SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (72008)2/7/2003 4:38:53 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
I watched Richard Holbrook on "Charlie Rose" tonight. He made some very good points. His UN analysis:

1) Germany is not a factor. They have no troops involved, no veto, and their PM has sawed off the limb behind him.

2) China will not veto. Not their style.

3) Russia will not veto. "Puty Put" has too much going with Bush.

4) The French will come around. They cannot afford to be left on the sidelines. Would really ruin their stature in the World. So Chirac will doublecross the Germans.

5) We may get a "Half Resolution." A resolution that states that Iraq is in breach of 1441. But does not say anything about using force. The Americans and the British will then announce we are going to use it.

6) After the war is over, nobody will remember all this maneuvering.

7) Washington is really concerned about Al Qaeda cells in this country starting something when the war starts.

8) Turkey's move yesterday to help us was worth more than all of the German and French maneuvering. We had to have them. They know we are the only good friend they have, and have to support us.

9) Powell is the best "Briefer" we have ever had as Secretary of State.



To: JohnM who wrote (72008)2/7/2003 7:52:37 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
A clip from Coulter on The Times "Spike" of the Ritter story.

>>>>>Three weeks ago, it was revealed that Ritter was caught soliciting sex from underage girls on the Internet in 2001. Until news of his arrest broke, the New York Times had been treating Ritter's reincarnation as a peacenik as the greatest act of patriotism since Justice Souter voted to uphold abortion on demand. It's now Day 17 and counting of the Times' refusal to mention Ritter's arrest.<<<<



To: JohnM who wrote (72008)10/17/2005 3:36:00 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Some Times reporters question whether editor can effectively lead in wake of Miller scandal

Filed by Jason Leopold

10/17/2005 @ 1:39 pm

Following an explosive report in Sunday’s New York Times which revealed that the leadership of the paper allowed beleaguered reporter Judith Miller to call the shots during the course of a federal leak investigation, several reporters say they no longer believe that executive editor Bill Keller can effectively run the paper.

The Times’ 5,800-word opus and Miller’s first-person account of her involvement in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Wilson’s identity was posted on the Times’ website Saturday. Since then, RAW STORY has been in contact with 13 reporters who cover a wide variety of beats, from the war in Iraq to day-to-day reporting in New York.

None were willing to allow their names to be used, fearing their jobs might be placed in jeopardy. But all who spoke to RAW STORY said their respect for Keller has ebbed.

“I don’t think Keller can survive this,” said one reporter Saturday evening. “He's definitely going to be looked at differently. It's going to be hard to respect him as a journalist, at least that's the way I feel about it.”

Another reporter said that Keller was not truthful with the Times staff when he said that Miller’s 85-day incarceration at a federal detention center was about upholding the first amendment.

“I feel like he (Keller) lied to us,” said a reporter who writes about business for the Times. “If you read the story it doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with protecting sources. It just sounds like Judy was covering her own ass.”

Another reporter who had covered the Iraq war last year, remarked: “I just think nobody is going to respect Bill. Not after finding out that he didn’t even check Judy’s notebook. He just basically got behind her without finding out the facts of all of this and now that the truth is out, at least some of it, I think it’s pretty clear he made a huge mistake.”

Other Times reporters echoed their colleagues’ opinions. They said they too feel Keller erred by rallying around Miller before finding out exactly what her role was in the case.

Keller was named executive editor at the Times in 2003. His arrival marked the departure of Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd, who resigned under pressure after a rogue reporter, Jayson Blair, was found to have fabricated three dozen stories. Despite numerous corrections and repeated warnings from editors that the reporter be sidelined, Raines had promoted Blair.

The Miller scandal could also affect the Times publisher and Chairman Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, Jr. Sulzberger’s job, however, is more secure. Because the Sulzberger family owns 70 percent of a special class of stock in Times Company, the Sulzberger family retains more voting power than the shareholders.

Michael Golden, editor of the Times-owned International Herald Tribune, and Sulzberger’s cousin, has had a tumultuous relationship with “Pinch” for nearly a decade and has long angled for control of the family's flagship paper. The latest news is sure to cause further infighting among family members, particularly if the Miller scandal has a negative impact on the value of the company’s shares.

For Sulzberger, editorial scandals at the Times were supposed to end after Jayson Blair. But many critics and pundits say the Miller issue is worse and that someone very high up will have to lose their job as a result.

Many insiders believe Golden was the one responsible for forcing Sulzberger to fire Raines after the Blair scandal erupted.

“Some believe Pinch came under heavy pressure from the older generation - which includes his father, former publisher "Punch" Sulzberger - to oust Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd. Others believe the pressure came as well from Pinch's cousins, headed by Michael Golden, who lost out in a battle to control the company years ago,” the Washington Post reported in 2003.

Several reporters said that Miller was asked to take a permanent sabbatical from the Times.

"From what I understand Judy isn't coming back,” one reporter said. “She's on permanent sabbatical. That's the gossip in the newsroom. I think she took a buyout. That's what everyone is saying, but Sulzberger doesn't want that to get out because it would be a public relations disaster for the paper."

rawstory.com



To: JohnM who wrote (72008)10/21/2005 6:49:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
A message from Bill Keller - The Top Editor at The New York Times...

crooksandliars.com

<<...As you can imagine, I've done a lot of thinking -- and a lot of listening -- on the subject of what I should have done differently in handling our reporter's entanglement in the White House leak investigation. Jill and John and I have talked a great deal among ourselves and with many of you, and while this is a discussion that will continue, we thought it would be worth taking a first cut at the lessons we have learned.

Aside from a number of occasions when I wish I had chosen my words more carefully, we've come up with a few points at which we wish we had made different decisions. These are instances, when viewed with the clarity of hindsight, where the mistakes carry lessons beyond the peculiar circumstances of this case.

I wish we had dealt with the controversy over our coverage of WMD as soon as I became executive editor. At the time, we thought we had compelling reasons for kicking the issue down the road. The paper had just been through a major trauma, the Jayson Blair episode, and needed to regain its equilibrium. It felt somehow unsavory to begin a tenure by attacking our predecessors. I was trying to get my arms around a huge new job, appoint my team, get the paper fully back to normal, and I feared the WMD issue could become a crippling distraction.

So it was a year before we got around to really dealing with the controversy. At that point, we published a long editors' note acknowledging the prewar journalistic lapses, and -- to my mind, at least as important - - we intensified aggressive reporting aimed at exposing the way bad or manipulated intelligence had fed the drive to war. (I'm thinking of our excellent investigation of those infamous aluminum tubes, the report on how the Iraqi National Congress recruited exiles to promote Saddam's WMD threat, our close look at the military's war-planning intelligence! , and the dissection, one year later, of Colin Powell's U.N. case for the war, among other examples. The fact is sometimes overlooked that a lot of the best reporting on how this intel fiasco came about appeared in the NYT.)

By waiting a year to own up to our mistakes, we allowed the anger inside and outside the paper to fester. Worse, we fear, we fostered an impression that The Times put a higher premium on protecting its reporters than on coming clean with its readers. If we had lanced the WMD boil earlier, we might have damped any suspicion that THIS time, the paper was putting the defense of a reporter above the duty to its readers.

I wish that when I learned Judy Miller had been subpoenaed as a witness in the leak investigation, I had sat her down for a thorough debriefing, and followed up with some reporting of my own. It is a natural and proper instinct to defend reporters when the government seeks to interfere in our work. And under other circumstances it might have been fine to entrust the details -- the substance of the confidential interviews, the notes -- to lawyers who would be handling the case. But in this case I missed what should have been significant alarm bells. Until Fitzgerald came after her, I didn't know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the anti-Wilson whisper campaign. I should have wondered why I was learning this from the special counsel, a year after the fact. (In November of 2003 Phil Taubman tried to ascertain whether any of our correspondents had been offered similar leaks. As we reported last Sunday, Judy seems to have misled Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement.) This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper.

In the end, I'm pretty sure I would have concluded that we had to fight this case in court. For one thing, we were facing an insidious new menace in these blanket waivers, ostensibly voluntary, that Administration officials had been compelled to sign.! But if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement with Libby, I'd have been more careful in how the paper articulated its defense, and perhaps more willing than I had been to support efforts aimed at exploring compromises.

Dick Stevenson has expressed the larger lesson here in an e-mail that strikes me as just right: "I think there is, or should be, a contract between the paper and its reporters. The contract holds that the paper will go to the mat to back them up institutionally -- but only to the degree that the reporter has lived up to his or her end of the bargain, specifically to have conducted him or herself in a way consistent with our legal, ethical and journalistic standards, to have been open and candid with the paper about sources, mistakes, conflicts and the like, and generally to deserve having the reputations of all of us put behind him or her. In that way, everybody knows going into a battle exactly what the situation is, what we're fighting for, the degree to which the facts might counsel compromise or not, and the degree to which our collective credibility should be put on the line."

I've heard similar sentiments from a number of reporters in the aftermath of this case.

There is another important issue surfaced by this case: how we deal with the inherent conflict of writing about ourselves. This paper (and, indeed, this business) has had way too much experience of that over the past few years. Almost everyone we've heard from on the staff appreciates that once we had agreed as an institution to defend Judy's source, it would have been wrong to expose her source in the paper. Even if our reporters had learned that information through their own enterprise, our publication of it would have been seen by many readers as authoritative -- as outing Judy's source in a backhanded way. Yet it is excruciating to withhold information of value to our readers, especially when rival publications are unconstrained. I don't yet see a clear-cut answer to this dilemma, but we've received some thoughtful suggestions from the staff, and it's one of the problems that we'll be wrestling with in the coming weeks.

Best, Bill

© 2005
Last update: 10/21/2005; 1:08:28 PM...>>



To: JohnM who wrote (72008)10/22/2005 1:35:09 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Woman of Mass Destruction

By MAUREEN DOWD
Columnist
The New York Times
Published: October 22, 2005

I've always liked Judy Miller. I have often wondered what Waugh or Thackeray would have made of the Fourth Estate's Becky Sharp.

The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy - her tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur - never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types.

Once when I was covering the first Bush White House, I was in The Times's seat in the crowded White House press room, listening to an administration official's background briefing. Judy had moved on from her tempestuous tenure as a Washington editor to be a reporter based in New York, but she showed up at this national security affairs briefing.

At first she leaned against the wall near where I was sitting, but I noticed that she seemed agitated about something. Midway through the briefing, she came over and whispered to me, "I think I should be sitting in the Times seat."

It was such an outrageous move, I could only laugh. I got up and stood in the back of the room, while Judy claimed what she felt was her rightful power perch.

She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet "Miss Run Amok."

Judy's stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, and I worried that she was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber that former Senator Bob Graham dubbed "incestuous amplification." Using Iraqi defectors and exiles, Mr. Chalabi planted bogus stories with Judy and other credulous journalists.

Even last April, when I wrote a column critical of Mr. Chalabi, she fired off e-mail to me defending him.

When Bill Keller became executive editor in the summer of 2003, he barred Judy from covering Iraq and W.M.D issues. But he admitted in The Times's Sunday story about Judy's role in the Plame leak case that she had kept "drifting" back. Why did nobody stop this drift?

Judy admitted in the story that she "got it totally wrong" about W.M.D. "If your sources are wrong," she said, "you are wrong." But investigative reporting is not stenography.

The Times's story and Judy's own first-person account had the unfortunate effect of raising more questions. As Bill said in an e-mail note to the staff on Friday, Judy seemed to have "misled" the Washington bureau chief, Phil Taubman, about the extent of her involvement in the Valerie Plame leak case.

She casually revealed that she had agreed to identify her source, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, as a "former Hill staffer" because he had once worked on Capitol Hill. The implication was that this bit of deception was a common practice for reporters. It isn't.

She said that she had wanted to write about the Wilson-Plame matter, but that her editor would not allow it. But Managing Editor Jill Abramson, then the Washington bureau chief, denied this, saying that Judy had never broached the subject with her.

It also doesn't seem credible that Judy wouldn't remember a Marvel comics name like "Valerie Flame." Nor does it seem credible that she doesn't know how the name got into her notebook and that, as she wrote, she "did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby."

An Associated Press story yesterday reported that Judy had coughed up the details of an earlier meeting with Mr. Libby only after prosecutors confronted her with a visitor log showing that she had met with him on June 23, 2003. This cagey confusion is what makes people wonder whether her stint in the Alexandria jail was in part a career rehabilitation project.

Judy is refusing to answer a lot of questions put to her by Times reporters, or show the notes that she shared with the grand jury. I admire Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller for aggressively backing reporters in the cross hairs of a prosecutor. But before turning Judy's case into a First Amendment battle, they should have nailed her to a chair and extracted the entire story of her escapade.

Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.

oakparkgirl.blogspot.com



To: JohnM who wrote (72008)10/29/2005 6:03:00 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Judith Miller: The Tragic Axis of the Neoconservatives and the New York Times

By Youssef M. Ibrahim*
huffingtonpost.com
10.28.2005

Some reporters who cover the police begin to think of themselves as policemen. And some, like the now infamous Judith Miller of the New York Times, drift into thinking they are policy-makers, wrecking in the process the reputation of a great newspaper, degrading essential principles of journalism, and, in this particular case, abetting neoconservatives in taking America into an extremely destructive, hopeless, and endless war in Iraq.

Such is the influential power of the New York Times and such is the dimension of its failure when the paper's editors abdicated their core responsibility in neglecting to rein in an "intrepid" reporter with an already questionable reputation.

Ms. Miller's journalistic sin was to dissolve the dividing line between herself and her sources. But what of her editors? God created editors to stop a paper from falling into just this kind of trap. Whilst some reporters may fancy themselves policy-makers, as Ms. Miller did, her editors should have stopped her, recognizing that they were allowing the Times to become a public-relations tool in the advancement of the neoconservative agenda for the American invasion of Iraq.

How did things go so far wrong? Where did the system of checks and balances fail?

It is well documented that Ms. Miller had done this sort of deception before, as many of us who worked alongside her as correspondents and reporters for the New York Times witnessed for decades. There is little doubt she got away with it due to the "protection" extended to her by numerous editors and bosses who either shared her political and world views or feared her personal and professional wrath.

In her conversations with co-workers, Miller often and repeatedly made claims, insinuations and not-so-subtle assertions of possessing a "special relationship" with the paper's young publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. Mr. Sulzberger did nothing to alleviate this notion by showing up publicly right behind Ms. Miller as she was released after the 85 days of prison time she unnecessarily served. Many of us believe Miller did this prison stint, not for a principled defense of journalism or the first amendment, but to dramatically retrieve her sinking career, write books and reinvent herself in a new "heroic" light.

Ms. Miller, as the Times columnist Maureen Dowd noted, always had a particularly skewed sense of the kind of relationship she cultivated with men in power, towards whom she naturally gravitated all her life. Many insiders felt she often confused her role as reporter with that of girlfriend, which the record plainly suggests.

As one example, Abe Rosenthal, the then-executive editor of the New York Times took her off covering Congress when he found out she shared a home with Les Aspin, then a member of Congress. She never bothered to let the paper know of this glaring conflict of interest. Indeed, there is an oft-repeated saying in the Times which followed that episode: "It is okay to cover the circus, but you cannot sleep with the elephants." This was attributed to Abe, but regardless of who actually originated it, it is now known as an article of faith to everyone who ever worked at the paper.

Ms. Miller was subsequently removed from several assignments, including deputy Washington Bureau chief and chief national security reporter, after the weapons of mass destruction debacle revealed her seriously faulty reporting. But the glaring question remains: Precisely why was she never fired, or seriously censured? How come she never met a senior editor in the Times with enough cojones to stop this train-wreck of a reporter. And how can the current executive editor, Bill Keller, have the chutzpah to say that, after banning her from national security assignments, she kept "drifting" back? Why was the person in charge not in charge of her?

Inevitably Judy "Miss Run Amok" Miller became a runaway train, picking up speed on the way to a major wreck, which has now arrived. We are now left to contemplate the ruinous damage inflicted on the reputation and credibility of a great paper.

The dimension of the catastrophe is better grasped when we think that as of this week, the Iraq war has officially cost the lives of 2,000 American soldiers and still counting. More than 30,000 servicemen and women are maimed for life and well over 150,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, are dead, wounded or homeless. In other words we are looking at a war crime, advocated by Ms. Miller's faulty reporting -- a journalistic war crime in itself, committed in the news pages of the Times.

To put it more bluntly: A reporter without scruples in the newspaper of record helped embroil the USA in an endless war with no exit. Deception at the Times, sadly, is not an isolated incident. It's happened before, as evidenced by the Jayson Blair fiasco in which a reporter was allowed in the Times to print for a month fabricated stories without being caught simply because he was favored and protected by the executive editor. The distinction here is that Miller's is not small-scale delusional story-telling, but malfeasance on a grand scale, affecting the fate of nations and the real lives of thousands, or perhaps, ultimately, millions of people.

The Times' system of checks and balances has manifestly collapsed. This is serious business, as the New York Times is a pre-eminent member of the fourth estate by which our nation's leaders are held accountable and by which the electorate is informed and our democracy functions. The Times is a national treasure, one which I love and honor. I am very proud of my long career with the paper.

The New York Times is part of our shared history, of who we are as a nation. At its best, it is the finest newspaper in the world. It can and should be a force of light and truth. With its magnificent heritage, it really belongs to all of us, not only the Sulzbergers. It is high time for a massive clean sweep there, for a restoration of the greatness of a fallen institution. This is a scandal that will not go away without quite a few heads rolling. Many cobwebs need to be removed -- not just one reporter, one executive editor, and one publisher.
_____________________________________

*Youssef M. Ibrahim is currently the Managing Director of Strategic Energy Investment Group (SEIG) based in Dubai, Media City.

Before taking up this position Mr. Ibrahim served for 18 years as senior regional Middle East correspondent for the New York Times and for 6 years as Energy Editor for the Wall Street Journal. In 1999 he took up an assignment as Vice President Head of Media and Public Affairs for North and South America & Special consultant to the management board on Middle East for British Petroleum. In 2002 Mr. Ibrahim accepted a one-year task as Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations, the prestigious think-tank in New York, USA. After this he served as Group Editor for Energy Intelligence Group, which publishes a wide range of energy-related weekly and daily bulletins.



To: JohnM who wrote (72008)12/7/2005 2:07:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.

"What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president's policies have led to," Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, "the how and when gets buried" and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.

Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months, putting her at odds with most other Democratic leaders and leading foreign policy experts in her party.

Democrats, who have not controlled the White House since 2000 and the House in more than a decade, have tried over the past year to put aside deep philosophical differences and rally behind a two-pronged strategy to return to power: Highlight the growing number of GOP scandals and score Bush's unpopular war management.

While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.

The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change -- and fix public attention mostly on Bush's policies rather the details of a Democratic alternative. A new Time magazine poll found 60 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) embodies this cautious approach. He has resisted adopting a concrete Iraq policy and persuaded most Democratic senators to vote for a recent Senate resolution calling 2006 "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" and to compel the administration "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq." While Republicans introduced the resolution, it was prompted by a Democratic plan.

Democratic Reps. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher, both of California, plan to push House Democrats to adopt a similar position during a closed-door meeting today that is to include debate on the Pelosi position.

Despite Pelosi's claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on an Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans do not support, but she also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender.

"We have not blown our chance" of winning back the House but "we have jeopardized it," said a top strategist to House Democrats, who requested anonymity to speak freely about influential party leaders. "It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it" by playing to the liberal base of the party.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today's meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.

Without naming Pelosi, Vice President Cheney told troops yesterday that terrorists will prevail "if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission," saying such precipitous move "would be unwise in the extreme." Cheney, addressing Army units at Fort Drum, N.Y., said that "any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C."

In his comments Monday, Dean likened the president's optimistic assessment to those offered by the government during the Vietnam War. Bush fired back yesterday. "There are pessimists . . . and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead us to victory," Bush said in response to a question about Dean's comments after a meeting with Lee Jong Wook, director general of the World Health Organization. "Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win."

DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said Dean's comments were taken out of context. Dean, she said, meant the war was unwinnable unless the Bush administration adopts a new strategy. Still, a number of Democrats distanced themselves from Dean. "I think Howard Dean . . . represents himself when he speaks," Tauscher said. "He does not represent me."

Democratic candidates said their biggest concern is that voters will misconstrue comments by party leaders about Bush's handling of the war as criticism of U.S. troops who are fighting in Iraq. "I absolutely disagree" with Dean, said Patrick Murphy, a Democrat who is running for the suburban Philadelphia House seat now occupied by GOP Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick.

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who represents a district Bush won easily in 2004, said he disagrees with Pelosi and Dean but does not see that as a problem. "The national press is playing up the fact that Democrats do not speak with one voice on Iraq," he said. "We should wear it as a badge of honor because it shows we are not playing a political line with war and peace."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company