Washington Post Reports on Iraq as Fiasco

With the appearance of being in a no-win situation, news coverage of Iraq is becoming progressively negative. There were two good examples of this today. The Washington Post has a front page story entitled Bush’s New Iraq Argument: It Could Be Worse. They note how it is getting harder for the White House to claim otherwise:

Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University scholar whose research on public opinion in wartime has been influential in the White House, said Bush has little choice.

“He looks foolish and not credible if he says, ‘We’re making progress in Iraq,’ ” Gelpi said. “I think he probably would like to make that argument, but because that’s not credible given the facts on the ground, this is the fallback. . . . If the only thing you can say is ‘Yes, it’s bad, but it could be worse,’ that really is a last-ditch argument.”

As recently as two weeks ago, Bush was still making the case that things in Iraq are better than they seem. The new Iraqi government “has shown remarkable progress on the political front,” he said on Aug. 7, calling its mere existence “quite a remarkable achievement.”

Another Washington Post reporter was interviewed on NPR’s Morning Edition today:

Tom Ricks, a reporter for the Washington Post and author of the book Fiasco, says he’s seen a persistent disconnect between U.S. strategy and U.S. tactics in Iraq. Ricks tells Steve Inskeep that the current U.S. strategy is being undermined by questionable tactics.

It is good to see the Washington Post reporting more realistically. If only they had realized this would be a Fiasco from the start and didn’t give Bush a free ride in the months before the war.

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a comment