Even The NYT Now Lies For Bush!

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

But, but, but there were NO WMDs in Iraq! Everyone said so then and many liberals continue to say so to this day so the NYT must now also be considered part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (thank you Hillary).

"more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound."

Iraq produced 10 metric tons of mustard blister agent in 1981; by 1987 its production had grown 90-fold, with late-war output aided by two American companies that provided hundreds of tons of thiodiglycol, a mustard agent precursor. Production of nerve agents also took off.

But do not let it be said that the NYT does not try to stick to its core:

Much of the chemical stockpile was expended in the Iran-Iraq war or destroyed when the weapons programs were dismantled after the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

Really? How do you know the program was dismantled after the Persian Gulf war? The same source that told you there were NO WMDs there at all?

Sergeant Burns’s team had picked up an exceedingly rare weapon: a 152-millimeter binary sarin shell.

Yep, no WMDs.

Reached recently, Mr. Duelfer agreed that the weapons were still a menace, but said the report strove to make it clear that they were not “a secret cache of weapons of mass destruction.”

“What I was trying to convey is that these were not militarily significant because they not used as W.M.D.,” he said. “It wasn’t that they weren’t dangerous.”

So by 2004 even some in the government worked to down play the risks and volume of WMDs in Iraq.

In late 2005 and early 2006, soldiers collected more than 440 Borak 122-millimeter chemical rockets near Amara, in southeastern Iraq. And in the first nine months of 2006, the American military recovered roughly 700 chemical warheads and shells, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

British forces also destroyed 21 Borak rockets in early 2006, including some that contained nerve agent...

In 2006: the American Army made its largest chemical weapons find of the war: more than 2,400 Borak rockets.

Others still contained sarin. “Full-up sloshers,”

Even the Senate's own report as flawed as it was, included that chemical weapons were found: The report, released in September 2006, claimed “another 500 filled and unfilled degraded pre-1991 chemical munitions” had been found — about one-sixth of the Pentagon’s internal tallies.

It is almost funny that years ago, the paper of record and every other MSM outlet was pushing the mime that there were NO WMDs in Iraq and Bush lied! Despite the fact that he used the same intelligence that every other country used and Congress used. Now, years later no apology from the NYT for getting it wrong. Instead the NYT thinks enough history has passed that it is safe to come out with an "evil US Government hid the truth and is killing solders due to chem weapons" story.

The old gray lady is never wrong and we have always been at war with Eastasia...

That pretty well sums it up now doesn't it?

When will this photo be on the front page?

Or lead the nightly news? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Code "how rude and disruptive can we be" Pink

While watching the video I was just starting to wonder where the tasers were, then there they were! Why is it that you only see lefties protesting in this manner? This "in your face", "my way or the highway" type of activities (though to be honest some of those pro-choice protesters can get pretty fired up too)? This is just more of that "the ends justifies the means" for the "community based reality" folks.

And John at PowerLine makes a VERY good point, where was security when these people were filing into the meeting room? Folks that get ejected from meetings like this for being disruptive should face some sort of penalty. Yes they have a right to be heard but that was not the point of this meeting. They could have protested outside of the meeting or waited for a Q&A portion of the meeting. Instead, because their opinion is more important and the only "right one", no one else matters. It is all about their rights to the exclusion of everyone else's. Why debate when they can just shout you down, get in your face and make a big scene because you know, they care.

Sharp Drop Seen in US Deaths in Iraq

Will wonders never cease? A positive story about Iraq by the AP? But don't worry, they were still able to find some less than positive news to include, to you know, keep it "fair and balanced".

"While U.S. death figures appear to be in sharp decline, the number of Iraqi civilians and security forces show a less dramatic drop. And any significant attack — by insurgents or civilians caught in the crossfire — could quickly wipe out the downward trend."

Funny thing is, I just don't recall any prior AP stories that discussed the rising death toll including a similar caveat that "any significant offensive operations by US forces -- could quickly wipe out the upward trend". I must have just missed those...

See there is just NO good news in Iraq, anywhere...

It don't run if it can't be spun, as bad news. The headline is "As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch ". The MSM just has to find the cloud in every silver lining. This sort of thing is getting so past the point of being ridicules that it is actually getting to be funny. What is next? An article about how as violence in Iraq drops and the status of living rises, stores can't stock enough merchandise causing critical X Box shortages?

General Sanchez speaks truth to power.

The truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas

Regarding Iraq: Open letter to Andy Rooney

by Larry Elder

That is sure to leave a mark...

Geneva Con

Extracted from "Best of the Web Today" for Tuesday, October 3, 2006...

"Iraqi officers loyal to Saddam Hussain filmed their cold-blooded murder of two British bomb disposal officers who were captured after a roadside ambush," reports the Times of London, which describes the March 2003 incident:

An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam's military intelligence.

The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

We keep hearing that if we don't accord Geneva Convention protections to al Qaeda detainees, our soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment. But here is how an enemy--one that, unlike al Qaeda, actually is a signatory to Geneva--treats Western soldiers. So what exactly do we gain by even meeting our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, much less exceeding them?

Cindy Sheehan Telethon

Now this is a telethon that I could really get behind!

Media bias? What media bias?

A recent CBS poll finds that 60% of Americans say it's likely "that the United States will ultimately find success in Iraq," and more than 50% say "Iraq will eventually become a stable democracy."

Any normal person would view these results and think that was good news. Not CBS. What was their headline for this survey? "Poll: Zarqawi Death Has Little Impact."

The data that CBS chose to highlight in order to support their headline includes:

Half think the level of violence in Iraq will be unchanged by Zarqawi's death, while 30 percent say it will actually lead to more attacks against U.S. forces. Just 16 percent think the number of attacks will decrease as a result of his death.

Sixty-one percent also say Zarqawi's death won't have any impact on the terrorist threat against the United States, while 22 percent it will increase that threat. Thirteen percent predict a decreased risk of terrorism.

Andrew Sullivan on a roll

"A reader captures what has been in my mind and gut for the last few days: 'The BBC just released a video alleging yet another covered-up massacre of civilians by American personel [sic] in Iraq. 5 women, 4 children, and 2 men in Ishaqi in March. Just when I think I'm totally numb, I find out a fellow American may have executed a 6 month-old baby in the name of protecting me, and I can't hold back tears. What country are we in?' The same country that now practices torture. Cheney country." -- Time magazine's Andrew Sullivan, June 2, 2:55 p.m

"Raw Story has now posted some photos of the corpses of children murdered in Ishaqi. Don't go there if you are squeamish, or believe that possible war crimes should not be covered by the media. Investigations continue, and exactly what happened has not been established. But the omens are grim. And these pictures of infants with bullet holes in their skulls simply defy my comprehension of what has happened to this country." -- Time magazine's Andrew Sullivan, June 2, 3:49 p.m

"The conclusions about Ishaqi also seem to me to be provisional. More evidence may yet emerge. We should be cautious about drawing any firm conclusions yet." -- Time magazine's Andrew Sullivan, June 2, 7:54 p.m, responding to the news that an investigation has cleared U.S. troops of wrongdoing at Ishaqi.

Interesting how his tone and excitement changes as the story moves from quite possible U.S. atrocities to just atrocities. Andrew starts out opining "what country are we in?" and moves on to a bit of the standard not in my name but as the story continues to unfolds and it looks like this might (oh my) not be the result of U.S. action, we "should be cautious about drawing any firm conclusions yet." Most definitely Andrew, let us not get too far ahead of ourselves. Though you could still luck out and this tragedy may yet have been the direct result of U.S. action then you could go back to crowing.

America's Majority

Some positive ads about Iraq, some partisan, most not. You can see them here. We will see if any of them make it to TV.

Reporting from Iraq

If I am truly unbiased, then I need to get used to this one simple fact; that the untold story, might in fact, be a positive one.

All I can say about this is "do you think?". Read the whole thing.

Frog water

I was watching the nightly news last night and one of the stories was about Iraq. In this piece, the reporter was out in a village that was fairly isolated. It did not look like the village had electricity or sanitation or running water. In fact, the point of this story seemed to be about the water well that was on one of the villager’s property. The owner of the well was sharing his water with the rest of the village and everyone seemed OK with that.

The reporter then went on about how the villagers had to ‘share’ their well with some frogs. To drive the point home, the camera-man showed the well and it had two frogs in it. The well looked to be about 6 feet deep with about a foot of water in it. If the darn frogs bothered the villagers so much, it looked like it would be fairly easy for them to fish the frogs out and get rid of them. They were just frogs. These are people that are so grateful to have ANY water at all.

So many things are so relative and it seems that the news can not help but try to show anything in the worst possible light. Instead of a story of how a remote village was sharing their limited resources and everyone was getting along and surviving, it was a story about how the poor, poor villagers had to drink ‘frog’ water. Grow up already. To put this in a little perspective, have you not ever taken a drink from a stream? Also, there people in are places in Africa (and I am sure in Iraq as well) that would give their right arm to have a supply of water, frogs included.

And where is the media on stories like this?

Saddam Hussein loyalists who violently opposed January elections have made an about-face as Thursday's polls near, urging fellow Sunni Arabs to vote and warning al Qaeda militants not to attack.

In a move unthinkable in the bloody run-up to the last election, guerrillas in the western insurgent heartland of Anbar province say they are even prepared to protect voting stations from fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Graffiti calling for holy war is now hard to find. . . .

But Saddam loyalists have turned against Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant whose fighters travel to Iraq from across the Arab world to blow themselves up in a bid to spark sectarian civil war.

"Zarqawi is an American, Israeli and Iranian agent who is trying to keep our country unstable so that the Sunnis will keep facing occupation," said a Baathist insurgent leader who would give his name only as Abu Abdullah.

Yes there are bad things happening over there but there are good things happening over there too. The voices in the MSM shout about how they are the protectors of truth well this is truth too. The nightly news is 'oh so quick' to give the latest casualty figures for road-side bombs (yes that is news and needs to be reported) but what about how many schools have opened or hospitals? How about a little word on the new freedoms being experienced by your average Iraq in the street? It seems that all of the major news outlets are using the same 'news worthy' filter and it seems to be tuned for bad news only. Half the truth is not the truth. It is called a sin of omission.