Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This WXMI story, billed as “reaction” to Vice President Cheney’s speech, is heavily tilted towards those who supported Cheney’s position. Despite beginning with a few sentences explaining that reaction was “mixed” and that protestors were outside of Cheney’s speech, the story primarily quotes those in support of Cheney’s speech and policies. There were four statements from those “supporting” Cheney and from those “opposing” Cheney.

The story concludes with the reporter stating that the converstaion caused by the visit “was well worth it.” How is this claim made? The story cites a woman who presumably saw the speech, but how would viewers know if her comment accurately reflects the views of those who were there?

Story:

Analysis:

This WZZM 13 story on protests outside of Vice President Dick Cheney’s September 14, 2007 is split between covering the protests and “finding out” what public opinion on the Iraq War is in Grand Rapids.

Throughout the story, those interviewed make a variety of assertions that are never verified by the reporter. The protestor–Richard Hackler–makes claims about public opinion before the war and now, but the reporter never checks his claims. Similarly, the people interviewed on the street make a variety of claims about the consequences of leaving Iraq, but there is no investigation of those claims.

Moreover, viewers should think about the whether or not the methodology used–random encounters with people on the street–is really indicative of public opinion.

Story:

News Reader #1: Well almost every high profile political visit of course brings protestors.

News Reader #2: And the group ACTIVATE has been protesting for years saying they hope to make a difference. WZZM 13’s Nick Montecelli continues our team coverage with that part of the story.

Reporter: Well Julliette, There were only a handful of protestors on hand, they thought that the rain scared others away. But in reality, those people came shortly before the vice president arrived. So did over 100 protestors marching in with a very strong message.

Pastor: I am offended at our longterm commitment to an immoral war.

Reporter: Those there early were ecstatic to see support against the war.

Pastor: I think people of moral conscience ought to always be asking the question can we be doing better.

Reporter: And the message they brought…

Protestor: We need to be as mad as anybody.

Reporter: …was a unified one.

Protestor: It was all justifiable? I don’t think so.

Reporter: Among the over one-hundred protestors…

Protestor: US out of Iraq!

Reporter: Was the man behind it all.

Richard Hackler, Protestor: It’s atrocious, it’s genocide.

Reporter: Richard Hackler says the problems in Iraq are because of the war.

Richard Hackler: When the war started, the majority of Americans supported it. Public position has switched to a majority of Americans opposing and wanting a timetable of withdrawal. So clearly organizing like this does have something of an impact.

Reporter: But does this group–a fraction of the population–really mirror public opinion?

Person on the Street #1: I don’t believe we should have gone there in the first place.

Reporter: We walked through downtown Grand Rapids at lunchtime to find out.

Person on the Street #1: But now that we’re there, we can’t just pull out because there will be more adversity that will happen over there.

Person on the Street #2: We should not be there.

Reporter: Should the war end immediately?

Person on the Street #2: Uhhhh…. I don’t know.

Person on the Street #3: It’s a tremendous mess over there because those people’s country over there is in such disarray and I think we have some responsibility to fix that.

Protestor: We weren’t invited to be here to let Cheney see us.

Reporter: But those here say change needs to happen right now.

Protestor: The tip of the iceberg is George W. Bush’s speech last night which gave if anything, not a hopeful message, but a hopeless message.

Reporter: Now this group ACTIVATE is based in Grand Rapids and hopes their work will spread beyond the politicians, for instance, they hope to shed light on alternatives to military recruiting and build a larger community-based organization to voice there opinions right here in the city.

News Reader #2: Alright Nick, thank you.

Analysis:

This story from WOOD TV 8 covers protests outside of Vice President Cheney’s September 14, 2007 visit to Grand Rapids. The story is primarily “play-by-play” coverage of the protest, focusing on giving updates on where the protestors were throughout the speech. Does the fact that the protestors were forced to move back 25 steps by the police help WOOD TV 8’s viewers understand why people were holding a protest at Cheney’s speech?

The story contains one quote from a protestor explaining that they want the occupation to end immediately. Despite the fact that the protest had a clearly articulated message calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq, the WOOD TV reporter still says simply that the protestors carried “the usual signs.”

Finally the story includes a clip of an unidentified Cheney supporter saying that the protestors “wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for us. What the hell’s the matter with them?” The statement lacks context and it is unclear what the speaker is referencing. WOOD TV did not ask for further clarification from the man, nor did they attempt to clarify what he meant in the story.

Story:

WOOD TV Reporter: Some of that dissent actual remains an hour after the Vice President left, there is one protestor still standing outside here at the Ford Museum. He left at about 11 o’clock. That protestor was among dozens that showed up here this morning just as the Vice President was about to speak.

WOOD TV Reporter: They represented a number of groups against the war. They gathered at the front door of the museum. A couple of minutes later police moved them back, I counted off–it was about 25 steps to the sidewalk that runs between Ah Nab Awan Park and the museum steps. All of them carried the usual signs and they brought whistles to make a little noise as well. But the opposition wasn’t without opposition.

Cop: Is there somebody in charge?

Protestor: We just marched over from Rosa Parks Circle a few blocks over down to the Ford Museum where Dick Cheney is speaking today to let him know that we don’t support him in any way, that we don’t support this war, and we want the occupation to end immediately.

Cheney Supporter: They wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for us. What the hell’s the matter with them?

WOOD TV Reporter: The protestors then left this area in front of Ah Nab Awan Park and headed a couple of blocks north to the Michigan Street bridge to catch a glimpse of the motorcade. They wanted the Vice President to know they were here.

Analysis:

Like the WOOD TV 8 story, this story on a protest outside of Vice President Dick Cheney’s September 14, 2007 speech begins with a sort of “play-by-play” of the protest, talking about how there were few protestors outside of the Gerald R. Ford Museum until a group of them marched over from Rosa Parks Circle. From there, the reporter goes on to state that the Vice President never saw the protestors, although a video produced by Media Mouse shows that the motorcade did pass by the protestors at another location.

More important than that minor factual inaccuracy is the way in which the reporter frames the protest. He introduces the only protestor quoted in the story–who is with the group ACTIVATE/SDS–by stating that the protestors “knew their protest would not make an immediate impact.” The story then quotes the protestor using a statement that begins with the protestor saying “clearly an event like this isn’t going to end the war in and of itself.” While the protestor eventually does say that they are against the war and that the majority of Americans support a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq (a claim that is never verified), how do the reporter’s comments shape the viewers opinion of the effectiveness of antiwar protest?

Finally, the reporter explains that WZZM 13 will be talking to people on the streets to see what “the average person think[s]” about the war. Does this conclusion make viewers think that the “average person” disagrees with the protestors?

Story:

WZZM 13 Reporter: There were only a handful of protestors here until just moments before the Vice President’s arrival. In fact, they were actually at Rosa Parks Circle and then they marched over here to the museum with noisemakers, loud whistles, and a banner all to say that they oppose the war. The Vice President however, never saw them. Much like President Bush, he arrived and left through the backdoors avoiding the protestors completely, but that is really not unusual. The protestors say that they new that would happen and that they knew that their protest would not make an immediate impact.

Protestor: Clearly an event like this isn’t going to end the war in and of itself, but doing this stuff builds communities of like-minded people who can network together and follow this administration around, let them know anywhere they go they are opposed to their policy, they are opposed to this war. The majority of Americans support a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

WZZM 13 Reporter: Now obviously the 100+ people here all shared the same sentiment, an immediate end to the war in Iraq. But what does the average person think? We’re going to talk to a few people right off the streets. We’ll bring you their opinions on WZZM 13 news at 5:30.

Analysis:

This story is based on the visit by Vice President Cheney to the Ford Museum to promote the administration’s Iraq policy. The Press cites Cheney making claims such as “the United States and our coalition are getting things right in Iraq,” but provided no evidence or examples of how “things are right in Iraq.” Cheney also states that the consequences of a hasty departure from Iraq would result in “the ensuing carnage would further destabilize the Middle East,” but again there is no evidence to support such a claim. The article then mentions that Cheney’s visit is “part of a major push by the Bush administration to shore up support for the war,” and then mentions that polls reflect “public disillusion with the war.” However, no specific polls or polling information is provided to support the claim made by the Press writer.

The Press story then repeats the main message by the Bush administration about the so-called “troop reduction” put forth in general Patraeus’s recommendations. The story also says “Democratic leaders are faulting the plan outlined by Bush as a continuation of a failed strategy,” but does not mention any specifics about their objections nor what alternative plan they might have, if any.

The last part of the story mentions that there were protestors at the Ford Museum, quotes one of them, but doesn’t provide information or name the group that organized the demonstration. Does it seem clear from the quote from the GVSU student as to why people were protesting Cheney’s visit? The last three paragraphs has information about who from the area GOP was accompanying Cheney.

Story:

Echoing the words of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney said that retreat from Iraq is not an option. Speaking for about 30 minutes this morning to a selected audience of about 200 at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum, Cheney argued that the battle is part of the larger fight against global terrorism.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the United States and our coalition are getting things right in Iraq,” he said.

Like Bush, Cheney warned of the consequences of a hasty departure from Iraq, saying that “the ensuing carnage would further destabilize the Middle East.”

Cheney also proclaimed himself “confident in the outcome” of the war.

“We will press on in our mission and we will turn events toward victory,” he said.

Following the speech, he visited Ford’s tomb outside the museum.

Cheney’s stop here and later today at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., is part of a major push by the Bush administration to shore up support for the war. Polls continue to reflect public disillusion with the war, which is approaching its fifth year.

In his nationally televised speech Thursday night, Bush said that 5,700 troops would be brought home by Christmas.

He laid the prospect that five more combat brigades — or about 30,000 troops — would be withdrawn from Iraq next summer if conditions permit. That parallels the recommendation this week by Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

That would leave 130,000 troops there, on the eve of a presidential campaign in which the war is expected to be the dominant issue. The president said troops could be reduced to 100,000 by the end of 2008.

Democratic leaders are faulting the plan outlined by Bush as a continuation of a failed strategy. Cheney’s visit marks the third time in less than a year that Bush or Cheney appeared in West Michigan to make the case for war.

In September 2006, Cheney urged commitment to the war before a gathering of Guard and Reserve troops and their families at Wyoming’s Grand Valley Armory. In April, President Bush spoke at East Grand Rapids High School as he delivered a policy speech laying out the tactics behind the “surge” strategy he asserts will turn the tide in Iraq.

As Cheney began his speech in Grand Rapids, some 75 anti-war protesters gathered nearby holding signs, blowing whistles, shaking rattles, and chanting “Cheney out of Grand Rapids,” and “U.S. out of Iraq”.

The crowd arrived outside the museum about 10:15 a.m., led by a banner that read “U.S. out of Iraq.” Many carried signs that said, “Support the troops, end the war.” The group initially marched toward the front entrance but police moved them back to sidewalk near Ah Nab Awen Park where they remained peaceful but noisy.

“Clearly the protest in of itself is not going to end the war,” said organizer and Grand Valley State University student Richard Hackler, 21. “It’s about letting this administration know they can’t go anywhere without attracting an angry mob. We need to let people know we don’t support the war.”

Cheney arrived at Gerald R. Ford International Airport just before 9:30 this morning.

Cheney, who served as chief of staff for President Ford, exited his plan carrying a big black umbrella to shield himself from the rain.

He was accompanied by his daughter Elizabeth Cheney and greeted by his old friend, Peter Secchia, a Grand Rapids businessman, former ambassador to Italy and Republican Party activist. Also on the tarmac were Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land of Byron Center, Kent County Commission Chair Roger Morgan, former Kent County Republican Party Chairwoman Libby Child and Kyle Olson, vice president of the nonprofit Education Action Group.

Analysis:

This story is based upon a recent announcement that Vice President Cheney is coming to Grand Rapids as part of the Bush administration’s strategy to gain support for their Iraq policy. What does the headline communicate to readers? Does it imply that Grand Rapids is pro-administration, pro-Cheney, pro-War, or that the event will have only Bush administration supporters in the audience? The story is framed early on that Cheney is coming to Grand Rapids to promote the administration’s Iraq policy based on the recommendations of General Patraeus. The article then quickly mentions that this is the third time that Bush or Cheney has been to West Michigan in the past year, with a quote from Cheney and Bush from each trip. The Press reporter cites Lansing based political analyst Bill Ballenger who speculates on why Cheney is coming to West Michigan. Readers should ask themselves why so much space was devoted to speculation on the administration’s recent visits to the area. It is interesting that there is no mention that in the past two visits that there has been public opposition to the adminsitration’s Iraq policy, particularly when Bush was in East Grand Rapids in April of 2007. The Press reporter instead has comments from the Ford Museum and Gerald Ford Foundation about how the audience will be “a mixture of people,” despite the fact that there is no mention of how people were selected to attend the Cheney speech.

The article then shifts its focus to the Iraq policy and frames it as an attempt by the Bush administration to counter the Democratic Party’s proposal on Iraq as it relates to Troop withdrawal, even though not much is said about the proposal other than it was “for a bigger and more rapid troop withdrawal.” The article then mentions the lack of public support for the war and the surge and cites an Associated Press poll that supports the idea that many Americans are against the Us Occupation of Iraq. However, the article doesn’t mention what question those polled were asked.

The last section of the article cites Congressman Ehlers position on this issue who agrees with General Patraeus’ assessment and seems to blame the Iraqi government, by stating “It appears the bigger problem is getting the Iraqi government to cooperate.” The article provides no dissenting opinions on the Iraq policy and never mentions what the Iraqi people’s perspective is on the ongoing occupation.

Story:

Grand Rapids – As the political battle over troops in Iraq intensifies, it may be no accident Vice President Dick Cheney will stop in West Michigan to state the case for war.

Cheney is scheduled to deliver a policy speech on iraq Friday morning at Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum, an address museum Deputy Director Jim Kratsas called a “great honor” to host.

It marks the third West Michigan speech in less than a year by Bush or Cheney on the Iraq war.

The Cheney visit will follow a Thursday prime time address by Bush in which he is expected to endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, reducing the American troop presence by as many as 30,000 by next summer but conditioning those and further cuts on continued progress.

In September 2006, Cheney urged commitment to the war before a gathering of Guard and Reserve troops and their families at Wyoming’s Grand Valley Armory.

In that speech, he called Iraq “the central front in the war on terror.”

In April, President Bush spoke at East Grand Rapids High School as he laid out the tactics behind the “surge” strategy he asserts will turn the tide of war in Iraq.

One analyst said the region’s conservative traditions provide a predictable–and supportive—platform for such appearances.

“He could go anywhere in the United States, and he’s picking Grand Rapids again,” said Lansing political analyst Bill Ballenger. “Obviously (he and Bush) feel very comfortable in West Michigan and feel comfortable coming again and gain.”

Ballenger speculated Cheney might be drawn to the museum because of his service as President Ford’s chief of staff. Cheney was deputy assistant to Ford and his chief of staff from November 1975 to the end of his term in January 1977.

“I think Cheney has this very personal connection with Grand Rapids because of Ford,” Ballenger said.

Museum deputy director Kratsas was scrambling to make sure everything is in place by Friday. Cheney will speak to an invited audience of about 200 in the museum’s auditorium.

“If it’s a policy speech, naturally it’s a national event,” Kratsas said.

Martin Allen, chairman emeritus of the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, said Cheney’s audience will include a cross-section of the community. Allen did not say how participants were selected.

“It’s a mixture of people from different walks of life, military, some school teachers, students, business people,” Allen said.

Bush officials are making a major push this week for support of his war strategy, even as Democratic members of Congress press for a bigger and more rapid troop withdrawal than what Bush has proposed.

According to an Associated Press report, Bush will call for withdrawal of 30,000 troops next summer if conditions permit, echoing recommendations by Gen. David Petraeus.

That still would leave 130,000 troops in Iraq, with no clear sign from the administration how long they would remain.

The political infighting comes against the backdrop of dwindling public support for the war.

An associated Press poll released Tuesday found that 59 percent believe the war will be judged a complete or partial failure. Nearly 60 percent rate the recent troop increase a failure.

As it approaches the end of its fifth year, the war looms as the dominant issue in the 2008 race for the White House and control of congress.

U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, said Cheney likely will expand on the remarks of Petraeus, who maintained before a skeptical Capitol Hill audience that conditions are improving in Iraq.

Petraeus told members of the House and Senate that the counterinsurgency tactics applied in the past few months are yielding dividends.

But neither he nor Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker could tell members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday when Iraq might achieve political stability.

“Neither believe we can see beyond next summer,” Ehlers said.

Ehlers conceded that even if security conditions are improving – a point many critics of the administration’s policy do not concede – the Iraq government has yet to achieve significant political reconciliation.

“It appears the bigger problem is getting the Iraqi government to cooperate,” Ehlers said.

Analysis:

This story is based upon a lecture sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. The speaker was Patrick Moore, formerly with Greenpeace, and now with the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a front group of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The first half of the article focuses on why Moore now thinks he was wrong about being anti-nuclear when he was with Greenpeace, but the story doesn’t present when and why he shifted his politics. According to the Center for Media and Democracy Moore “established a consultancy business, Greenspirit Enterprises, focusing on environmental policy and communications in natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change.” Moore has represented the logging, mining, plastics and nuclear energy industries, but the article only mentions his connection to the nuclear industry.

The rest of the story has Moore defending nuclear power as a way to deal with future energy needs. Moore also dismisses the scientific community’s concerns about global warming by saying it is a “herd mentality.” The reporter doesn’t question such a comment, nor provide any documentation that would support the credibility of the scientific community’s concern on global warming. Moore is also cited as saying that the “Three Mile Island disaster did not injure anyone and the Chernobyl disaster was a result of the Soviets cutting corners on safety and was an accident waiting to happen.” The Press reporter does not verify Moore’s claims and does not provide any other perspective on this issue. The article ends by stating that this lecture will be broadcast on C-SPAN and that it was sponsored by DTE Energy. Do readers think that a lecture sponsored by a major private power company in any way made sure that the content of the speaker’s presentation would support the institutional existence of that company?

Story:

For Patrick Moore, the key to a sustainable energy future is nuclear.

Moore is a founding member of Greenpeace and began his talk Tuesday before the World Affairs Council at Aquinas College by showing pictures of himself from his activist days: with wild, frizzy hair, sitting atop a baby seal to protect it from being clubbed to death, with his compatriots in front of a Greenpeace flag.

Back then, he protested nuclear weapons testing and nuclear energy.

He broke with Greenpeace in 1986 and Tuesday addressed more than 50 people in the Donnelly Conference Center as co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute.

He’s now unapologetic about his support of nuclear energy to provide for the world’s power needs.

As for his change from anti-nuke protester back in the 1970s, he said: “We were wrong.”

In an interview before his address, Moore said he was caught up in the anti-nuclear movement.

“I believe we made a mistake in not differentiating and distinguishing between the beneficial and destructive uses of the technology,” he said.

Though in his speech, Moore questioned whether human beings are wholly responsible for global climate change — he likened consensus in the scientific community on that point as “herd mentality.” He said there are good reasons to reduce fossil fuel consumption, such as decreasing air pollution and dependence on foreign oil.

Moore discussed other renewable energy sources, lauding in particular a technology called a ground source heat pump, which draws geothermal energy from the ground, as opposed to solar panels. But he said renewable energy sources cannot do the job alone.

“The correct path forward is to replace fossil fuels with a combination of renewables plus nuclear, that gives us an actual chance to make a dent in the amount of fossil fuels being consumed in the world,” he said.

He said the environmental movement itself impedes reduction of fossil fuel use by such opposing technologies as nuclear energy and hydroelectric power.

“If we would only accept the fact that nuclear energy is the key, along with other renewables, to reducing fossil fuel consumption, a lot of things would start to fall into place,” he said.

Moore asserted that nuclear energy is safe and non-polluting. The infamous Three Mile Island disaster did not injure anyone, he said. And the Chernobyl disaster was a result of the Soviets cutting corners on safety and was “an accident waiting to happen.”

But even Chernobyl had only 60 deaths directly attributable to the disaster, Moore said, citing a United Nations report.

Moore said a study of 54,000 nuclear workers showed they have a lower incidence of cancer and disease than the general population.

Nuclear weapon proliferation is a concern, but Moore said we should not ban all nuclear technology because it can be used as a weapon.

The speech, which will be broadcast by C-SPAN, was sponsored by DTE Energy.

Analysis:

This story is based on the upcoming report from US Military Commander in Iraq, General Patraeus, to the White House and Congress about the status of the so-called surge. There are several sources cited in the story, Bush Patraeus, and at least two anonymous sources. The story begins with Bush expressing confidence in Patraeus and that is followed by a recent New Yourk Times/CBS poll on public confidence on US government vs US Military ability to “bring a successful end to the war in Iraq.”

The story is just a day before the General’s report and lists the three major points: that the surge is beginning to succeed, the central government in Baghdad has failed, and the consequences of US troop withdrawal would be catastrophic. There is nothing in story to verify these claims and every comment made after this summary of the report are from anonymous sources. One of Pataeus’s staff said a hasty withdrawal could produce “a failed state in the middle of Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia, where you’d have huge problems getting oil to the world market, where you’d potentially have a humanitarian disaster,” a statement he made to the right wing think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations. The article provides no dissenting perspectives on this issue, not even the Government Accounting Office’s report on Iraq, which claims that most of the benchmarks have not been met.

Story:

Ever since last spring, President Bush has publicly staked the future of his strategy in Iraq on a series of briefings that an Army general will deliver to Congress today and Tuesday — the long-awaited report by Gen. David H. Petraeus on the state of the war.

“Why don’t you wait and see what [Petraeus] says?” Bush pleaded with Congress in May. “Fund the troops, and let him come back and report to the American people.”

Bush’s reasoning, aides said, was simple: An assessment of the war from Petraeus, a widely admired officer, was likely to enjoy more credibility with Congress and the public than anything the president could say. Aides knew, as well, that Petraeus was likely to support Bush’s strategy in Iraq — because the general himself was one of the architects of the yearlong “surge” of additional troops to try to stabilize Baghdad and other areas.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the briefing room. Petraeus’ report may not have as much impact as the White House hoped, because his message has already been widely anticipated — and even previewed by Petraeus himself.

“The surge will run its course,” Petraeus told ABC News last week, forecasting a gradual drawdown of some of the estimated 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. “There are limits to what our military can provide, so my recommendations have to be informed … by the strain we have put on our military services.”

Officials have said they expect Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker to make three major points: The surge is beginning to succeed, but it is too soon to withdraw significant numbers of troops; the central government in Baghdad has failed to meet the administration’s political goals, but there are signs of progress at the local level; and, finally, the consequences of a too-hasty withdrawal would be catastrophic.

Administration officials expect Petraeus to report that the initial phase of the surge has improved security in Baghdad, in Anbar province to the west, and Diyala province to the northeast. He is likely to announce that U.S. forces can reduce their presence in Anbar and Diyala, but not yet in Baghdad.

Petraeus does not intend to deliver a specific recommendation to Congress on how soon and how far to reduce troop levels; that will be up to Bush, who is expected to announce a decision this week. Officials have said that Petraeus and his aides have been considering the possibility of a nominal drawdown of a few thousand troops around the end of the year, but that the general does not want to reduce his force by significant numbers until absolutely necessary.

Petraeus “wants to keep as much force on the ground as we possibly can, for as long as we possibly can,” said one administration official. Instead of withdrawing troops, Petraeus has recommended relocating troops from Anbar and Diyala to Baghdad or another hot spot. Or they could be sent to Kuwait to create a reserve U.S. force.

A military official in Baghdad said that while the forces will be rearranged, he does not expect a major drawdown until the surge forces begin to leave in March or April of 2008.

“Why take a chance of losing the gains we have made?” the official said.

In his remarks to Congress, Petraeus is expected to emphasize the problems large troop withdrawals would create.

A hasty withdrawal could produce “a failed state in the middle of Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia, where you’d have huge problems getting oil to the world market, where you’d potentially have a humanitarian disaster,” Army Col. Michael J. Meese, an adviser to Petraeus, told the Council on Foreign Relations last week.

“Do not think if we pull out that it will not be horrible. If you don’t like Darfur, you won’t like Baghdad,” another officer said.

Administration officials expect Petraeus to recommend, in either his public or private remarks, that U.S. forces can be removed from the areas where the Iraqi force has the strong leadership or long-standing partnerships with U.S. leaders that allow it to undertake operations independently.

“We have already made some decisions out there in areas where success has occurred,” said a senior military official.

But military officers close to Petraeus believe he will avoid making precise predictions of when the Iraqi army will be able to take over, arguing that such predictions in the past have always failed to materialize and have eroded the credibility of U.S. commanders.

Administration officials have pointed to reductions in attacks and killings, but congressional critics regard the figures as unreliable. Petraeus is expected to point to statistics as indications of improvements, but will be careful not to overstate their importance, Meese said.

On the political front, Petraeus is expected to talk about the success U.S. forces have met in working with formerly anti-American insurgents in the Sunni Muslim communities of Anbar province. Officials say the administration hopes to try the same strategy in other parts of Iraq, including those now dominated by Shiite Muslim militias.

But officials also acknowledge that political progress has been piecemeal and slow. Petraeus and Crocker are expected to de-emphasize the likelihood of a national reconciliation and instead talk about the importance of smaller steps of local “accommodation” first, one official said.

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Petraeus will address Tuesday, said Sunday the general is “dead flat wrong” for warning against making major changes.

Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

“The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no real security in Baghdad or Anbar province, where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence,” said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Biden, signaling that tough questioning awaits Petraeus and Crocker from majority Democrats and moderate Republicans, said Petraeus’ assessment missed the point. Biden, D-Del., said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, is the only way to foster reconciliation among warring factions.

“I really respect him, and I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Biden said.

Biden contended that Bush’s main strategy was to buy time and extend the presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.

“This president has no plan — how to win and/or how to leave,” Biden said.

Stressing that a political solution was the key, he said, “I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out,” except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al-Qaida.

Recommendations by Petraeus and Crocker follow a series of reports that have given bleak assessments of the situation in Iraq but offered no quick solutions.

Over the weekend, the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded think tank, issued a report recommending U.S. troops in Iraq be cut by half in three years and removed within five years. The report was based on recommendations by many experts who advised the Iraq Study Group, a White House-backed commission that recommended a change in strategy last December.

Analysis:

This guest column by State Representative Agema is just days after he held a public hearing. Agema makes similar claims in this column that he did at that public hearing, such as “taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize illegal aliens” and other Midwest states have gone to a system where a Medicaid applicant must prove citizenship before receiving assistance.” In both cases Agema does not provide any sources to verify his claims. The final section of the guest column piece provides a summary of the speakers at the public hearing and says “We were successful in our mission to conduct a frank discussion in ways that we can end the unnecessary burden of illegal immigrants on our state.” Unfortunately, Agema’s column does not provide any background on any of the speakers, nor the fact that most people who attended were pro-immigrant and were only given the final 10 minutes of the hearing to speak.

Story:

By Rep. David Agema

Special To The Press

For several months now, alarm bells in Lansing have been ringing uncontrollably as we are warned of the state’s impending financial collapse should we fail to balance our budget and keep the cost of doing state business down.

Unfortunately, many in Lansing are only willing to pay lip service to the problem rather than finding solutions to it. I choose to focus on the concerns of the taxpayers from the 74th district and their agenda, rather than the Lansing agenda of raising taxes and partisan bickering.

For this reason, I am happy to join other Republicans in support of the Taxpayer’s Agenda. An important part of this Taxpayer’s Agenda is the creation of several task forces to address the issues that many in Lansing choose to neglect.

I am excited to be a member of the Border Security and Immigration Reform, which focuses on homeland security and seeks ways to limit the negative impact that illegal immigration has on Michigan’s economy.

Taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize illegal aliens in this state, and state programs are the vehicle that allows this. Medicaid costs have been increasing by millions annually, and the last thing we need is the added cost of care for people who should not be here in the first place.

Other Midwest states have gone to a system where a Medicaid applicant must prove their citizenship before receiving assistance. After doing so, those states have seen a 5 percent reduction in Medicaid expenditures. If Michigan were to implement a similar program and achieve similar results, we could see a drastic decrease in Medicaid spending totaling roughly $125 million.

Illegal immigrants who go to hospitals for emergency care rarely have the means to pay for their care. However, due to current laws, hospitals are not allowed to deny treatment based on inability to pay. As a result, the hospitals must count this “free” care as a loss, therefore passing the cost of this care onto other paying customers.

Spectrum Health incurred charges of more than $700,000 last year alone on illegal immigrant health care, and they expect that figure to increase this year.

Michigan’s employment environment is also polluted with illegal immigrants. In fact, there have been several instances in which new projects have been hijacked by illegal immigrant workers. In the Thumb area of Michigan, the Harvest Wind Farm project so highly touted by Gov. Jennifer Granholm was being staffed by a contractor who hires not only out of state workers, but employs illegal immigrants as well.

After first chiding the Republicans for forming the Immigration and Homeland Security Task Force, the Democrats have recently introduced legislation embracing some of our ideas. However, their half-hearted attempts don’t stand up under scrutiny.

Although they say they want to punish employers who hire illegals, they would only do so by canceling state contracts with these companies and requiring them to pay back incentives. No other punitive action would be taken. This is unacceptable.

The latest task force hearing held in Jenison focused on homeland security threats that Michigan is now plagued with because of illegal immigration. Testimony included representatives from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Ottawa County Sheriffs, 9/11 families for a more secure America; and Jon DeWitte from Congressman Peter Hoekstra’s office.

The discussion centered on of law enforcement personnel, security officials and other concerned community members. We were successful in our mission to conduct a frank discussion in ways that we can end the unnecessary burden of illegal immigrants on our state.

As my colleagues and I travel the state we look forward to hearing ideas from a diverse background.

— Rep. David Agema represents the 74th House District. He lives in Grandville.

Analysis:

This article is attributed GR Press business reporter Rick Haglund and utilizes data from the US Census Bureau on the gap between the average US wage worker and US CEO. Does the Headline seem to frame the story in a biased fashion? The first source cited in the story in the Economic Policy Institute, considered to be a left of center think tank, followed by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Both of these sources are critical of the income gap between workers and CEOs.

The article then cites what are referred to as “conservative and business related groups” that present a positive spin on the wage gap. The National Association of Manufactureres and the American Enterprise Institute are the two national groups cited. The article states that “Gallup polls for the American Enterprise Institute found that 43 percent of all workers last year were “completely satisfied” with their jobs,” but the story doesn’t provide any details on how the question was posed to workers. The article also cites a Michigan based think tank, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy which makes claims about Michigan’s economy. The reporter does not verify those claims, but does provide some oppositional information in the last paragraph that is not sourced. Was it clear from the article why there is a substantial gap between workers wages and CEOs? Did any of the sources cited help answer that question that was posed by the story at the very beginning? According to the annual report by a United for a Fair Economy the CEO/worker wage disparity is actually 364 times, not the 262 times number that was cited in the Press story. Why do you think these numbers are not the same? Unlike the Press article the United for a Fair Economy provides details on the CEO/Worker differences in their lengthy report, unlike the brief comments from sources cited in the article.

Story:

Maybe it shouldn’t be called Labor Day anymore. How about Chief Executive Officer’s Day? Or maybe Upper-Middle-Class Family Day?

First celebrated in New York in 1882 as a “workingmen’s holiday,” Labor Day 2007 is less a day of rest for wage earners than another day for them to worry about their economic futures.

A variety of data show that the average worker continues to lose ground to CEOs and others at the top of the wage scale.

Nationally, median family income rose a slight 0.7 percent in 2006 for the second straight year, from $47,845 in 2005 to $48,201, according to Census Bureau figures released Wednesday.

But median income fell 0.7 percent from 2005 to 2006 in Michigan as the auto industry contracted and tens of thousands of unionized workers left the labor force.

State median family income dropped from $47,558 in 2005 to $47,182, according to the census report.

But the census figures showed that median family income rose nationwide because more family members were working or were working more hours.

And in Michigan, family income fell 0.7 percent, to $47,182, as the auto industry contracted.

But the share of income going to the top fifth of households was 50.5 percent, the highest since 1967, according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington,DC.

“Too many low and middle income families aren’t sharing in the gains,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and POlicy Priorities in Washington, DC.

The story is much brighter for chiefs of major corporations and the wealthiest in society.

CEOs of major corporations earned 262 times what the average wage earners made in 2005, the last year available according to the Economic Policy Institute. That is up from 24 times in 1965.

Another study from The Corporate Library,a watchdog group in Portland, Maine, found CEO pay rose 23.8 percent last year from 2005. The average CEO in the Standard & Poor’s 500 made $14.78 million in 2006, according to the group.

Why are CEOs being paid so well, while many workers struggle to pay their home mortages and make ends meet?

“Because they can get away with it,” Economic Policy Institute President Larry Mishel said.

Mishel and others say CEO pay is often set by well-paid directors who are simply paying what the market will bear, similar to the way entertainers and professional athletes are paid.

“CEO pay is totally disconnected from worker pay,” Mishel said.

But some conservative and business related groups say many workers are well paid and generally happy with their jobs.

US manufacturing workers earned an average $68,680 last year, up 4 percent from $66, 181 in 2005 according to the National Association of Manufacturers.

And Gallup polls for the American Enterprise Institute found that 43 percent of all workers last year were “completely satisfied” with their jobs, compared to 29 percent in 1989.

Michigan workers would be better off if the state outlawed compulsory union membership and became a right to work state, a study by the Midland based Mackinac Center for Public Policy showed.

From 2001 to 2006, right to work states created jobs at twice the rate of non-right to work states, according to the free-market think tank. Those work states also experienced faster economic growth and lower unemployment.

But the new census figures show that many right to work states, including South Carolina, Alabama and Texas, had higher poverty rates and fewer people with health insurance than Michigan.