Paul Koring tries and tries

Off to a really bad start:

Photo headline (print edition): "Battle Weary: Cadets await word from Bush on Iraq pullout."

Wrong. Those who attend the Naval Academy are Midshipman, not Cadets. This was not exactly hard to figure out since the first line of the second paragraph of the speech reads as follows:

"This is the first year that every class of midshipmen at this Academy..."

The photo caption repeats the error

(The photo itself was a rather disingenuous bit. There is no news value to snoozing students at the USNA. These young men and women have agreed to serve their country in a time of war and those from the Marines face the very real danger of deployment to Iraq and the threat of death or massive injury while on duty there. What to do other than show them all taking a nap! Nice job.)

Off to a bad start in the article too. The headline (and the photo caption):

“Bush remains vague on date for withdrawing troops.”

Of course he is being vague since the whole idea that there will be a data announced is a false debate. This is being pushed by the Democrats and the media who seem to think that unless a date is decided upon now, then there is no plan and no plan means no ability to leave. It is a rhetorical tool being used to bash the administration since all “good” plans have timelines and timelines mean dates and a time when America will be assured that its sons and daughters are out of harms way. Framing the story this way is wrong and that is why the pushback from the administration has been to focus on achieving goals that allow the US to adjust its presence as the situation changes and stabilizes. Apparently the simple logic that committing to a date means your enemy now has a timeline too, is beyond Koring and his editors

There US will not pack up its gear and drive back to Kuwait on "X" day. There will be a wind down, a transition, a process and they will slowly lower their profile as Iraqi forces improve (more on this below) And, there may never be a complete withdrawal if they get basing rights for some continuing in-country and regional operational capability, which, I think, is to be expected. I find it stunning that the Globe is essentially trying to cover the President’s speech with a news angle that is essentially poorly thought out Democratic talking points.

Opening sentence:

“Under mounting pressure from a war-weary public to bring U.S. troops home”

Wrong:

"But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday night also found nearly six in 10 Americans said U.S. troops should not be withdrawn from Iraq until certain goals are achieved. "
Now this was done after Koring would have submitted his article but “increasing pressure” is just not true from November 10:

A recent CBS News poll found that 50 percent of Americans think we should leave "as soon as possible," with only 43 percent saying we should stay the course.

And

this article shows people’s opinions are greatly influenced by how the question is asked and how it is framed.

“Although Mr. Bush refused to set a target level for troop reductions, senior Pentagon officials have been hinting it could drop to as low as 100,000 by the end of 2006. That would mean bringing home one of every three U.S. marines and soldiers.”

Careful with your numbers. Would that be from current force levels of 160-170,000 which is actually more than on in three? But this is an aberration since they have overlapped the rotation of units in order to have a stronger presence for the first full constitutionally governed elections on December 15. The normal level has been about 130-140,000 which is not quite 1 of 3, but close. Opinionated Bastard has more on this and see his hilarious critique of the Kerry plan in the same post:

“there are currently 170,000 troops in Iraq, up from 140,000 prior to September. The Pentagon quietly raised the number of troops in Iraq for the October and December elections by overlapping the OIF-4 rotations against the OIF-3 rotations. That overlap ends in the first quarter of 2006. "

From Koring

“The President only hinted at troop cuts and shifting U.S. soldiers from Iraqi city centres in Baghdad and the so-called Sunni triangle, where they are particularly vulnerable to insurgent attacks”

Wrong . He didn’t hint at troop cuts, he made them explicit. But the nature of the troop withdrawals is conditional on continuing improvements in the size and capabilities of the Iraqi forces, greatly redusing insurgent activity and wiping out Al Qaeda in Iraq. A "date" is not mentioned

Here’s Bush:

"And as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down -- and when our mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will return home to a proud nation. "

Bases… yes yes they turned over a major base in Tikrit and areas of Baghdad, but the US is actually expanding the number of bases in western Anbar province, which is also part of the Sunni triangle, as the Marines finally bring a constant force presence to the Euphrates valley. Ramadi remains problematic, but I think the plan is to limit the flow of weapons and men by controlling the space out to the border with Syria and then deal with that city. Every major town between Ramadi and the Syrian border now has US combat forces close by. Fallujah, between Ramadi and Baghdad, is largely secure and rebuilding, todays single, but deadly bombing, aside. Bill Roggio has been following events in Anbar closely for some time and he is reporting from Iraq right now at Threatswatch.

“Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who lost to Mr. Bush in 2004, derided the speech.”

"This morning we saw the full power of the presidency to have the entire United States Naval Academy serve as a platform, as a front drop and a backdrop, for a presidential speech, reinforced with a very large sign front and back that says, 'Plan for Victory,' " he said. "It reminds you of an aircraft carrier and 'Mission accomplished.'”

Wow. Before he submitted the article he should have checked out this reaction to Kerry’s talking points by the noted Republican spinmeisters at Daily Kos who found Kerry's rebuttal confusing, patrician and unhelpful. They loved Senator Feingold, although i didn't find it as agreeable, and that analysis was readily available before press time.

And Closing with a quote from Ted Kennedy? Who has no credibility on security and intelligence matters. Please. Ending an article on Bush's security policies with a quote from Kennedy is like ending an article on Kennedy with a quote from the Kopechne family. It's just lame.