Follow this link if you want to read an utterly biased article about Iraq. Here’s an example of their bias:

On the surface, there’s not much suspense about what happens next in the battle between President Bush and Democratic lawmakers over the war in Iraq. Bush says he will veto the $124-billion war spending bill passed by both houses of Congress last week that requires him to begin withdrawing troops this year; when he does, Democrats say, they will protest and then send him the money without binding conditions.

That noisy script, however, is just a prelude to a debate, under conditions likely to be more difficult for Bush, that could turn into a decisive moment for the course of the war.

Why does the LA Times think that the September debate will happen under “conditions likely to be more difficult for Bush”? Why are they assuming that the trends we’re now seeing won’t continue? Why is it a forgone conclusion that our military can’t defeat the jihadists?

Most importantly, why is the LA Times ignoring stories like this one in the NY Times? Let’s take a look at the NY Times article.

Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

“Many people are challenging the insurgents,” said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.”

This article leads me to this question: If the American and Iraqi troops continue in tamping down the AQI, why will the September vote happen under conditions hostile to President Bush? Is it because that’s the predetermined storyline that the LA Times ‘reporters’ are expected to follow?

Before you dismiss that last question as utter snarkiness, I’ll remind you that Harry Reid’s been denying that they’ve changed strategies. I’d further say that the LA Times, the Washington Post and the NY Times haven’t called him on his denial. Look at what the NY Times also reports:

Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.

At the same time, American and Iraqi forces have been conducting sweeps of insurgent strongholds, particularly in and around Ramadi, leaving behind a network of police stations and military garrisons, a strategy that is also being used in Baghdad, Iraq’s capital, as part of its new security plan.

Think of the implications behind these paragraphs. Sunni tribal leaders are turning on AQM terrorists. Police forces are growing steadily. The NY Times’ article even says that there’s a new “security plan” in place. Now that it’s in the NY Times, how much longer will Reid, Pelosi and Murtha deny the successes? Here’s another hint at Mr. McManus’ antiwar bias:

By September, the troop buildup will have been underway for more than six months. Unless there is dramatic improvement in Iraq, public support for the war will probably have eroded further. And by September, skittish Republicans will be four months closer to starting their reelection campaigns.

Again, Mr. McManus is assuming that things won’t improve. Based on the information that I’ve already laid out, that’s a risky assumption at minimum. Personally, I’d say that it’s a foolish assumption but that’s another matter.

Furthermore, the public likely wouldn’t be souring on this war if the media wasn’t cheering for America’s defeat. As for those “skittish Republicans”, I don’t think that they’ll materialize because they know that they’ll be face primary challenges if they adopt a defeatist position, thanks in no small part to the Victory Caucus movement.

Democrats have to hope that things deteriorate because signs of victory being possible would doom the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It would also expose the foolishness of defeatists like Ms. Pelosi and Rep. Murtha.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

2 Responses to “Not That They’re Assuming Anything”

Leave a Reply