Robert Gates, Transcripts, Senators, and the Press: Using, Redefining, and Misrepresenting
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published December 8, 2006, 11:50 am in News.
Just to let you know, I got my copy of the Iraq Study Group Report last night, and I plan on discussing it next week. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but over the weekend I should have lots of things to say. Plan on Iraq ad nauseum. Or at least in detail...
If you have read any of my previous columns, you know that I try to always state my sources when necessary. If something is merely historical or about someone's background, I don't worry about it because that information can be found in any standard reference work. But when it's from the either controversial or from the news, I try to cite the source. In my last post, I discussed Robert Gates as our new Secretary of Defense. (As an update, he was confirmed on Wednesday and will take office sometime in December.) In that column, I listed a report on www.msnbc.com as my primary source. But then Ronald White left a great comment. He said that Senator John McCain, who I have praised as one of the few viable 2008 candidates, asked Gates, "did I understand you to say NO on are we winning the war in Iraq?" And I wanted to check up on that to see when the question was asked and whether it was in the context of some other comment.
My checking led me to the Washington Post's transcript of the Senate Confirmation Hearing. I don't like reading or hearing these confirmation proceedings. They're generally very dull. This one has been called a "love-fest" by many different news organizations, as well as "nonfrontational" by many others. But there are still interesting and provocative comments when you get 24 current and two former Senators in a room together all talking about a controversial subject. There are two main problems, though: each of the Senators only wants to push his or her agenda. Then they want to see whether the nominee agrees with him or her. You see this point of view brought up over and over again in the transcript. McCain, for example, tries to get Gates to agree that more troops are needed. Others try to make him see that more troops are not needed. The other problem, which is a minor political point, is that the Senators are way too polite to one another. It makes for civilized debate, certainly, but not for exciting reading. They try to crack jokes, which are sometimes even funny (When Bob Dole introduces himself, he says that he is probably there by accident: "The phone rang at home and I picked it up and the person on the other end said, 'Senator Dole, would you mind introducing me at the hearing?' And I said, 'Yes.' And I learned later they were calling for Elizabeth." Now that's actually kind of funny. If Bob Dole had been that funny during his Presidential bout, he probably would have won it. I remember watching him on Saturday Night Live right after his loss, and he was hilarious, always making fun of himself. During the campaign, however, he was the stuffy one.). But most of the time, these Senators just praise one another for their contributions and always defer way too nicely to the Chairman. It's all fine, but it doesn't make for exciting reading.
But it was good for me. Reading the transcript brought out or confirmed two important points that I want to discuss here. The first one is that I rely too heavily on news reports. The second is that the original provides a lot more information. I will discuss these two points jointly, for they are definitely not discrete.
So news reports are condensed versions, and I realize now that they may sometimes be inaccurate. Let's look at what Gates actually says about whether we are "winning the war in Iraq." Senator
Senator Levin asks Gates, "Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?" and Gates replies, "No, sir." That's as black and white as it gets. I'm happy about that statement. As Ronald White points out in his comment to my post, "It's about time someone told the truth."
Then Senator McCain is introduced, and his first question is as Ronald White says. Let me provide a few snippets for context:
"MCCAIN: I'd like to follow on just what Senator Levin said. We are not winning the war in Iraq; is that correct?
GATES: That is my view -- yes, sir.
MCCAIN: And, therefore, status quo is not acceptable?
[This is where the context comes in. McCain is trying to lead Gates to a conclusion. It's an old Socratic trick where you make the opponent (too harsh a term in this context, but I'll use it for lack of a different one) fall into your trap. IF Gates thinks we aren't winning, then he has to think something needs to change, that the "status quot is not acceptable."]
GATES: That is correct, sir.
MCCAIN: I know you did a great deal of work with the Iraq Study Group, and there is a general consensus of opinion now, in hindsight, that we didn't have sufficient number of troops at the time of the invasion to control Iraq -- either Anbar Province, the looting, most importantly the weapons and ammunition depots that were looted at the time. When anarchy prevails, it's very difficult to gain control of a country. Do you agree that, at the time of the invasion, we didn't have sufficient troops to control the country, in hindsight?
[And this is what McCain has been pushing for a while now--we need more troops in the region. He has tried to lead Gates to the same conclusion. The implication is that if we didn't have enough troops then, we probably don't have enough troops now.]
GATES: Well, I had to deal with hindsight in some of the decisions that I've made, Senator McCain, and sometimes it's not very comfortable. I suspect, in hindsight, some of the folks in the administration probably would not make the same decisions that they made. And I think one of those is that there clearly were insufficient troops in Iraq after the initial invasion to establish control over the country."
Let me just say here that I like that straightforward answer. I haven't heard anyone in the administration say it before: "I suspect, in hindsight, some of the folks in the administration probably would not make the same decisions that they made." He elaborates on a possible one, but there could be a lot of other decisions, such as invading in the first place! But that's another column altogether and possibly not a very urgent point because, well, we already did it.
So White was right in his comment about McCain, but it doesn't really bother me so much. I actually appreciate what McCain was trying to do there, even if he was just trying to get Gates to agree with him. My judgment could be clouded by the fact that I like McCain, but I'm willing to put that aside for now. (Of course you are, Chad--you like the guy.)
Later, Senator Inhofe asks him,
"You were asked the question: Are we winning in Iraq? General Pace was asked that question yesterday. He said, 'No, we're not winning, but we're not losing.' Do you agree with General Pace?
GATES: Yes, sir, at this point."
Now this question I'm not so sure about. And I don't think it's because Inhofe is a Republican (after all, McCain is a Republican, too). Inhofe is trying to get Gates to move into how we can win the war, which he suggests could be by investing in a new kind of future combat. But he also suggests that we need to worry more about China than anything else. I'm not even sure if the guy had any questions for Gates, who was forced to say, pretty much, that he didn't have the classified information that Inhofe was asking him about.
Then Senator Clinton's turn finally comes around and she uses the opportunity to insult Rumsfeld: "And Dr. Gates, thank you for your candor. That's something that has been sorely lacking from the current occupant in the position that you seek to hold." I'm not sure that I respect that. There's no point in praising someone and insulting the previous person; that doesn't get one anywhere useful.
But there's more to it. Let's look at how msnbc reported this nugget: "Previously, Democrats said they would probably support Gates if for no other reason than his confirmation meant the ouster of Donald H. Rumsfeld, a polarizing figure in the administration and architect of the unpopular Iraq war. But Gates' public declaration that the nation was not winning the war -- contradicting President Bush's Oct. 25 statement that 'Absolutely, we're winning' -- helped warm even Bush's sharpest critics."
Senator Clinton actually brings this up. She says, "Well, you know, Dr. Gates, since the president made a statement as recently as October 25th that we were absolutely winning, many of us believe that the outcome of the election has triggered the willingness of the president to perhaps look at other options."
Let's ignore that last part and concentrate on what the President said. In his White House Press Conference Transcript from October 25, he does say, "Absolutely, we're winning."
But it's more complicated than that, and it's more complicated than either MSNBC or Senator Clinton says it is. Basically, the President thinks of the war differently than everyone else does. Maybe this is a fault, but it seems clear from that press conference. There, he is asked whether we are winning the war in Iraq in context of the length of time we have been there as opposed to the length of time it took for us to win WWII. It's a loaded, negative question, obviously. If we only spent X years in WWII and we're now in Iraq for X years, obviously you screwed up. But even if the question isn't fair, President Bush doesn't answer it right away, either. He goes on to redefine the war in Iraq as just another "front" in the war on terrorism. A different kind of enemy and a different kind of war. It's not "the war in Iraq" for him. It's the "war on terror," and Iraq is just one place where that war is being played out. Perhaps that's a wrongheaded assumption and doesn't focus on the immediate need in Iraq, but let's run with it.
Because he didn't give the interviewer a yes or no answer, she asks him again, after hearing him explain about this war on terror, "Are we winning?"
He replies, "Absolutely, we're winning." But he doesn't stop there. He goes on: "Al Qaeda is on the run. As a matter of fact, the mastermind, or the people who they think is the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks is in our custody. We've now got a procedure for this person to go on trial, to be held for his account. Most of al Qaeda that planned the attacks on September the 11th have been brought to justice."
Did you see the switch there? The question in the press's mind was "Are we winning [the war in Iraq]?" But the question in Bush's mind, or at least how he interpreted it because the war in Iraq is just another part of the war on terror, is "Are we winning [the war on terror?]"
But when people report it, they don't get that context. They say that Bush said, when asked whether we are winning the war in Iraq, "Absolutely, we're winning."
Gates thought of the question differently, too. He knew they meant the war in Iraq. "Are we winning." "No."
He clarified it later, of course, but he stuck by his statement.
Now, all of this is important. It tells me that I can't rely on secondhand information, whether it's from a news source or a Senator. It took me a while to reach that conclusion, and now I'm not sure what I can do about it. I just can't get my hands on all primary accounts...
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment