NYT opinions just as bankrupt via video format (Updated)

Another ironic hat-tip to hapless Duane, who pointed me to a worthless video op-ed in the New York Times produced by Steve Connors and Molly Bingham.



Isn't that something?

Let's assess the key claims in the op-ed.

On October 12th, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, made news when he joined the ranks of American politicians and pundits who once supported the war in Iraq but who now say the Bush Administration's incompetence turned the venture into a failure.

If Connors and Bingham had bothered to check, they would see that Sanchez supports the war in Iraq but faults pretty much the entire country for its conduct of the war effort. As with most in the mainstream media, Connors and Bingham stayed mum regarding Sanchez's condemnation of the media's role in the war.

Gen. Sanchez:

AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ. A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL WILL UNQUESTIONABLY LEAD TO CHAOS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE STABILITY OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST. IF THIS OCCURS IT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. COALITION AND AMERICAN FORCE PRESENCE WILL BE REQUIRED AT SOME LEVEL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.

AT NO TIME IN AMERICA'S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION.
(militaryreporters.org)

Connors and Bingham (paraphrased): Hang bipartisan cooperation! It's Bush's fault! Game over, man! Let's get out of there now!

Is it ethical to co-opt Sanchez like that? Taking words that plainly mean one thing and presenting them as though they put Sanchez in your corner? To wit: Sanchez puts the blame on the entire government and on the press. The press reports Sanchez putting the blame on Bush. Convenient, isn't it?

Connors and Bingham continue by evaluating Sanchez's claims.

There are limits to this contention (Bush incompetence leading to failure--ed.)

The power of the insurgency doomed the occupation from the start.

Quite an optimistic duo, aren't they?

This conclusion is based on recent Iraqi public opinion surveys and the World Public Opinion poll--and interviews we conducted with Iraqis for Meeting Resistance.

If you're wondering how recent public opinion surveys can possibly indicate how the occupation was doomed "from the start" then join the club.

The insurgency is mainly composed of ordinary Iraqis, not Qaeda operatives or former regime members.

Source of that datum unknown, but hardly relevant anyway so long as they're getting their butts kicked.

Not only do most Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq--they also approve killing them.

92% of Sunnis, 62% of Shiites, and 15% of Kurds approve of attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces.

Again, no source provided for the poll data--but certainly the above figures are less favorable than these (pages 29, 30) from this past summer via ABC/BBC.

Let's just say I'm very suspicious of the term "approve" as used by Connors and Bingham.

From April 2004 through May 2007 an average of 74% of significant attacks in Iraq were aimed at the U.S.--led coalition forces.

16% of attacks were directed at Iraqi forces and 10% at civilian targets.

And here the key term is obviously "significant attacks."

Many incidents “that most Americans would regard as terrorist attacks” were not reported because they didn’t meet “the strict State Department definitions of an international” event, including insurgent attacks resulting in only Iraqi fatalities.
(The Iraq Quagmire)

See the problem? If only Connors and Bingham had specifically identified the source of their data ...

78% of Iraqis believe the U.S. military is provoking more conflict than it is preventing.

Again no source offered, and the number figure is worse than the one from the ABC/BBC poll.

Iraqis told us that holding elections and meeting "benchmarks" would make no difference.

There's nothing quite like anecdotal evidence using no identifiable sources, is there?

71% of Iraqis demand a withdrawal of U.S. forces within 1 year.

65% think it is unlikely that an American departure will lead to a broader civil war

Source?

A majority of Iraqis disagree with the separation of people along sectarian lines in their country.

Still no source from the bumbling filmmakers, but this is one I've been pointing out for some time. It's an encouraging sign that the Iraqis will stick with a relatively strong national government, which is exactly the best outcome for the United States in this instance. Though of course I cited a reputable poll when I referred to the data.

Their point seems to be that there is no civil war in Iraq at all. It's just the mostly united Iraqis against the imperialistic United States. That must explain the suicide bombers who go to schools and markets to blow up their countrymen.

100% of those polled disapprove of attacks on Iraqi civilians.

Yet the video op-ed features a guy justifying attacks on interpreters and presumably others who "cooperate" with the Americans. Perhaps he doesn't count. Or maybe if an Iraqi cooperates with Americans it revokes his civilian status?

By listening to the people of Iraq, you can easily discern the root cause of the conflict: Occupation.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Connors and Bingham are stupid. Even Duane will try to explain falling civilian casualties in terms of successful ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods. But they're only doing the ethnic cleansing because of the presence of American troops?

Sorry, but their analysis is far too simplistic to be taken seriously. It gives every evidence of cherry-picked numbers chosen to support the editorialist's agenda while ignoring any data that would upset the apple cart.

Their op-ed is ethically reprehensible, even if by some miracle they obtained their poll data through a reputable source.



Update:
Judith Weiss at Kesher Talk wrote a review of the Connors and Bingham op-ed. Here's a representative sample:

In addition to inserting tendentious quotes from unidentified 2007 polls into footage from 2004, these PR flacks for terrorists take the opportunity to fit in this week's wide misquoting of General Sanchez, demonstrating that - like the NYTimes - they didn't bother to read what Sanchez actually said.
(read the whole thing)

Hat tip to the Belmont Club for leading to the update.
*****