Home  |  About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy policy  |  Site map

« 'Peaceful' Group Linked To Radical Muslims | Main | Murder And Suicide By Any Other Name Is Still .... »


July 12, 2007

Headline Verses Reality At BBC News On Iraq

It's not my favorite media, but I check out BBC News everyday anyway just to see what our enemy's apologists are saying about the war on terror. Today is no different than any other: The headline reads, "Iraq 'fails to meet US targets,' the byline is "The Iraqi government has failed to meet eight out of 18 political and military goals set by the US Congress, the White House has said in an interim report.

The reality is that in an interim report, the Iraqi government "failed" to meet eight out of 18 political and military goals set by the US Congress, and two were "less than satisfactory." As Fox News put it in their headline - "Iraq Progress Good on 8 of 18 Benchmarks," and in their byline that actually says it like it really is:

A U.S. official said Thursday the Iraq government has been given a satisfactory rating on eight of 18 political and security benchmarks measured in an interim White House report to Congress, a mixed rating on two and an unsatisfactory rating on eight benchmarks.
Sure, it's whisker close to beauty being in the eyes of the beholder or a glass being half full or half empty, but the fact is that framing it as a failure is more than a bit of a stretch. This is especially true in the context of a full-blown war among multiple players, many of whom are more than a few bricks short of a full load in the common sense department and hopped up on hate juice. In the overall perspective, half right isn't too bad, and a bit more than half right (2 being somewhat less than satisfactory rather than "failed") means we're closer to winning than failing.

However, through the prism of BBC News, given an opportunity to cheer for the terrorists instead of your own government whose fighting hard to defeat a global grab bag of ideological hate mongering terrorists so that all of us, including BBC News, can continue enjoying our freedoms (including being able to propagate your own views whether the government agrees with them or not - as in BBC News), they choose the terrorists even if they have to re-frame reality to suit their own agenda.

Now, having picked on BBC News, we ought to be fair about our criticism of the media's coverage of Iraq, in general, which is something close to being atrociously left-leaning and pro-enemy (the rest of ours, not the media's - they "heart" the people that want to destroy the West). It's actually so bad that Jules Crittenden wonders for the rest of us, is the media's coverage of Iraq, in general, simply Lazy, Stupid or Willfully Ignorant?

Right now, all the talk in DC is whether there has been any progress in Iraq. No one can wait till September. They need to know now. Primarily, it appears, because they need to kill the war for their own domestic political reasons before it kills them. Most people, of course, already have the answer they want.

But how come, if this is the pressing issue of the day, we've seen no serious effort whatsoever among our leading news organizations to tell us or our political leaders what is actually happening?

We've seen how the New York Times deals with Iraq. Pathetically inadequate. We talked about the AP. Shamelessly biased. Both of NYT and AP, along with the Washington Post, as the most influential U.S. news organizations, deserve to be more closely examined on exactly what they are contributing to our understanding of this situation.

Where is the comprehensive look at the execution of George Bush's counterinsurgency strategy, this thing that everyone keeps disparaging?

Be sure to catch all the rest here ... The excerpts I've shown above are Jules just getting warmed up!

Sidebar - MSNBC sort of cuts in the middle, but still slants it to the "Left": "White House gives mixed review for Iraq - Success on 8 of 18 goals." They just can't bring themselves to "report" the news without re-framing it to suit, as Jules puts it, "their own domestic political reasons before it kills them."

Very much related: Dearly Departed

Cross posted from Hyscience



Tags:

Posted by Richard at July 12, 2007 10:03 AM



Comments

You're kidding right?

"Success" on the benchmarks = 18 out of 18.
Instead only 8 out of 18 of them have been met.

And you don't see failure?
You somehow see the glass as half-full?

You need to take some basic math classes.
I teach math. In my classes, 70% is passing.
Here, I'll do the math for you. Bush got 44% on the Iraq Benchmark test.
In my classroom, my students know that's a failure on their part.

Will you ever hold Bush accountable for anything?
Seriously.

Posted by: Jan at July 12, 2007 3:04 PM

One can easily see that Jan has never been in combat and hasn't spent much time working in the Middle East.

The issue has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the chaos of war, the mixed bag of successes and failures in a developing democracy amidst a tribal culture, and all while an insurgency and multiple terrorist groups are doing their level best to destroy each other, the Iraqis who are trying to put their country together, and fight the coalition. And by the way, don't forget to through in the interference from Iran and Syria.

Again, Jan, spend time in a few firefights and a few years in the tribal cultures of the Middle East, then come back and tell me about math, if you survive.

BTW, I did do a bit of math myself on my way to an MS in immunology and Ph.D. in clinical pharmacology. But before I got them, I did two tours in Vietnam as a U.S. Marine.

So, which "education" do I value the most? The one that involved learning the realities of chaos under fire, the experiences shared beside my fellow Marines, and the confusion and chaos of third world politics.

Tell me about math? No, Jan, tell me about the realities of war and fighting an enemy that gives no quarter and expects none. As hard as the V.C. and NVA were to fight, the Islamists are a whole different league with the sickest ideology the world has ever known. And as far as Iraq is concerned, I prefer to trust my son's view - now serving his 5th tour - having volunteered each time, and that of his friends fighting beside him, than a bench sitter whose focus is more on blaming Bush then fighting to win an important stage of a long-term war that we have no choice but to win.

One last BTW. I could care less about Bush, this war is about saving Western civilization for our children and grandchildren. We win in Iraq and Afghanistan, and win in our home countries and everywhere else the Islamists are at work, or we die as a culture and live under a sharia-based, fundamentalist, Islamic/Islamicist regime.

There's no prize for second best, no matter how hard you look the other way in the interest of a personal or socio-political agenda.

Math? With only 40% of the objectives for the Iraqi government being a clear failure, especially with 20% of the "unsatisfactory" benchmarks being benchmarks such at the passage of a hydrocarbon law, a debaathification statute and electoral reforms, overall one has to recognize that the progress made is significant.

Am I or anyone else satisfied with the Iraqi government overall progress? Hell no, the bastards need to do more and get their act together sooner rather than later. But all of us should recognize that progress is being made, albeit more slowly than we'd like, and that using a prism that benefits the enemy that wants to kill us, only serves to help them kill us.

Posted by: Richard at July 12, 2007 8:14 PM






Helpful Sites