Leave it to the New York Times to find a link between Super Bowl ads and politics: "Super Bowl Ads of Cartoonish Violence, Perhaps Reflecting Toll of War."
UPDATE: Speaking of the Times, the New York Post takes a good whack at them today:
Question: When is a U.S. military victory not a victory?
Answer: When it's reported by The New York Times.
Read the account from Baghdad in the Jan. 30 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.
Ouch.
Recent Comments