Rode Werk on April 7, 2008 at 9:04 AM

Crap, you beat me to the snappy answer. :)

Still more evidence that Maliki is smarter than the American media.

Not saying much, a mole is smarter than the msm.

“Yesterday’s News Tomorrow”

…or…

“All The News that Fits, We Print” (and we ignore or edit the heck out of the rest)

The American media seemed eager to portray Maliki as out of touch and defeated after the first few hours of fighting in Basra. Will they update their reports to show the unity that Maliki has achieved in his aggressive opposition to Sadr’s militias and the collapse of Sadr’s political standing as a result?

I have a feeling this subject might come up in the Petraeus testimony tomorrow and then the MSM will have a hard time avoiding it.

The Dhimmis has mastered the art of unintended consequences once again. The egg on their faces becomes them: a white flag of surrender (cut and run) is exposed along with their deep yellow streak.

One of the intriguing aspects of Qadaffi’s rambling at a recent convergence of Arab powers is the recognition that Iran is a threat to their powers. The other was his inadvertent admission that Muslim expansion by the sword was a fact in Andalusia. The memri clip at littlegreen footballs of the event is revelatory both in what Qadaffi says and what he doesn’t say.

“The American media seemed eager to portray Maliki as out of touch and defeated after the first few hours of fighting in Basra. Will they update their reports to show the unity that Maliki has achieved in his aggressive opposition to Sadr’s militias and the collapse of Sadr’s political standing as a result?”

Not according to the moronic Frank Rich, (as of yesterday):

“It was a defining moment all right. Mr. Maliki’s impulsive and ill-planned attempt to vanquish the militias in southern Iraq loyal to his Shiite rival, the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, was a failure that left Mr. Sadr more secure than before. Though some Iraqi armed forces were briefly in the lead, others mutinied. Eventually American and British forces and air power had to ride to the rescue in both Basra and Baghdad. Even then, the result was at best a standoff, with huge casualties. The battle ended only when Mr. Maliki’s own political minions sought a cease-fire.”

The problem is Mr. Rich’s post is one of the most emailed and read from the “paper of record” even though Rich has no clue that the “minions” exist in his own mind, and the propaganda the New York Times continues to publish with an anti-military agenda praying for defeat for their leftist political gain.

Most Chordates are.

Tossing this out there again because it’s still relevant today as more comes out about Iran’s involvement in the recent battle for Basra and Iraq at large.

TigerHawk quotes the Times of London on Sadr’s ceasefire.
Although powerful S…

El Guapo on April 7, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Oh, I agreee with you… for the man on the street.

One key aspect to the Middle East philosophy and history that most miss is that they will invaribly back the strong horse. Shifting alliances is not looked down on, as it is in the West, and is a much more normal activity. They don’t seem to take is as perssonaly as we do…

With that cultural perception as a backdrop, Al-Mal had our backing, BUT, the Politicians did not know if WE would last long enough to allow him to actualy gain control. The surge showed that we were willing to stick with Al-Mal thus making him a “strong horse”, and gaining him more internal back up.

Now, he has to consolidate his power base, and show he will still be able to maintain control IF we leave. So he has about 6 months to get rid of the militias…

Will they update their reports to show…

Do they ever?

The first step will be adding language to a draft election bill banning parties that operate militias from fielding candidates…

Don’t they have something like this in Palestine? That’s why the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is a political party, but never fields candidates. Everyone knows it’s just the military wing of one of the “real” political parties.

El Guapo on April 7, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Yes, Joseph Wilson comes to mind.

Smarter than MSM, how could that be? Oh that be!

The American media seemed eager to portray Maliki as out of touch and defeated after the first few hours of fighting in Basra. Will they update their reports to show the unity that Maliki has achieved in his aggressive opposition to Sadr’s militias and the collapse of Sadr’s political standing as a result?

Is this a trick question?

Actually we had all that, but political interests and politically motivated bureaucracy (I allege Clinton leftovers/holdovers) within our intel community ended up screwing up and even manipulating the end product of intel reports. Why do you think there was so much outcry when Porter Goss wanted to fire and prosecute leakers?

El Guapo on April 7, 2008 at 9:20 AM

I agree that elements within the intelligence community (specifically CIA) along with the State Department were actively undermining the administration but we really had almost no intelligence presence in Iraq before the war.

Key here is that Al Mal and the other centrist Iraqi’s understand that they only have a short window of time to reign in these militias.

They can read the tea leaves, and understand that the US’s internal politics, which are beyond their control, are now a ticking time bomb. They have to gain military control of the whole country, BEFORE the US elections, because if a Dem wins, they will not be able to count on US backup even between the election, and the Presidential Inagguration.

Romeo13

I like the way you think. But I would also like to conclude that being fed up with the rapes and kilings by extremists and Iraqis finally getting the courage (and dawning of who the real enemy is) to fight back is the real major factor.

Before the war the government had no idea what was going on in Iraq. We had no intelligence, no sense of ground truth. The media has rightly criticized that. Now the media has no idea what is going on in Iraq. Honest incompetence? Or do they not really want to get the story right? At least not right away. Not the first headline.

D0WNT0WN

Actually we had all that, but political interests and politically motivated bureaucracy (I allege Clinton leftovers/holdovers) within our intel community ended up screwing up and even manipulating the end product of intel reports. Why do you think there was so much outcry when Porter Goss wanted to fire and prosecute leakers?

They can read the tea leaves, and understand that the US’s internal politics, which are beyond their control, are now a ticking time bomb. They have to gain military control of the whole country, BEFORE the US elections, because if a Dem wins, they will not be able to count on US backup even between the election, and the Presidential Inagguration.