The media appear to be unanimous: by getting his butt kicked, surrendering control of Basra, and being mocked as an Iranian catspaw Sadr has… succeeded.
This is bizarre. It’s beginning to sound like the Drive-by-media’s version of Hillary’s great Bosnia adventure.
The reporting all has a Baghdad dateline. The people actually on the ground and feeding this line to tools like the NY Times include a former Captain in Saddam’s army, [Calling on my experience as a captain in the Iraqi Army before the 2003 invasion] Qais Mizher.
If you look at the NY Times website you will note that there are 313 reports that include this individual. So we are getting the view of a former member of Saddam’s officer corps as our window into what’s happening in Basra.
Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki’s political capital has been severely depleted by the Basra campaign
Really? The same Iraqi politicians who were so opposed to Sadr they boycotted talks aimed at a peaceful resolution, calling it a “law and order” issue, thus preventing a quorum?and that he is in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival, for a way out.
Yes, how strange that he would talk to the enemy when negotiating that enemy’s surrender. Bizarre, yet. Perhaps even unique in the annals of war.
I have written a parody of the reporting in the Times as how they would have reported the battle of Gettysburg HERE.
UPDATE:
Michael Ledeen opined on this, which is a useful backgrounder for people who wonder what is going on and why.
The Shi’ites are killing one another all over Iraq, most notably in Basra. Jules Crittendon, as always, has a fine roundup of the (mis)coverage from the MSM, delivers all the right insults (I particularly enjoyed watching the back of his hand slap the unctious Tony Cordesman) and asks all the right questions. What kicked this off? Who’s fighting whom? Who’s gonna win? Is it good for us or bad for us?Read the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment