Mike Tobin, Fox News Correspondent at Centcom in Qatar, had an interesting report on Brit Hume's show this evening about how journalism works:

There's been a real thirst in the press corps here to write something saying that the battle plan is off track. When the news came out that a 100,000 plus more troops were being sent, it was first being viewed as a desperate reach for more reinforcements. It was later learned that was part of the plan all along. And when this quote came out from Lt. General Wallace saying the battle plan was taking a little longer than expected, Brigadier General Brooks, who does the briefings regularly, was peppered with questions from an impatient press, trying to get him to cough up a sound bite saying that they had underestimated their opponent. (Clip of several correspondents asking essentially the same leading questions.)

He ended with clips from Al Jazeera demonstrating its "pro-Arab anti-American agenda." Hint. Hint.

But Brooks has stayed true to his message that the battle plans are going like clockwork.

This sure doesn't look like an objective search for truth, or even an effort toward interpretation. They all seem to have their stories written and are just looking for something to support them. Funny, too, how the stories are all the same, building on a quote from the New York Times.


The Times quotes General Wallace,

"The enemy we're fighting is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against, because of these paramilitary forces.. . . We knew they were here, but we did not know how they would fight.. . .

"Technical vehicles with .50-caliber weapons � any kind of weapon � leading the charge," the general said, incredulous. "They were charging tanks and Bradleys." He termed such behavior "bizarre." . . .


Asked whether the fighting of recent days increased the chances of a longer war than forecast by some military planners, General Wallace said, "It's beginning to look that way."

This has been the talk all day long. Brit Hume put it to his "All-Stars' like a good cross-examiner, bringing out the point that Wallace's remark was being treated like an admission that the war had become bogged down in "quagmire," when it meant no such thing. General Brooks said that things are still still consistent with their original plan, so the whole story is now about the spin.

It has turned into a meta-issue of who raised expectations, and the administration has been badgered into going after the targets in Baghdad regardless of the civilians Saddam as placed around them. The atrocities of innocent civilians being killed will be furnished by Saddam whether we actually hit any or not, so maybe it doesn't matter, but it seems a little bloodthirsty on the part of these correspondents. It makes you wonder who the warmongers here are.

This morning the White House press corps were trying to impute some kind of dishonesty to the administration. Bill Plant from CBS started out complaining in accusatory tones to Ari Fleischerthat he had done "very little to lower expectations, in the run up to this. Even if you didn't raise them yourself, you did nothing to lower what we were hearing from the Pentagon, and from other outside pundits about how well, how quickly this war would go." Fleischer then respondes with quotes proving just the opposite.


What gives? Can't these people take responsibility? They get highly insulted that they are considered biassed and anti-American, but when you see stuff like this, how can you think anything else? One reporter (possibly Terry Moran of ABC) suggested to Fleischer that the Fedayeen Saddam weren't really thugs, but patriots and freedom fighters.


As always, Mara Liasson tries to defend her associates, but is unpersuasive, blaming it on the fact that these press conferences are broadcast live. Maybe that's why courts are worried about televising trials. These people were like a room full of Johnny Cochran clones.

I'm starting to gain some insight into the world of journalists, and I think that the world of lawyers might be more honest.

Brit Hume is in a position to critique his profession and he's doing so in a very Socratic way.