AMGood grief, Mork.
The Sunday Age has different staffers and editors.
Are you mental?
I am think you are probably a journo - only journos care about other journos. 'Cept Tim. Who doesn't care about anyone but himself and what he is having for lunch today.
Tim,
I have it on just as good a source as the Guardiserver that the current admin intends to implement the exit strategies developed and honed in Bosnia/Kosovo and to achieve similiar results within a similiar timeframe.
Posted by: RDB at September 9, 2003 at 12:53 PMAndrea, sweetheart, my original comment was just a humorous little throwaway. You were the one who wanted to turn it into a federal case.
And a little tip: you want to be a little careful with your language. I hear they're banning folks for incivility these days.
Posted by: Mork at September 9, 2003 at 01:08 PMSsh, pooh! That sets off Mork's buttons. Now wait -- fifty more screeds about how the Observer is not really the Guardian, because it comes out on Sunday. And I notice he said nothing to W, who pointed out another paper that has different editors and staffers on its Sunday edition. And of course it is my fault for pointing out that he was -- let's say "mistaken" -- I'm the one who made a "federal case" out of poor Mork's bit of "humor." Someone tell me what is so chuckle-inducing about this bit of pedantry:
Oh, and can someone tell Tim that the Guardian and the Observer are not the same newspaper. Of course, it would be petty to point out that it's a little embarassing to assail a newspaper for their errors and name the wrong one ... which just goes to show that I can get into the spirit of things, too.
Yeah, my stomach hurts from holding in the laughter. Hilarious! Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 9, 2003 at 03:18 PM
Well, Andrea, as we established previously, your sense of humor is not exactly your strong suit. I think it's very sensible for you to ask your friends whether it's funny.
Posted by: Mork at September 9, 2003 at 03:28 PMMork, master of the boring and dull, please find another barely-worth it bone to chew on, this one's done to death.
For the lefty wankers: "Spring has returned. The earth is like a child that knows poems." - Rainer Maria Rilke.
Now go outside and dance my young ones! Dance and hug trees and stuff! Just stop being so bloody dense...
Posted by: Jake D at September 9, 2003 at 04:45 PMRJGator: You are probably totally forgetting that Leftied ALWAYS have perfectly drawn Five-Year Plans to fix things. Plans that are perfect and work perfectly. Thus, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North Korea, and Castro's Cuba have move seamlessly from outstanding improvement to brilliant success, year after year until they have reached a heretofore unknown Paradise on Earth for the Working Man.
Capitalism, the free market, and democracy, on the other hand, largely consist of a messy conglomeration of possible paths towards hopeful goals, all of which are subject to the perceived need to change in the light of experience. Unfortunately, clinging to capitalism, the free market and democracy has ruined both the spirit and the substance of those countries unfortunate enough to be fooled into implementing them. Oh, how the happy denizens of the USSR, China, PRK, and Cuba rejoice in their carefully polished and implemented accomplishments while despairing of the fate of those planless Westerners.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at September 10, 2003 at 12:04 PMOops. Guess I should have used my friend Preview, and mentioned that GWB's lack of an exit plan is just one more example of the failures of the capitalistic, freemarket, democratic endeavor.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at September 10, 2003 at 12:06 PMI get to read the Guardian Monday to Saturday and the Observer Sunday. The Guardian is completely Anglocentric the Observer at least has a so called Scottish edition. Different newspapers, different editors, mainly different journalists, same owners, similar leftish slants. Hard to understand what there is to get so worked up about there?
Posted by: the Blawker at September 12, 2003 at 08:23 AM