Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 2 of 4   <       >

Belated Reaction?

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"Well, for most of the rest of us, that hardly qualifies as breaking news, as we have tracked the decline in violence and the rise of commerce for the last three months.

"Just two months ago, the paper gave MoveOn a price break to run an ad that accused General David Petraeus of treason and perjury even before he testified about the security improvements. The editorial board called Petraeus' testimony 'empty calories' and complained of his 'broken promises and false claims of success' and asserted that Petraeus had not given an 'honest accounting' in his Congressional briefings.

"The Times waited until the success of Petraeus could no longer be denied to publish the truth. With every other news agency in the world reporting on the drop in violence, the rise in commerce, the flight of the militias even from Baghdad, and the unifying efforts such as the rebuilding of St. John's Catholic Church in the heart of the capital, the Times has no other choice but to rescue its credibility with an acknowledgment of reality. Even then, they use the hoary device of individual anecdotes to temper the news, as if to assert that even success cannot be enjoyed if even one individual feels fear of entering a specific neighborhood.

"One wonders how many Times execs wander freely through the Bronx at night, or even in the daytime.

"Now that the Times has finally acknowledged the success of the surge and the reality of Petraeus' testimony, will they apologize for disparaging the American commander so viciously?"

In Slate, Christopher Hitchens says things certainly appear to be getting better--and echoes the GOP complaint that the left doesn't want success:

"I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either."

At RedState, Pejman Yousefzadeh suggests that war opponents have been in denial:

"You know, I happen to think that the surge had a great deal to do with the improvements Baghdad--along with the rest of Iraq--is witnessing and experiencing. But frankly, I don't care who takes the credit so long as the reconstruction effort continues to proceed as successfully as it has over this past year.

"Kinda makes you wonder why it is that the 'reality-based community' hasn't taken much notice of these improvements. Or why it wants once again to short-circuit them with yet another debate over withdrawal that is destined to fail being planned in Congress."

But the latest refrain sounds awfully familiar to Kos contributor Devilstower:

"The news this morning is full of signs of peace settling over Baghdad as increased troop levels help to quiet the insurgency.


<       2           >


© 2007 The Washington Post Company