Why is the media ignoring the Iraqi reconciliation law?
Last week I posted that Iraw had passed a major reconciliation law. The media mostly ignored this.
Via Instapundit, two posts on Iraq:
The first one, from Strategy Page, Reinforcing Failure points to the role of the Iraqis themselves in defeating al-Qaeda, and on the role of the media:
Apparently the Taliban missed the part where al Qaeda got run out of Iraq, by Iraqis, because of the large number of civilians killed by terrorist bombs.The second one, from Commentary, Big News from Baghdad, explains why the reconciliation law is important:
...
This years "Spring Offensive" will apparently feature more suicide bombs, and attempts to manipulate the Western media (to pressure Western governments to withdraw troops from Afghanistan).
We are now seeing extraordinary security gains from the last year translate into both political reconciliation and legislative progress. Within the last week the Iraqi parliament passed key laws having to do with provincial elections (the law devolves power to the local level in a decentralization system that is groundbreaking for the region), the distribution of resources, and amnesty. And those laws follow ones passed in recent months having to do with pensions, investment, and de-Ba'athification.What does it mean in regards to the 2008 US Presidential elections, then?
American Ambassador Ryan Crocker told Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard that "the whole motivating factor" beyond the legislation was "reconciliation, not retribution." This is "remarkably different" from six months ago, according to the widely respected, straight-talking Crocker.
Progress in Iraq means life is getting progressively more difficult for Democrats and their two presidential front-runners, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Having strongly opposed the surge, Obama and Clinton have been forced by events to concede that security progress has been made. But until now they have insisted that the surge is a failure because we're not seeing political progress. That claim is now being shattered.That explains why the media aren't about to feature the new law and Iraqi budget with any of the importance it deserves.
Soon Obama and Clinton will have no argument left to justify their position on Iraq. It will become increasingly clear that they are committed to leaving Iraq simply because they are committed to leaving Iraq, regardless of the awful consequences that would follow. It is an amazing thing to witness: two leading presidential candidates who are committed to engineering an American retreat, which would lead to an American defeat, despite the progress we are making on every conceivable front.
At the end of the day, this position will hurt Democrats badly, because their position will hurt America badly.
Share on Facebook
Labels: Afghanistan, Iraq
posted by Fausta @ 7:11 AM
1 Comments:
That explains why the media aren't about to feature the new law and Iraqi budget with any of the importance it deserves.
Exactly. They ignore it because any sign of progress does not fit their predetermined narrative: that Iraq was a mistake, the reconstruction an unmitigated failure, the whole episode a disaster for America, with George Bush and the Republicans to blame. Evidence to the contrary is blithely shoved into a closet.
Of course, even the MSM can't forever ignore the obvious signs of military progress in Iraq, so they move the goalposts to say "that doesn't matter, there's been no political reconciliation. We have to withdraw now and elect a Democrat!" And, now that there's substantial signs of a political reconciliation, they're trying to shove that news into the closet, too.
The problem for the MSM is, however, the Internet has killed their role as information gatekeepers. The public can see the games the editor behind the curtain is playing, which explains why circulation numbers for periodicals like the NYT are dropping like a rock.
Post a Comment
<< Home