There is no civil war in Iraq

Published on September 30, 2005 By Island Dog In Politics

I see one of the usual radicals keep mentioning that there is civil war in Iraq. Although this person doesn't offer proof except for a MSM headline. These are the same people that never read about the real progress that is happening in Iraq. They feed of the biased headlines of the MSM.

Also, Bush and the conservatives are not "going down". The only people who stand to lose is the democrats. After all these years they still haven't come up with real ideas, just more hate.

Comments

Island Dog

on Sep 30, 2005

TO THE Washington Post they were simply "gunmen." The New York Times non-judgmentally called them "armed men."

The elite media fastidiously avoid such harsh words as "terrorist" — even to describe those who, last week, rounded up five Iraqi teachers from outside their school, dragged them into a classroom, lined them up against a wall and shot them to death.

The Post was quick to inform readers that "no children were hurt in the attack." Are we to regard that as restraint on the part of these "gunmen"?

The Times noted that "the killings appeared to have been motivated more by sectarian hatred than any animosity toward the (teaching) profession." Is that meant to be reassuring?

In a bygone era, reporters would have let readers know in no uncertain terms how thoroughly they despise and condemn those who massacre teachers in a schoolroom. Nor would they have minced words in regard to those who blow up civilians or ritually decapitate "infidels."

But today, most big-league journalists see it differently. The Reuters news agency loftily insists that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Other media moguls will tell you that it is their professional obligation to remain disinterested regarding this war and those fighting it. At key moments, however, that neutrality seems to wear thin — in a perverse way.

For example, the Post ran the story of the slaughter of the Iraqi teachers not on the front page but on page 19. On page 1 was what the editors evidently judged a more consequential story: It was about Iraqis "scorning" Americans.

"Baghdad's Karrada district," readers were told, "was one of those neighborhoods where residents showered flowers on U.S. forces entering the capital" in 2003. (Interesting: How many times have you heard that Iraqis did not celebrate the American intervention against Saddam Hussein?)

The story goes on to say that "car bombings and other insurgent attacks, as unknown in Baghdad before the invasion as suicide bombings were in London until this summer, have killed more than 3,000 people in the capital since late spring."

The implication is that those who order attacks and those who detonate bombs — in Baghdad and London — are less to blame than those Americans who interfered with Saddam's fabled stability.

The story notes, too, that "kidnapping and other forms of lawlessness since the invasion" have altered the lives of "Baghdad's comparatively liberated women."

Striking a similar — if even less subtle — note on "Meet the Press" last weekend, Times columnist Maureen Dowd argued that Sen. Hillary Clinton "is going to have to answer the question about why she voted for an invasion that ended up curbing women's rights."

Is it possible that these veteran journalists don't know that Saddam Hussein murdered — according to Human Rights Watch — 300,000 Iraqis? Among those butchered were both men and "comparatively liberated" women. Children, too, by the way.

Kenneth M. Pollack, who served on the National Security Council under President Clinton, has noted that Saddam would "gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents . . . drag in a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him . . . behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime."

Do commentators such as Dowd believe that such acts did not "curb" women's rights? Would the Post argue that gouging, raping and beheading don't qualify as "lawlessness"? Alternatively, would they contend that barbarism in pursuit of stability is justifiable? If so, why not propose the U.S. military adopt such tactics? And why cavil about Abu Ghraib?

For decades, too many correspondents covering the Middle East failed to report Saddam's worst atrocities — sometimes because they knew little beyond what the dictator's flacks told them, sometimes to protect their local staffs, sometimes to avoid getting kicked out of the country or tossed into jail themselves.

But what can be the excuse for so many media heavyweights continuing the cover-up now — overlooking documented history, soft-pedaling the murder of innocents by Saddam loyalists and al-Qaida invaders, and shifting blame from terrorists to those fighting them?

This isn't neutrality. It's moral vacuity.

Island Dog

on Sep 30, 2005

Despite the MSM’s propensity to show only news of the latest homicide bomber and not the new water treatment plant; and while opponents to the War on Terror continue to paint Iraq as a “quagmire” or as “Bush’s Vietnam”, the news from Iraq continues to improve.

What is not reported is the desire of the people of Iraq for peace. Today the MSM is splashing news of the death toll in the latest car bombs, 60 so far (story), which are meant to disrupt the upcoming constitutional referendum and the mid-December election for a new government. Forgotten are the images of women voting for the first time in the first democratic election held in Iraq in 2004.

Army Major General. Rick Lynch, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, gave a largely unreported news briefing today, in which he said the Iraqi people have already shown a great will and determination to establish a free country, and progress is made continually.

"The people of Iraq are uniting to kick the terrorists and foreign fighters out of their country," he said. "We're seeing more of that every day." Iraqi citizens routinely supply Iraqi security forces and coalition forces with information about terrorists and their activities, which often leads to successful operations, he said. Also, Iraqi security forces continue training and are increasing in size and effectiveness."

"There is great progress with the Iraqi security forces, not just on numbers," he said. "We are seeing increased capabilities on the part of the Iraqi security forces throughout Iraq on a daily basis. It's amazing progress."

There are now more than 195,000 trained and equipped security forces, and they will be ready to provide security for the constitutional referendum in October, Lynch said. Coalition forces will still be in Iraq to provide support, he added.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 30, 2005

In a bygone era, reporters would have let readers know in no uncertain terms how thoroughly they despise and condemn those who massacre teachers in a schoolroom. Nor would they have minced words in regard to those who blow up civilians or ritually decapitate "infidels."

I don't think it's a news reporter's right or responsibility to let us know how much they despise the criminals and murders and child molesters, etc. that appear in their reports. In an Op/Ed piece, sure, but not in a news report.

We read a factual account of what happened, and WE decide what to think about the people and events that have been described.

I DO NOT want the media telling me what to think.

Island Dog

on Sep 30, 2005

I DO NOT want the media telling me what to think.

Then stop watching the MSM now.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!