I was driving last night and listening to my XM Radio when the news came on at the top of the hour. I heard this interesting story about how Iraq had passed a Bill that ordered U.S. withdrawal. Regular readers of my blog will know why I found this interesting, but I’ll get to that. First, is what they are saying factually correct? Yes. As this story shows (with much the same spin) Iraq’s Parliament approved a three year timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Is their reporting on this anything remotely intellectual honesty? No. The “Iraq OK’s deal to keep U.S. troops for 3 years” headline at New York Daily News gets it much better.

But sometimes playing with the spin is more fun than setting the record straight, so I’m going to toy with this for a minute before I let it go. I am going to assume the first headline to be true, and take quotes from the story and assign them a meaning based on the liberal spin in the headline.

If this is indeed a withdrawal pact being signed, then what does that say for these people?

The vote, held above the din of detractors shouting, “No!” and bashing books and binders on desks, followed intense negotiations among the nation’s Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds that portend fierce political battles.

Translation? Iraqi Parliament members screamed “No!” and slammed their books and binders on desks as the vote for U.S. Withdrawal was taken. So deep is their love for America and her troops, they couldn’t stand the thought of them leaving. Right? I mean, seriously. If this is what your headline states, then why are they screaming “No!”. Because they want us out today, and this was indeed a deal to keep us there for 3 years, not a deal for our withdrawal.

Next quote.

Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will be held to promises of political reform made to Sunnis in exchange for “yes” votes. Kurds could use the promises to press their own demands for autonomy from a central government they see as too strong. And hard-liners loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — who opposed the pact, fearing it will allow for an open-ended American presence — have warned of renewed violence against U.S. forces by Shiite militiamen.

Translation? Like scorned lovers, followers of al-Sadr said “If we can’t have them, no one can” when threatening to kill U.S. troops if they try to withdraw. Or, try this one on for size. Followers of al-Sadr opposed the pact, fearing that U.S. withdrawal would lead to an open ended American presence.

Or better yet, I guess the protestors that burned the effigy of Bush did so because he was talking about pulling our troops out of there. No, let’s get back to reality. The fact of the matter is a very simple thing. No matter how you leftists try to spin it, Iraq has voted to keep U.S. troops there for 3 more years. Why? Because we are needed there. As much as they and we may not like it, we are needed there to protect this fledgling Democracy for a few more years.

November 28th, 2008
Categories: Politics . Author: trlrtrash13 (My Info)

No Comments

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment