http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042007/postopinion/editorials/a_ban_on_victory_editorials_.htm [rquoter] A BAN ON 'VICTORY' February 4, 2007 Question: When is a U.S. military victory not a victory? Answer: When it's reported by The New York Times. Read the account from Baghdad in the Jan. 30 Times about a battle the previous weekend in the city of Najaf - one of the biggest engagements of the war - and you'd think that U.S. and Iraqi forces had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of what was described as "an obscure renegade militia." "Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity" of the fighters arrayed against them, read the piece by correspondent Marc Santora, who added, "They needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed." Not until the article's sixth paragraph - 200 words into the 1,100-word piece - did this sentence appear: "The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle." Or, as Wellington said after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, "It was a damned close-run thing" - but the good guys won. So why wasn't this the lead of the Times' story? Given the way things have been going, it would seem to be an unusual enough development to warrant prominent attention. Maybe because the Times doesn't want America to win in Iraq. Indeed, it seems that the Times wants to squelch any talk of possible victory - even if that talk doesn't appear in the paper. The paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon, went on PBS' "Charlie Rose Show" recently, and expressed qualified support for President Bush's troop surge - noting that "we've never really tried to win" in Iraq. Stressing that this was "a purely personal view," Gordon declared: "I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something." Not exactly controversial stuff there. But Gordon's editors and some of his left-wing readers deemed it offensive. As Times Public Editor Byron Calame disclosed last Sunday, Gordon was upbraided by his editors, who declared that he'd "stepped over the line" on the show and offered "poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points." Gordon, the column said, "agrees his comments on the show went too far." Too far? Interestingly, Times editors never seem to have a problem with remarks by other reporters - provided they attack the Bush administration. Consider correspondent Chris Hedges' infamous 2003 commencement address at Rockford College, where he charged that Americans were becoming "tyrants to others weaker than ourselves," and linked Bush to Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon - whom he said were "carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless violence." Nor, as the Web site Timeswatch.org points out, was there any reprimand of correspondent Neil McFarquhar, who last summer also appeared on Charlie Rose's show and at tacked the Bush administration for "rush ing bombs to this part of the world." "It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation," said McFarquhar - who, unlike Gordon, did not even offer the disclaimer that his was "a purely personal view." From the Times, silence. Was this because McFarquhar and Hedges were spreading a message that Times editors agree with? How else to explain it? Political hypocrisy from The New York Times is no surprise. Nor is the fact that it is prepared to squelch free speech - even by its own reporters - that doesn't jibe with the paper's far-left viewpoint. But that its reporting from Iraq has become so slanted as to fundamentally misrepresent events on the battlefield is worse than disappointing. It's simply unacceptable. [/rquoter] Victory is Certain Certain as the sun shines in the sky Victory is Certain All freedom loving people here said so A long time ago And I know why I believe
Or if you aren't eager to find a reason to hate the press, it could just be because the fact that the insurgents made it a close battle is more newsworthy than the fact that the US won for the 30,000,000 time. Most people expect the US to never loose a battle. The fact that it was in question is newsworthy and indicative of a significant newsworthy situation. That someone sees this as some kind of evil conspiracy either shows their incredibly paranoid thought processes, or indicates someone who is purposefully trying to discredit legitimate news organizations because it is politically expedient. It would certainly benefit the factions who still support the war if there was a vast conspiracy. In that instance the legitimate facts in the news could be disregarded as biased. That way you don't even have to respond to the facts, just dismiss them out of hand and hide your head in the sand. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger? That tactic has been in practice since time immemorial. Does the NY Post even have any reporters in Iraq or do they just rely on op-ed columnists sitting in New York to describe what is going on from half a world away. Furthermore, your comments at the end, basso, sound more like a mantra designed to help you believe, more than anything else. If you keep telling yourself that we will ‘win’ in Iraq (still a set of conditions that have yet to be defined), perhaps you can keep the faith?
We're supposed to find worth in an editorial by a New York rag that vilifies it's competition? Right. And I saw no mention of Ernie Pyle. You continue your obsession with comparing WWII to the Iraq catastrophe, basso. You do yourself no favors. D&D. War is Hell. The Sun Rises in the East.
basso is allowed to make as many WWII comparisons with Iraq as he wants, but if anyone else breaks his rule of comparing Iraq to Vietnam then they have lost the priviledge and honor of discussing Iraq with basso. That is even true in a thread that invites historical comparisons.
basso finds himself "in the unenviable position of being for the war but against the troops."* *Thanks to Bill Hicks for coining this previously absurd phrase and kudos to basso for bringing it to life.
No person looking at the facts would assume the writers for the Times are on the side of terrorists and insurgetns who target our troops, unless they are devoid of reason.
Indeed. [rquoter]Blackout of the Press BY NIBRAS KAZIMI February 8, 2007 Abu Omar al-Baghdadi made his grand entrance onto the jihadist stage on October 12, 2006, and since then he's delivered two very important speeches — the more recent one came out last week — and has taken credit for much of the spectacular outbreaks of violence in Iraq of late, yet he still can't get his name in print on the pages of the New York Times. Why are the editors and reporters of that paper not telling their readers anything about Iraq's top terrorist? Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is Al Qaeda's guy in Iraq, and nowadays, the Sunni insurgency is being whittled down to Al Qaeda's activity in Iraq. It's that simple, and he's that important. So why isn't the Times writing that? I think the answer has something to do with what seems, to my eyes, to be a determined campaign to keep the American people from knowing the nature of the enemy in Iraq because identifying this enemy as Al Qaeda casts the debate about the war in a whole different light. Here the timeline behind al-Baghdadi's emergence on the scene: — On October 17, 2004, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi changes the name of his organization, Monotheism and Jihad, to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia after swearing fealty to the mother Al Qaeda organization under Osama bin Laden. — On January 15, 2006, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia expands its writ by forming an umbrella organization called the Shura Council of the Mujaheddin, whereby Zarqawi cedes the public face of Al Qaeda to an Iraqi figurehead, Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, but maintains full authority over the new entity. — On June 7, 2006, Zarqawi is killed, and he's succeeded shortly thereafter by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir. — On October 12, 2006, Al Qaeda further expands on the Shura Council of the Mujaheddin by forming yet a larger umbrella group, the Islamic State of Iraq. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, not to be confused with the aforementioned Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, is declared emir, or ruler, of this "state." — On November 10, 2006, al-Muhajir, speaking as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia's chief, pledges his allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and to al-Baghdadi as its head, and makes a point of highlighting al-Baghdadi's pedigree: He is of the tribe of Quraish, a usual prerequisite for a would-be caliph. — On December 22, 2006, Al-Baghdadi gives his first speech, addressing Muslims everywhere. The presenter introduces him as the "Prince of the Faithful"—a title usually reserved for caliphs. Thus, there is no entity that describes itself as Al Qaeda operating in Iraq anymore. There's only the Islamic State of Iraq. As head of that state, al-Baghdadi is a big deal. And it doesn't stop there, for all the hints being dropped about the caliphate seem to indicate that al-Baghdadi is Al Qaeda's candidate for that job. But it's not only the anti-war crowd in the press that doesn't want the American people to know that America's soldiers are fighting an Al Qaeda-led insurgency in Iraq. The Central Intelligence Agency and most of America's intelligence community don't want to do that either, according to a major scoop reported by the Sun's own Eli Lake on Monday. Mr. Lake writes that the CIA and others are still concluding that the insurgency is, for the most part, Baathist in nature, while those actually battling the insurgency on the ground, namely the intelligence arms of the Army and the Marines, are contesting that assertion claiming instead that the Sunni insurgency is largely driven by Al Qaeda. The generic term "insurgent" — preferred by most press organs — is bland and insipid, while the term Al Qaeda may strike an emotional note with many Americans. It is one thing for congressional Democrats and presidential hopefuls to pledge withdrawing the American military from a melee with insurgents, and a whole different thing for them to sound a retreat in the face of an Al Qaeda offensive. And an Al Qaeda offensive is exactly what al-Baghdadi promises in his February 2 speech, posted as an audio file on several jihadist Web sites, and which may be read in full at my blog, talismangate.blogspot.com. Al-Baghdadi says that his Dignity Plan is supposed to counter President Bush's "surge" and that it will only end when Mr. Bush signs a treaty of surrender. And what would this surrender look like? Al-Baghdadi spelled out the terms in an earlier speech: "We order you to withdraw your forces immediately. But the withdrawal must be via troop transport trucks and passenger planes whereby each soldier is allowed to carry his own weapon only. They may not withdraw any of the heavy military equipment and the military bases must be handed over to the mujaheddin of the Islamic State and the duration of the withdrawal may not exceed a month." Not very favorable terms, but I wonder whether some in the Senate would go for it anyway: Too many in the congressional chamber seem to think that surrender is the only option left. This is a shame, since if one listens closely to what al-Baghdadi was saying last week, one would be able to detect a note of palpable concern over the "surge," as well as hints of jihadist-on-jihadist strife. In other words, Al Qaeda seems to be on a losing streak. Al-Baghdadi was reduced to cajoling his fighters to stand fast in front of the Americans and warned them against laying down their weapons until the battle is over. He cited a particular verse from the Koran that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad after the early Muslims were roundly defeated in battle, as a means of telling the Al Qaeda rank and file that the setbacks they've endured lately are only temporary. Al-Baghdadi also feels compelled to tell his fighters to take it easy with the other jihadist groups, which have yet to join the Islamic State of Iraq, while at the same time telling the holdouts that their obstinacy smells of sedition. There are other reports that insurgents are clashing among themselves as Al Qaeda imposes its hegemony over one and all, to the point that al-Baghdadi is compelled to tell his guys that "I am certain that the sincere monotheists are surely coming" our way "eventually, so be tender, be tender." And in yet another gambit that smacks of desperation, al-Baghdadi tries to rile up the French and the Chinese against American global hegemony, and addresses those nations as "the freemen of the world." Not only that, but he adopts a scolding tone with North Korea, essentially invoking the "sharing is caring" line, when he says, "And let North Korea know that it owes its nuclear tests to the mujaheddin in Iraq." Translation: "Al Qaeda's actions distracted America from dealing with your evil, and the least you can do is share a nuclear device with us." But why would the Times want to tell its readers that Al Qaeda is petitioning Kim Jong Il for a nuclear weapon? I guess I'm mistaken in thinking that this is newsworthy. Wait, I just realized something: No, this is indeed important, and the American public needs to know.[/rquoter]
