Consider the Senate maneuverings over an anti-surge resolution. The article states:
Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they would eventually find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.
Ah yes, the evil Republicans are blocking "debate" according to the article. And the loyal opposition is trying to change course and not retreat or surrender, if you believe the press. And of course, the casualty figure for US troops lost in Iraq is made rather than something else that places the loss in context either with the length of the war or the accomplishments achieved through those casualties.
In reality, the Republicans are blocking a vote on the specific resolution. In fact, the form of this blocking is the refusal to end debate. In fact, the Republicans are refusing to end debate on the specific measure in question because the majority party won't allow debate over competing resolutions.
So really, whatever you think about the war, who is stifling "debate" and who wants more of it?
So when you wonder why I have utter and near absolute contempt for our press corps as an institution, remember this small easily digested story of how the press cannot seem to tell the story straight without letting their anti-war bias color how they describe "the news."
The press is useful as a means of broadcasting information only if you have sufficient knowledge of politics and history to see through the bullshit that the media passes off as information. As journalism majors, it is beneath them to just report on what happened and when, they must interpret what happened for the poor dumb masses unenlightened with journalism degrees which allow such graduates to use the tilde key with confidence.
My God. They just make me sick.
UPDATE: Minutes later, another reason (via Instapundit) why those losers with journalism degrees couuldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel:
Read the account from Baghdad in the Jan. 30 [New York] Times about a battle the previous weekend in the city of Najaf - one of the biggest engagements of the war - and you'd think that U.S. and Iraqi forces had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of what was described as "an obscure renegade militia."
"Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity" of the fighters arrayed against them, read the piece by correspondent Marc Santora, who added, "They needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed."
Not until the article's sixth paragraph - 200 words into the 1,100-word piece - did this sentence appear: "The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle."
Or, as Wellington said after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, "It was a damned close-run thing" - but the good guys won.
So why wasn't this the lead of the Times' story? Given the way things have been going, it would seem to be an unusual enough development to warrant prominent attention.
Maybe because the Times doesn't want America to win in Iraq.
May our press rot in Hell. Really.
Oh, and this judgment does not excuse President Bush for his absolute failure to counter this sickening press outlook. In the end, we go to war with the press we have and not the press we wish we had. President Bush knows this. And yet he has failed to consistently rally our nation to fight this war despite the surrender monkeys banging away on their keyboards. In time, these journalists may get Shakespeare, but they sure as heck aren't going to get an accurate picture of Iraq.
