Ok, Ok, long time no post, but this really has me worked up. No, it's not just this article, but it's the straw that broke my back!
Am I wrong that it's the job of reporters to report the FACTS. I'm getting so sick of editorializing by supposedly neutral "journalists". The very first paragraph, emphasis added by me:
Two of America's allies in Iraq are withdrawing forces this month and a half-dozen others are debating possible pullouts or reductions, increasing pressure on Washington as calls mount to bring home U.S. troops.
Is the bolded part a fact, or an opinion. Yeah, it makes for a dry story to put the period at the end of the word reductions, but that's reporting. Do we have any statements from the withdrawing countries as to why they are pulling out? Not a single one in the article.
The entire rest of the article paints it entirely as an opportunity to once again bring all the negative nay-sayers about the war to the forefront, recount casualties one more time, and generally paint the President in a bad light.
They even go so far as to bring up a worst case scenario that hasn't even been hinted at happening yet:
If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by next summer.
When did a single official from any of these countries suggest withdrawal? It's nothing but an attempt to make it look like since these two tiny forces are being pulled out, the whole effort is collapsing. The only reason the article guesses is that it's because support for the war in the US is dwindling:
"The vibrations of unease from within the United States clearly have an impact on public opinion elsewhere," said Terence Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington. "Public opinion in many of these countries is heavily divided."
Gee, one liberal think tank says that public opinion here affects the rest of the world! By golly, that must be why they are pulling out! Let's look at some other potential reasons they ignored:
- Many of the coalition forces had specific jobs, like Italy training police. It could very well be the jobs these two forces were doing are FINISHED. In other words, they were successfully completed, but that would be good news, don't want to report that!
- The US has been so successful in the part of the country where Bulgaria and Ukraine worked that they are done. Hmm.
- There is a new government at home with different priorities in both these countries. However, that government probably wasn't elected based on Iraq as the central issue, since we're talking about 1250 troops here, between them. I hardly think a new government won parliament in Bulgaria over 380 troops being in Iraq. So, it is hardly a statement on the war itself.
The other thing that strikes me as hilarious is how quickly they will repeat the "unilateral invasion" cries of Democrats, yet write articles like this ticking off the many countries that helped and the fact that there was once 140,000 or more non-US troops involved in the effort.
The liberal media has become like sharks with blood in the water. They report the percentage of Americans who disapprove of the war, it's a majority. They don't report that a vast majority is against withdrawing from Iraq before the job is done.
I'm so tired of "reporting" that is just a disguised editorial. No wonder public opinion of our President is so low. When's the last time the AP or Reuters or any of the major networks reported anything good from Iraq, like a town's schools all being open for the first time in a decade, or the major port cities bustling or all the hospitals up and staffed and operational? That's right. You won't see a single fact reported or a single opinion put forth that anything positive is happening in Iraq as long as a Republican is in office.
You can count on it. So look elsewhere. There are media sites, like The Wall Street Journal, that reports everything, facts in their reports, editorials in their opinion section. Amazing. That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it?