One-sided War Coverage Continues

Let's play Compare and Contrast.

Two members of Congress embark on a trip together to Iraq, ostensibly to visit with military commanders and find out what's "really going on" over there. Interestingly, both are Democrats, but they come back with sharply different impressions of the situation.




Democrat #1:

When Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) made her first trip to Iraq this month, the outspoken antiwar liberal resolved to keep her opinions to herself. “I would listen and learn,” she decided.

[...]

The real test came over a lunch with Gen. David H. Petraeus, who used charts and a laser pointer to show how security conditions were gradually improving — evidence, he argued, that the troop increase is doing some good.


Still, the U.S. commander cautioned, it could take another decade before real stability is at hand. Schakowsky gasped. “I come from an environment where people talk nine to 10 months,” she said, referring to the time frame for withdrawal that many Democrats are advocating. “And there he was, talking nine to 10 years.”


The lack of political progress among Iraq’s rival factions and Petraeus’s estimate of the time needed to stabilize the nation left Schakowsky all the more convinced that Democrats must force Bush to begin bringing troops home.


“This is not the structure that’s going to say, ‘Why? Why are we here? What are we really accomplishing here?’ The mission is to take down the bad guys, to establish order,” she said of her sessions with Petraeus and other military leaders. The meetings “made me feel more determined that the policy is going to have to be set in Washington, that the Congress is going to have to exert its will here to end this war.”

Democrat #2:

Nearly two weeks ago, Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), who voted against the initial invasion of Iraq, returned from a two-day trip to the war-torn country, proclaiming that “we’re making real progress” in Iraq and that the escalation should be extended “at least into early next year.” Baird expanded upon his new position in an op-ed for the Seattle Times.


"As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed."

Guess which of the two was invited to make the rounds on the media?


And guess how many times Baird had appeared on CNN to discuss the Iraq War before coming to the conculsion the surge is working. How about zero?