Tuesday Roundup: All Petraeus, All The Time

It is no surprise that yesterday's news cycle was filled to the brim with information on General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's congressional report. What may be surprising is the lack of media consistency in presenting the story.

Normally you see a pretty big similarity of message between newspapers who are all picking up the same AP wire story. Not today. The headlines today have been all over the place. From the DMN: "Petraeus: U.S. will need large force in Iraq after surge ends." From the Star-Telegram: "U.S. can withdraw 30,000 forces by next July, commander says." MSNBC: "Petraeus: Iraq 'surge' troops to be withdrawn." The LA Times tries to take it centrist: "Petraeus' report is a potential minefield for both parties." The Washington Post, God bless 'em, does not: "Petraeus backs initial pullout." It is, as Josh would say, a rich tapestry. If you somehow managed to miss most of the reporting on the event (and yes, that was an intentional word choice), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) summed it up quite succinctly:

"Their message is, enough progress is being made to justify a little more time. How many times can you say that to the American people?"

Though there was plenty of coverage of folks making a spectacle at the proceedings in the name of progressivism and prompting folks like Jonathan Martin to say, "Karl Rove, Lee Atwater and Donald Segretti couldn't put their heads together and come up with such a dream scenario," I find those just a little depressing. I'd much rather talk about the stream of fact-checking on Petraeus' report — some straight from Congress, some from The Washington Post, and some from McClatchy. That's the sort of political wonkery that really gets me interested.

Meanwhile, just about all other news is getting drowned — such as Senate Democrats throwing an additional $1 billion into the appropriations bill for Transportation and Urban Development to help sagging bridge infrastructure. This would probably have been a great example of Democrats taking care of the home turf any news day other than this one. The bill is one of many appropriations bills that Bush has pledged to veto for being larger than what he requested, a pledge that seems to push us ever closer to a government shutdown like we saw between 1995 and 1996 for lack of funds. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey spent some time yesterday criticizing the administration for unwillingness to consider compromise. Not that that comes as a surprise or anything.

And by the way, in case you're wondering, no, George W. Bush does not seem to be able to shake the fact that Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught. After the video that came out last week, verified as using bin Laden's voice and making references to new French president and U.K. prime ministers as well as containing bin Laden's typical annual taunts at the United States, the White House was quick to stress that bin Laden is "virtually impotent." Well, some of the White House. It turns out that quite a few people within Bush's own ranks, including Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and FBI Director Robert Mueller, seem to think that bin Laden is currently "the most dangerous terrorist threat to the United States." Ouch. So much for unity in the ranks.

The Statesman used yesterday's report on Iraq as a launchpad to once again take a look at the upcoming Texas senate race against junior Senator John Cornyn. There are some good quotes in there from both Watts and Noriega, as well as some Statesman fact-checking on the purported "benefits" of extending Bush's tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. They also take a look at the state legislature, particularly focusing on Democratic Rep. Patrick Rose and his popularity and fundraising skills. He's pledged to raise a $1 million war chest by the end of the year — a lucrative, but not unheard-of, amount to spend on a state house race. They also mention the "Craddick D" designation in the article, and how he may well need all the money he's raising as he may have to fight for his seat against both a Democrat and a Republican.

In other foreign news, Monday saw bombing of a number of oil and natural gas pipelines in Mexico, threatening to cripple Mexico's export capabilities. The Popular Revolutionary Army, or EPR, has claimed credit for previous bombings, and seems to be tied in to at least some of yesterday's. If you're wondering why this matters here, that's because Mexico is worldwide the number two supplier of oil to the United States. If instability there continues, you can expect to see the effects of that at the pump.

And finally today, a quick trivia nugget: guess which country has had the greatest number of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. since 2000? Clearly this wouldn't be much of a story if the answer was Mexico; in fact, if you're thinking of anywhere in North or South America, you're wrong. The number one nation for growth in illegal U.S. immigration is India. Not that this surprises me as a member of the software industry workforce, nor that I think it actually has any fundamental bearing on the immigration debate as a whole, but that little factoid does serve to put a lot of preconceived notions on their head, I think. (Maybe the wall should be over the western coast of California instead?)