Curious
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Iraq | The Surge | War — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Bizarrely enough, this article mentions nothing one way or the other regarding whether the surge might have been helpful in reducing violence so dramatically in Baghdad. I recognize that there are certain quarters in which praise of the surge is verboten. But at the very least, we could get some analysis of the issue, no?
Then again, perhaps there was a belief on the part of the writers that any honest analysis would have shown the surge to be a primary cause of the reduction in violence. An inconvenient truth amongst a specific group of people, if you will.
« Disconnect — Comments (1) | Harry Reid Finds Success in Iraq — Comments (3) »
Curious 2 Comments (0 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Did you actually read the article?!? It is not as biased as you suggest. Here is the first paragraph:
"American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned."
It is a surprisingly positive article coming from the New York Times for heaven's sake!
Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says
The online unbiased word in this header is "Baghdad."
First off, the "militant group" happens to be al Qaeda.
Secondly, "is out" - did they take a family vacation? Or were they FORCED out of Baghdad by brave troops sent by a brave CiC.
Then of course we wrap it up with "U.S. Says" And when it comes to Iraq we all know you can't just believe what the U.S. says. Those soldiers lie all the time.