Contradictory?

The BB Gang find this contradictory:

In the Washington Post today, Nancy Boyda reported that commanders in Iraq were "cautiously optimistic" about new efforts to secure Baghdad.

That's not the same picture she painted in today's Cap Journal, where "she had little positive to report."

If the only good thing going on is that the commanders are "cautiously optimistic," I think that's "little positive to report."

For instance, rape of female soldiers is a bad thing. The escalating civil war (and no, BB, it isn't externally fomented, it's an internal clash). The rate of American fatalities continues to rise, car bombs and attacks on civilians increase apace, and soldiers report that the only noticeable effect of training sessions with Iraqi army or police is that the insurgents have better tactics and better aim afterward. Different ministries of the Iraqi government are openly at war with each other, the lights still don't stay on, the streets aren't safe for anyone, and when soldiers come home, they often can't get the care they deserve for physical and psychological injuries.

But the commanders are "cautiously optimistic." I'd be cautious with that, too. After all, too many of our leaders were pretty optimistic before the war started.

More like this

Ah, the difference is straight reporting (bad news comes through unaltered) versus 'executive summary' (news travelling top down).

Clear now?

And let's not forget that "cautiously optimistic" is military-speak for "I'd really like to get my retirement promotion when I pack it in, so I'm not about to say out loud that the civilian commanders are positively bonkers."