Iraq - Media Losing The War

Chrenkoff reports on a Mark Steyn article.

"And in between their Bridges-Of-Madison-County imagery and Horse-Whisperer narrative devices the Western media somehow managed to lose the story – functioning municipal government in the south, booming tourism in the north, normality and progress in three-quarters of the country, and now the first Arab country with a non-Arab head of state. The insurgent-of-the-day approach to Iraq didn't even capture that element correctly: On the second anniversary of the invasion, Agence France-Presse ran a story remarkably like the AP's hypothetical specimen. The headline: '45 Killed In Insurgent Attacks.'

"The lead paragraph: 'At least 45 people have been killed in insurgent attacks across Iraq as Washington defended its decision to go to war on the second anniversary of the US-led invasion.'

"It took an Australian blogger, Arthur Chrenkoff, to poke deep down into the story and emerge with the most salient fact of this bloody toll – that of the 45 dead, 29 were 'insurgents' themselves. Terrorism is supposed to be one guy indiscriminately killing large numbers of the other side. No terrorist network can survive long if it's losing two of its own men for every one of the enemy. That's the story: a day of hope turned into yet another day of tears – for the insurgents.

"With a few honorable exceptions, Iraq coverage has been a truly spectacular failure. One day in the future, we'll dig out the yellowing cuttings and wonder how America managed to lose every daily battle and yet still win the war."

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele is a prime example of that "truly spectacular failure".

Speaking of the recent protest to mark the second anniversary of the US liberation of Iraq, Steele wrote this:

Instead of being done by US marines with a few dozen Iraqi bystanders, 300,000 Iraqis were on hand. They threw down effigies of Bush and Blair as well as the old dictator, at a rally that did not celebrate liberation but called for the immediate departure of foreign troops.

What Steele conveniently fails to tell you is that the protest was organized by the terrorist cleric Sadr. Well, not until paragraph 8.

Steele also overestimates the protest figures. Most estimates I saw were ten thousand; far fewer that the one million Sadr promised.

Notice how Steele contradicts himself when he says the protesters threw down effigies of Bush, Blair and "the old dictator" (curious Steele names Bush and Blair but not Saddam) but they "did not celebrate liberation". Isn't throwing down the effigy of Saddam, "the old dictator", celebrating liberation?

Steele also fails to mention that the protesters called for the end of the terrorism and the speedy trial of Saddam.

That's four failures in a two sentence paragraph!! Steyn is right when he says the reporting on Iraq has been a "truly spectacular failure".

But Steele is not done with his descent into denial.

For most Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds, Washington's "liberation" never was. Wounded national pride was greater than relief at Saddam's departure.

Notice how Steele just throws out the "for most Iraqis" without any evidence to back it up. Johnny says so and that ought to be good enough. Sorry Johnny but we don't buy it.

Johnny, if their pride was more important than getting rid of Saddam, how come 8 million of them defied the terrorists and voted? If what you say is true, surely the Iraqi people would rise up and join the terrorists instead of defying them.

Steele's nonsense continues.

The weekend's vast protest shows that opposition is still growing, in spite of US and British government claims to have Iraqis' best interests at heart. It was the biggest demonstration since foreign troops invaded.

Imagine, those evil US and British government's letting the Iraqis vote and exercise their right to protest. According to Johnny this is not in the Iraqis best interest.

And you're dead wrong about this being the biggest demonstration since the US liberation. That distinction goes to the 8 million Iraqis who braved death to vote in their first free elections.

How does it feel to be so on the wrong side of history Steele?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------