That is what passes as journalism in America today, from CNN to NYT to Wapo, all our big papers are being run by a political agenda instead of being outlets for news.
Just yesterday she showed the Harvard study about the coverage of our media and their findings were no surprise...they are liberally biased and the ending sentence of that study pretty well says it all:
The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked.
Truly humiliating for Ms. Wright, Ms. Starr and all of our mainstream American media today is the fact that the Times Of London,one of the best newspapers in the world is calling our MSM out on their little game and they are pulling no punches.
They recognize and they state what our own media deliberately tries to hide from us.
The Petraeus Curve:
Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.
Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable. As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence.
Not only are they willing to state, very clearing, how well things are going and to list the achievements, but they go further, and put the spotlight on how this news an embarrassment for our Democratic politicians.
The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. Democrats who voted for the war have either repudiated their past support completely (John Edwards) or engaged in a convoluted partial retraction (Hillary Clinton). Congressional Democrats have spent most of this year trying (and failing) to impose a timetable for an outright exit. In Britain, in a somewhat more subtle fashion admittedly, Gordon Brown assumed on becoming the Prime Minister that he should send signals to the voters that Iraq had been “Blair's War”, not one to which he or Britain were totally committed.
All of these attitudes have become outdated. There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity. The instinct of too many people is that if Iraq is going badly we should get out because it is going badly and if it is getting better we should get out because it is getting better. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. Iraq is getting better. That is good, not bad, news.
The Democratic politicians are now in a position that no one should envy because they are left with limited choices and none of them bode well for them.
Choice #1: They can acknowledge what is right in front of them and risk the ire of their far left, liberal base, like MoveOn.org and Code pink and the liberal bloggers that have shown they will "go after" anyone that dares speak up and tell the truth. (As they have done with Brian Baird and what they call the Bush Dog Democrats)
Choice #2: They can continue to ignore the progress and success that is being seen in Iraq and mollify their far left, liberal base, while they alienate the moderates of their party and the independents.
Neither choice is enviable but I cannot feel any sympathy for them because this is a position they have placed themselves in by betting against America, betting against the Iraqi's, betting against our military and betting against General Petraeus and his counterinsurgencies strategies.
Note to Hillary Clinton: Your continued statements about the policies in Iraq being "failed", requires us to have a "willing suspension of disbelief" that you are able to tell the truth and are qualified to be the commander in chief of our fine military which you have staked your political career on betting against. You owe General Petraeus a public apology Hillary.
Note To Harry Reid: Hows that "Iraq is lost" comment going for you now Dingy Harry?
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
Note to the rest of the Democratic politicians... eventually you are going to have to pick choice #1 or choice #2 from above because the days of ignoring it and hoping that things will go bad in Iraq are over, and it is time for you to either tell your moderates and the independents to go to hell or to tell MoveOn.org and the far left liberal, unhinged faction of your base to go to hell.
You have left yourself no middle ground. They will not let you have it both ways.
Reactions:
Secular Blasphemy:
It's a sad state of affairs that this is not only under-reported in the mainstream media, but that so many journalists actually appear to be really sad that things are going better in Iraq, and are hoping for the worst.
Don Surber:
James Clyburn was right. Victory in Iraq is a very big problem for the party of defeat. The cheese-eating surrender monkey has replaced the jackass as the party’s symbol.
Jules Crittenden:
This embarrassing. Even the Brits, who are barely in Iraq anymore, are noticing how unsporting the Iraq coverage is
Alphabet City:
So bring it, liberal-dominated Big Media. No problem. We've got a little something for you. It's called the Petraeus curve.
Neo-Neocon:
The article goes on to say that there are too many people who have staked their reputations, and their political campaigns, on the fact that Iraq is a failure, end of discussion. To reopen and re-evaluate that topic would be much too threatening in personal and party terms. Therefore it’s much easier to ignore the good news from Iraq.
SWJ Blog:
This morning’s London Times lead editorial – The Petraeus Curve - boldly goes where few “mainstream media” news outlets dare, stating flat out that serious success in Iraq is not being recognized as it should be.
NewsBusters:
Bravo, Times of London. If only media on this side of the Atlantic would dare to be so honest.
Keep up with the buzz about this Times article here.