"That's what happens in free societies when people try to draw attention to themselves"

Ah, the liberal media.

What's that you say? What liberal media? I'm glad you asked. The McClatchy news service reported recently on a trip to Iraq by President Bush. During a joint press conference with Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki, an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at Bush, after which he was detained and arrested. Hitting someone with your shoe is a grave insult in Muslim culture.

The McClatchy story played up the journalist's actions as "a reminder that many Iraqis see him not as a liberator who freed them from Saddam Hussein but as an occupier who pushed their country into chaos." Objective reporting? Based on what?

Now, the above is bad enough but the part that prompted me to write was the later use of a Bush quotation. Check this out:

Bush said the shoe-throwing incident didn't faze him. He tried to laugh about it, saying, "It didn't bother me, and if you want the facts it was a size 10 shoe he threw at me."

He continued with the press conference, taking a question from an Iraqi reporter and another from an American.

"That's what happens in free societies when people try to draw attention to themselves," he said.

From the context provided in the story, it isn't especially clear what Bush is talking about when he says "That's what happens." What is "(t)hat"? The first inclination might even lead to the conclusion that Bush is talking about how people get arrested when they try to draw attention to themselves, even though it is difficult to make sense of the comment in that context minus the premise that Bush has some bizarre notion of free society. I'll be interested to see the spin on this from the left.

I found a reasonably balanced account at Editor and Publisher, noting how another journalist was the first to take down the shoe-thrower and a mass of the journalists apologized for the action.

And here is the context of Bush's statement, via Whitehouse.gov:

Q (Inaudible.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what if a guy threw a shoe at me?

Q But you are also very (inaudible) about progress -- (inaudible). Do you consider this a victory lap?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I consider it a important step in -- on the road toward an Iraq that can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself.

But let me talk about the guy throwing the shoe. It is one way to gain attention. It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and have people not gesturing with all five fingers. It's a way for people to, you know, draw -- I don't know what the guy's cause is. But one thing is for certain -- he caused you to ask me a question about it. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it. These journalists here were very apologetic, they were -- said, this doesn't represent the Iraqi people. But that's what happens in free societies, where people try to draw attention to themselves. And so I guess he was effected (effective--bw), because he caused you to say something about it.

Bush's explanation is far clearer than that of those who paraphase him, at least so far.

Pulling the quotation out of context created a misleading impression. Shame on McClatchy, along with writers Adam Ashton and Mohammed al Dulaimy.

AAAAAAAGH! Reporters! (Updated)

McClatchy News is all over the newly published report that calls the Iraq War a "debacle."

Sounds like just the sort of thing that will vindicate Senators Obama and (to a lesser extent) Clinton, doesn't it?

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.
(McClatchy)

Whoa. Things are going downhill, apparently.

Here's what I take to be the nut graph (second paragraph overall):

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The sixth paragraph is the one that informs us that the report was written in the Fall of 2007. So much for "fresh doubts."

"Despite impressive progress in security, the outcome of the war is in doubt," said the report.

Oh. Well, that doesn't sound quite as bad. There was always some doubt about the ultimate outcome. I was among those concerned beforehand regarding the relationship between Iraq's various social groups, based on their history.

Twelfth paragraph, quoting the report:

"For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a 'must win,' but for many others, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a 'can't win.'"

In terms of news, this viewpoint from the author is buried at the bottom of the inverted pyramid, the journalistic practice of frontloading the most important part of the story and adding the details in decreasing order of importance. The entire story was 19 paragraphs long.

The report analyzed the execution of the war and found it wanting. Not fresh.

The report talked about polls. Having been written in the Fall ... not fresh.

In terms of freshness, the best that can be said is that the report was newly published. Second place is the fresh load of manure from the mainstream press as it stamps its opinion indelibly on the story via the style of delivery.

Update:

Small Wars Journal provides the antidote for Landay-Walcott Syndrome via their contact with report author Joseph J. Collins:

The Miami Herald piece on a NDU "occasional paper" (Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath), quoted alternately as a Pentagon or NDU study, raised some flags here at SWJ. So we asked the author, Joseph Collins, to provide some context. His reply:

The Miami Herald story ("Pentagon Study: War is a 'Debacle' ") distorts the nature of and intent of my personal research project. It was not an NDU study, nor was it a Pentagon study. Indeed, the implication of the Herald story was that this study was mostly about current events. Such is not the case. It was mainly about the period 2002-04. The story also hypes a number of paragraphs, many of which are quoted out of context. The study does not "lay much of the blame" on Secretary Rumsfeld for problems in the conduct of the war, nor does it say that he "bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff." It does not single out "Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley" for criticism.

There's more where that came from, so pay Small Wars Journal a visit.

*****