After surveying the response of Greater Wingnuttia (via Memeorandum) to the NY Times piece we discussed earlier, it is good to see there has been no reforumulation in the wankosphere as to what constitutes media bias. The old formula still holds:
“If I disagree with or don’t like a story, then it is liberal media bias. If I agree with or like a story, then it’s so powerful that not even the liberally biased media can ignore it.”
So the NY Times writes a story about the security situation getting better, and the wankosphere goes into overdrive to show that this times, the NY Times gets it right. All those other times, they just had BDS or something. Captain Ed:
The New York Times finally discovers a breaking news story from Iraq — that life has improved as a result of the surge.***
Now that the Times has finally acknowledged the success of the surge and the reality of Petraeus’ testimony, will they apologize for disparaging the American commander so viciously? Will they retract their political hitpiece of an editorial of September 11th? Don’t bet on it. The Times will undoubtedly take the position that all of this success happened yesterday.
You kinda wonder if he even read the NY times piece, or just got so excited by the headline that he went into overdrive. The deep thinkers at NewsBusters:
That’s not a cement mixer you hear. It’s the collective Dem gnashing of teeth. Things have gotten so bad — meaning good — in Iraq that now even the New York Times is reporting it.
A slight error in the gloating at Weekly Standard, as they admit that things WEREN’T going so great until very recently:
What those articles say is that we’re finally winning in Iraq, that the lives of ordinary Iraqis are getting better, and that the surge has saved the lives of thousands of innocent people. Apparently that’s not a story the “reality-based community” is very comfortable with.
Yes. They are so uncomfortable with the notion they reported it on the FRONT PAGE.
Well, knock me over with a straw–and get Harry Reid a Kleenex. The NYTimes, yes, the NYTimes, reports what you’ve been reading from milbloggers and embeds in the blogosphere for weeks and months…
Yes, Micehlle. They try to report things as they see it, not as how they want things to be. A novel concept. And so it goes on virtually every right-wing blog- shock that the NY Times is reporting this news. For a brief moment of sanity, head to Tom Maguire, who notes the following:
That said, the Times had a still-defensible point about the lack of progress towards political reconciliation in Iraq:
The chief objective of the surge was to reduce violence enough that political leaders in Iraq could learn to work together, build a viable government and make decisions to improve Iraqi society, including sharing oil resources. Congress set benchmarks that Mr. Bush accepted. But after independent investigators last week said that Baghdad had failed to meet most of those markers, Mr. Crocker dismissed them. The biggest achievement he had to trumpet was a communiqué in which Iraqi leaders promised to talk more.
Dan Drezner also puts things into context:
This report, combined with reports on monthly deaths from sectarian violence, suggest that the effects of the surge are clear — we’ve managed to get Baghdad back to the place it was prior to the February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra. I believe this is also a period in which even members of the Bush administration admitted that their Iraq policy was “adrift.”
The Times also goes on to note the following:
By one revealing measure of security — whether people who fled their home have returned — the gains are still limited. About 20,000 Iraqis have gone back to their Baghdad homes, a fraction of the more than 4 million who fled nationwide, and the 1.4 million people in Baghdad who are still internally displaced, according to a recent Iraqi Red Crescent Society survey.
Which, no doubt, will be ignored or treated as proof of their liberal bias. Regardless, I reiterate my previous sentiments. I am glad that things are a touch safer, and I hope this is a lasting trend. We have, however, been down this road before, and should things unfortunately take a turn for the worse, no doubt it will be the fault of the pinkos at the NY Times who just have BDS.