At The Mudville Gazette, Greyhawk takes apart Time magazine's Michael Ware's assertion that Iraqi troops were "were not leading" in the battle of Tal Afar.
Greyhawk's thoughtful analysis demonstrates that Ware's feeble attempt to discredit President Bush's description of the progress being made by Iraqi forces actually supports and reinforces what the President said:
First, note that Ware acknowledges the placement of Iraqi forces in the battle - "I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda" - this statement is all that's needed to confirm the President's account.
[. . .]
But Ware's problem is with the Special Forces advisors; their presence indicates the Iraqis aren't ready to go it alone. But the "argument" boils down to this: the President says progress is being made towards a goal where Iraqi forces can carry the battle themselves, and his detractors counter that it isn't true - because they haven't yet reached that goal.
[. . .]
His argument that they were not "in the lead" because they had Special Forces advisors with them "right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda" is equally ridiculous - and an insult to the courage and resolve of Iraqi troops and the Special Forces. No one - certainly not the president (who, if you want to be mince words, actually said "The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces") is claiming the Iraqis are ready to go without our help. This is the whole reason we're still there.
There is more to Greyhawk's analysis and I recommend you read the whole thing.
A question I wish Greyhawk addressed in his demolition of Ware's "fact checking' is why would CNN's Anderson Cooper utilize Michael Ware to fact check President Bush's speech?
As I posted in Ramadi Assault Just Propaganda?, Ware associates with the enemy in Iraq.
Two years ago I posted "Time Finds A WMD" about an interview NPR's Robert Siegel's had with Ware. The interview revealed that Ware had been going on adventures with the terrorists for the previous five months. These outings even included one during which Ware witnessed an attack being launched against a U.S. facility. During the interview Ware talks about a "chemical weapon" he was shown by the enemy.
There is also this CNN article from last year about Ware serving as a conduit for the terrorists' videos of their evil acts.
Ware understands that the war is a huge propaganda war. He recently told New York public radio WNYC'c Leonard Lopate:
I mean, the entire crux of this war is… it's a matter of propaganda and perception. This is a war, as the insurgents were telling me even last year, it's not going to be won and lost on the battlefield, but on television. This is what the military calls an “IO Campaign.” An Information Operation. So, the insurgents are extraordinarily adept at it, much better than the US military.
So why would Anderson Cooper use Ware as a fact checker? Why does Time use Ware as the magazine's Baghdad bureau chief? And why does the U.S. military embed Ware with U.S. combat units?
Comments