So, for the past number of years, we've been inundated with only one side of what is happening in Iraq by our news media. The AP's head stated something along the lines of it is the job of the media to help end warfare - rather than report the news. You have Democrats saying incredibly stupid things, like this in the WaPo: (via Best of the Web)
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."As James Taranto noted,
"What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it would be "a real big problem for us"?"What does it say? Simply put, that people have their agendas, and to many, it is more important that the war end no matter the long-terms costs so long as it destroys the President and his party in the short-term. That's why the already much-discussed op-ed in the New York Times earlier this week was so shocking - and so incredibly nice to see. I think it's quite possibly the most important thing the Times has done all year, because it directly contradicts just about everything they have been reporting for months on end. It discusses the great success the US and Iraq have had against the terrorists, particularly since the surge President Bush ordered a number of months ago. Written by two people who are no fans of the war or President Bush, it truthfully discusses the progress being made in so many areas. It basically argues that this is actually working, and we just need to have a little more patience to keep seeing it - exactly what was cautioned by so many 4-1/2 years ago.
Hopefully, not only will these successes continue, but the stupid and petty partisan politics that would rather have us be unsuccessful so certain people can come into power will end. It is shameful that we have politicians who are de facto rooting for our troops to be driven home by a terrorist army, even if that is not what they believe in their hearts. It is more important to so many to try and discredit Gen. Petraeus and President Bush and the idea that we might actually be succeeding - simply so that political points can be scored and troops brought home, no matter the cost. Senator Barack Obama - a leading Democratic Presidential candidate - essentially shrugged off a possible genocide in Iraq, saying such a thing is not our responsibility.
There is but one focus on the left: Pull back the troops, declare failure, and blame that failure on President Bush. It is becoming increasingly hard to understand their motives in any other way.