"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
------------------------------------------------
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell
------------------------------------------------
From Time magazine:
"Sa'ad Mutlieck was one resident of Sadr City heartened to see armored columns of Iraqi Army forces rolling deep into his neighborhood on Tuesday. "We hope the government is serious about ending all the armed groups so life could be back to normal," said Mutlieck. "The situation is very, very bad."'
Odd; hadn't Maliki and Iraqi forces totally screwed up and lost (or not gained) Sadr City. I recall that was the line when Amb. Crocker and General Petraeus were in D. C.. It was Tet all over again right? Should Time be reporting this? I mean seriously, it didn't happen over night and doesn't that qualify it as a loss and old news that no one really cares about anyway?
DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls
Charles Crain of TIME provides a fine example of msm "unbiased" reporting:
"Maliki — taking a page from President Bush's political playbook — said that by wavering in its support for the Iraqi government, the Administration was emboldening terrorists. Insurgents might take such comments as a sign "that they have defeated the American Administration," Maliki said."
You see, Bush doesn't actually believe in anything he says or does, it's all just part of his cynical "political playbook."
To Crain et al, there is no truth to the reality in Iraq...only politics as usual.
