January 22: headline and first two grafs of a Guardian story by Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and Rory McCarthy
US and UK look for early way out of Iraq
Private memos are circulating in Washington, Baghdad and London setting out detailed scenarios for withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq as early as possible, a Foreign Office source said yesterday.
The policy papers have added urgency because a new Iraq government, to be elected next week if the election goes ahead on January 30 as planned, could set a target date for withdrawal.
Well, that's it then. Game's over. Reading the insurgents' handwriting on the wall, Bush and Blair obviously realize Iraq's a lost cause--and soon it'll be helicopter time off the roof of the U.S. embassy. So sorry about the civil war, the fresh mass graves, bin Laden's declaration of Baghdad as the capital of his newly-restored caliphate...
But wait. As the story progresses we read:
from American Ambassador John Negroponte: We have not been approached [by Iraqi leaders] on this issue;
from Britain's Foreign Office: Of course we think about leaving Iraq...There are continually plans in Whitehall, Washington and Baghdad to leave when we can..But there is no document saying we will leave in July 2005 or any such date;
from a source in the British defense department: We are not there by a long chalk; and .
from the writers themselves: Senior British military figures want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq as quickly as possible. But they also recognize that substantial numbers are likely to be there well into next year, and possibly longer.
Nor are there any quotes or facts supporting the writers' contention that the U.S. and England are in any "urgent" hurry to withdraw from the country.
Bias is one thing. But when a story's facts contradict not only its headline (from which most newspaper readers derive their news) but the very premise of the story itself, we are beyond mere journalistic bias and into the realm of journalistic... irresponsibility.
Comments