Saturday, August 18, 2007
|
|
Presenting The Petraeus Report: An Immodest Proposal
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:56 PM
|
In Wednesday's interview with me that quickly zipped around the MSM for its snippet of conversation about Tony Snow's future, the White House Press Secretary revealed that plans on how the mid-September report of General Petraeus would be communicated had not yet been decided. This is a crucial moment in securing the confidence of the country not just in the early success of the surge, but more generally in the leadership of the Coalition's forces in Iraq and the plan they are following, and so I offer these suggestions to the team trying to discern how best to communicate with the American public on this vital effort.
In a word, bluntly. In another word, seriously. That means a new approach that avoids both the gaggle and the narrow field of vision of the White House press corps while understanding that there is no "audience" in America anymore, but many very discrete audiences, each one of which needs to hear what the general has to say.
While General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will appear before the relevant Congressional committees, it is the right of the American people, and especially those families that have sacrificed so much through the loss of a loved one, and the men and women of the military who are called on to bear the burden, to receive both an unmediated report from the general, but also a serious set of tough questions.
The Indian Treaty Room in the OEOB can accommodate a number of cameras and journalists. I suggest that after receiving the general and the ambassador for a first person report, the president ask Tony Snow to introduce the pair for their extended remarks in the ITR, followed by questions from a group of high profile and experienced journalists, wherein each journalist would be allowed three questions. The only precondition should be that their networks carry the entire proceedings live or, if a print organization or electronic medium, post the entire transcript and audio file as soon as they are available.
The journalists invited to attend and ask questions provided their news organizations agree to the conditions should be the biggest names in responsible reporting: Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson, Brit Hume, Time Russert, and George Stephanopoulos from MSM, Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh representing the vast audience (and three large networks) of syndicated radio, Peter Beinart, E.J. Dionne, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and Nina Easton from print opinion journalism, The New York Times' John Burns and the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks from print reporting, and from new media, Jeralyn Merritt, Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey. I would also recommend Matt Burden from Blackfive and NZ from The Victory Caucus as representatives of bloggers long committed in word and deed to supporting the troops.
That's a total of 20 journalists of all varieties, representing not only a huge audience but also a broad spectrum of views and constituencies, and certain to present General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker with a wide array of fair but important questions. If the order of the questions was determined by a draw from the hat, no one could accuse the White House of attempting to manage the news.
Assuming the general spoke 30 minutes and the ambassador 15, their remarks and the 60 questions to follow could consume four hours.
And those four hours would have the huge audience they deserved.
|
|
No, I'm just willing to understand that the surge is having progress and that being P.O.'d at Bush is just a waste of time and energy.
You're entitled to reject Patreaus. You're also entitled to be angry at Bush.
But don't project that line of thinking onto anyone else. I just see things differently than you. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just different. Also doens't mean you're enlightened either. |
|
All this arguing over "bad intel" and "Saddam was no threat to the USA", is completely moot. We're there, from every indication, the surge seems to be making good progress.
Why not go with it? Why not give Patreaus and the troops an atta boy?
You see, a stable Iraq that:
A. Hates AQ
B. Hates Iran
C. Doesn't have a ruthless murdering dictator that lets his evil sons torture his people to death by the thousands and abuses an oil for food program to fund his army or his decadent extravagant lifestyle while his people (the ones not being tortured) starve.
Is GOOD.... |
|
The only reason we didn't go to Bagdhad in '90 was Bush 41's decision to listen to the UN's problem children having a fit.
You like the UN, right? |
|
By the way, have you ever seen what a chickenhawk can do to a chicken?
Find a new insult to my integrity please, my fellow troopies stopped laughing at that one loooooong ago.
Did YOU serve? (USAR,1986-1994) |
|
Exactly what percentage of troops serving in Iraq does seven people constitute?
Not enough to form policy-making decisions around, unless you're a lefty. |
|
...Sigh...Great Britain didn't go in shooting?
Tell Tony Blair. Read those books yet?All that dandy quoting you're addicted to didn't seem to indicate that part.Video shot from the air of thousands of Kurds..what...Taking mass naps,perhaps? Yer a joke,puppy-dear.
By-the-By,Saddam's own generals were amazed(after the war)that they didn't have WMD.I love it.
Besides,that Bad Boy had to go.Huge threat to our
...yep...national security and a fetid pustule in
that region.Bu-Bye.
Now,slap that Domestic Pod'na & shooo now. |
|
--------------------------------ZZZZZZZ------- |
|
..is right on-mark, Tensor. Pathetic. Understated,
but AFFIRMATIVE. |
|
...today in the WingNuttoSphere on the NYT op-ed written by seven soldiers finishing their 15-month tour.
Pathetic. |
|
Hugh included people other than his girlfriends Steyn, VDH and Barone. I am surprised he even allowed people from outside his "serious" inner circle folks.
But leaving the leading voice of the conservative movement, Savage was a big joke. Is it a coincidence that over 12 M folks have signed on his website begging him to run for office! |
|
I strongly agree. Petreaus is an impressive warrior,without an "agenda" other than killing
Islamist Butchers and bringing stability to the country.He's a true Adult.Let him report without the nipping dogs of the press at his ankles.He'll have enough doofuses to deal with from those steely CYA's in congress. |
|
An excellent choice. Let's make sure, though, that there isn't any conflict between Hannity's Republican candidate fundraising schedule and performing this vital national service of "responsible reporting".
Give me a break. |
|
I can see you're still not house broken. Please tell me where the US military has lost a battle in this war against Islamic Jihadist?
C'Ya
B |
|
The bottom line in all this is that the American people need to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. It should be done however, without any media present, especially those armed with politically charged "gotcha" questions.
Let the general and the ambassador make their cases to the people. If the people in the press have arguments or require that statements made by Patraeus or Crocker be verified, let them go to Iraq. They should be required to go with the specific understanding that they will be taken to the actual location of their dispute, to ascertain a "first hand account" of the validity of their argument, not from the safety of the Green Zone."
For once, the American people need to get news and information from the "horses mouth," not through the filter of any media. |
|
Yummy. All happiness,Fellas.
Still with the,'EEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkKK, W M D,
Biggy?? Figure those pesky intelligence agencies
of France,Great Britain,Germany and Russia which
were backing up that information was some kinda' ruse.Because the French & Rooskies love us so much?You won't,of course,torture yourselves with critical thought,but if--under heavy meds--you decide to peer at some evidence...A fine place to start is,"The Greatest Threat" by Richard Butler,
former Chairman of UNSCOM.(2001)Then,for a lotta snickers,move on to Dr.Khidhir Hamza's first person report,"Saddam's Bombmaker"(2000)...
Now,shoooo,you lil'Rascals. |
|
|
The General needs to have an opportunity to put just a modest bit of space and time between his remarks and the questions about them. Reporters, commentators and politicians have the unfortunate habit of asking highly rhetorical, argumentative and leading questions. They should get that opportunity, but first General Petreaus should be able to state his message, for good or for ill, without the immediately ensuing chaos of a political free-for-all posed in the form of "questions" of no particular probative value, but designed instead purely for the benefit if the American political jury and the careers of those posing the questions. |
|
|
Not since MacArthur returned from Korea has a General's comments been so anticipated. He should arrive at Andrew's AFB, proceed to the Pentagon and from there to Capitol Hill. No meeting with the President, no meeting with the press, and no meeting with political commentators. The Senate voted for him unanimously. This should be a state event, not a political one. Any private chit-chat with the President will be interpreted as the general getting his marching orders. After his address to the Congress, the White House for a report to the commander-in-chief. Then the WH pressroom, then everyone else. |
|
Written by seven non-coms, and basically eviscerates the arguments advanced on these pages and by the Bill Kristols and Laura Ingrahams and Joseph Liebermans of the world.
You guys better get cracking and gear up another Private Beauchamp campaign... |
|
Though not from you, Hugh.
If Limbaugh & Hannity don't belong on the list - and I agree, they don't - then neither does E.J. Dionne.
Funny how the lefty commentators don't mention that, though .... I guess "balance" isn't really what they're interested in.
Anyway, to the laugh - - - - -
the lefties who think they're winning this argument sure don't seem to be very happy.
Heh.
|
|
Thanks, Hugh. I'm very flattered to be included on your list and just in case the White House is reading, I'm available.
|
|
|
It's a shame that this whitehouse would never do anything like this. They are NOT media savvy and have never figured out how to deliver their message |
|
jaunt for Hugh would be useful for various reasons...Not least of which is that it'll give him an up close feet-on-the-ground view & feel.
Let him go hang with Michael Yon for awhile.HH expresses himself exceptionally well and,with Iraq(& maybe Afghanistan)experience under his belt,he could be even more useful in bringing the daily fight to "the enemy within."
Something to seriously ponder. |
|
makes good points... I'm glad to see Captain Ed on that list Hugh; as Ed offers a consistent "fair & balanced" perspective.
I don't like the idea of Hugh going to Iraq though; Hugh is needed right here in the good ol USA to lead the fight against the enemy within; our warriors have the Iraq theater covered. The war against "defeatist" and "Liberalism" is as important as the battles taking place in the ME; Hugh is like a field General here in the states; taking the fight to the enemy on a daily basis (and yes, I include Toady in the category "enemy within").... |
|
Iraq has merit,Hugh. Several of your colleagues on
conservative radio & bloggers have done so.The troops hugely appreciate it and though--Ok,ok--
you ain't a drop dead Babe like Michelle,they'd still warmly welcome you.And,since your 9-times smarter(in-your-sleep)than the KosRoids yammering above,you'll ask alot of valid questions,get a feel for what our brave troops are up against and what more we can be doing at our scrawny civilian end.Think about it.
Funny,all this stratagizing on the Petraeus Report to be prepared--PER THE LAW--by the President...Neither Petraeus nor Bush are Flim-Flam BS Artists,so it'll most likely be presented 'straight ahead',no frills.What a Hoot and how profoundly pathetic,cowardly & craven that
the Demodweebs are COMMITTED TO DEFEAT IN IRAQ
above all else.They are showing signs of true panic that the Surge is working,the report will be positive(and adult),the General will be well received by Americans(who want us to WIN)and they(surprise,surprise)will look like lilly-livered
seditionists by comparison.Here's a picture for you:General Petraeus,with his command,depth,experience,battle muscle and non-
sentimentality...vs...Feckless Harry Reid,Carl Levin,Slo'Joe Biden,Besotted Ted Kennedy,Shallow
Caricature John Kerry...Duhhhhhhhh !
Oh,yeahhhhh...Americans can have a nice 'Choose for yourselves' Lesson.Yum-Yummmmmm. |
|
I doubt you'd get twenty national news organizations to agree to these conditions. But suppose at least CSPAN or a radio network agreed to a live broadcast for FOUR HOURS.
1) Not 1 American in 100 will listen to a four-hour press conference.
2) Half of America would read the usual MSM summaries about this unique press conference. So you'd be promoting the usual MSM spin, not hard data.
3) By agreeing to dilute his message over four hours of Q & A, the General would destroy it. Without searching the Internet, could you quote just one sentence from the two-hour speech given before Lincoln took the podium at Gettysburg?
4) By promoting the report as sensational news, without actually delivering a message, you'd be granting the defeatist mantra a new depth and power. "I listened to Petraeus for all four hours, and I know now it's hopeless." It'd be the new version of a Baghdad-market stroll: Americans have no choice but experience it through a politician, who assures them it was deeply meaningful and confirmation of what they've been saying all along.
5) Our message is clear: we have an obligation to win the war, and all that's on the table is how to fulfill that obligation. From that perspective, Petraeus' report is certainly useful but not THE turning point in the history of the war. The people insisting Petraeus' report is the event of the year are going to argue that we have no further obligations to Iraq and the only thing on the table is how to get out of this mess. Don't play it their way by pretending the General is the Decider and Congress is just his audience. |
|
The key insight is to get a major direct audience forum for Petraeus, to reach Americans directly, unfiltered by the spin and "translation" masters of the news media. I don't want talking heads translating and spinning to us what his presentation means, we need the message so we can decided. This is very powerful.
This approach would be a major threat to traditional media and politics, who wants to deliver the meaning message after showing 15 seconds of what they said. I am often shocked to see the gap between what people actual spoke and how the media delivers the "bottom line".
Having a diversity of people, traditional media and non traditional right and left views, would be respected by most Americans as more balanced than what we have. It isn't about who is asking the questions, it is having a diversity of perspectives asking the questions that is important. What is most important is Petraeus can deliver direct, unfiltered answers to Americans.
|
|
|
but it will not happen. I'd be happy if Petraeus and Crocker just give their report directly to the entire nation on the major networks with no questions. But the Defeatists will never allow that - loook at what they are already saying above - they simply cannot allow a non-MSN Defeatist narrative. The stakes for them politically are too great - their future is based upon defeat - and the fate of the nation is just completely irrelevant comparatively. Nothing will change that fact, not the facts on the ground, the morality of abandoning the people of Iraq, our obligations as a country to the 3,000+ dead from 9/11. None of that matters if a defeat against AQI brings a dem victory in 2008. In their mind that is a defeat is a small price to pay for a political victory. |
|
Sometimes... I like Michelle Malkin as much as the nest rabid right winger but if you're going to invite her as your extreme right wing blogger, then you have to invite Kos himself for the left. Thoughtfully, it would be a very good idea for them to invite Kos; the proverbial win-win if you think about it. If he declines, he looks bad; if he asks stupid questions, he looks bad; if he sits quietly while he receives thoughtful answers to his questions, he looks bad to his audience.
Oh yeah, invite the MarKos himself. |
|
I can't see this White House, getting that media savy, ever.
It would command an audience not only for the content, but the audacity and outside the box nature of the setting itself would be newsworthy.
You give NBC, CNN, CBS, FOX, and ABC each a seat. You give a similar handful of print media. You have some radio guys (we all know Hugh goes instead of Rush...) Finally you mix in some bloggers. Interesting. The White House press corps would probably poop themselves.
|
|
Please proceed forthwith and do shun any and all comments from the Peanut Gallery. Please do keep on pushing it!
2nd, well that won't be discussed in public but Dean's got to get more active in addressing some issues like those he's addressed before regarding some of the more rabid troll postings here.
|
|
This list is oh, suspiciously weighed toward those "serious" people who quibble about the war but never really questioned it -- the thoughtful people who figuratively -- and in Malkin's case, literally -- cheer lead Bush on.
The remaining handful can safely be counted on to ask some weak, "skeptical" questions while never questioning the underlying war or getting into any serious discussion.
What a pathetic grouping of sycophants and Establishment types.
http://www.themechanicaleye.com
DU |
|
|
|