The DaleyGator

David Bauder of AP asks the age-old question. What if they had a war and the media forgot to cover it? 

Remember the war in Iraq?

The question isn’t entirely facetious. The war has nearly vanished from TV screens over the past few months, replaced by stories about the fascinating presidential campaign and faltering economy.

I think we might look at this fact. More GOOD news from Iraq, equals LESS media coverage.

Statistics clearly illustrate the diminished attention. For the first 10 weeks of the year, the war accounted for 3 percent of television, newspaper and Internet stories in the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s survey of news coverage. During the same period in 2007, Iraq filled 23 percent of the news hole.

The difference is even more stark on cable news networks: 24 percent of the time spent on Iraq last year, just 1 percent this year.

Well, Bauder refuses to mention the obvious media bias angle here, BUT Ed Morrissey nails it!

Bauder manages to skip over another much more likely reason: the news got better, and the media doesn’t want to cover it. He provides evidence for this in his own analysis:

It’s possible to pinpoint the exact week that the switch turned off. The war averaged 30 minutes per week of coverage last year on the three network evening newscasts up until Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. forces, testified in September about the surge’s progress, according to news consultant Andrew Tyndall. In the last 15 weeks of the year, the broadcasts collectively spent four minutes per week on the war.

Bauder fails to note the political impact of Petraeus’ testimony. That week, Democrats practically queued up in front of television cameras to accuse Petraeus of playing politics, and Hillary Clinton accused him of lying to Congress. The unseemly nature of the attacks on a serving US military commander repulsed Americans, and the discovery that Petraeus was right made it even worse.

Ever since then, the media have sought to play down Iraq. They have pulled back coverage, not because of fatigue, but because they have been proven incorrect in their rush to portray it as a military failure. They have grudgingly noted the progress made in Iraq since last year’s change in strategy and tactics, and barely noticed when Iraq began passing the reconciliation legislation demanded by Congress this year and last.

BINGO!

Yes, another sign of the surge’s success. And if you are a lefty who hates good news from Iraq this post will REALLY PISS YOU OFF! Why? Well, because the good news is two-fold 

H/T Hot Air

The first one here is with MessMBC’s Keith Olbermann, and is, frankly, a classic example of softball tossing.

The second clip is from Fox News where Major Garrett does a far better job, actually asking some serious questions. I really like that Garrett asks the “why didn’t you quit the church” question that everyone ought to be asking.

 Note-I send you to Hot Air for the second clip for AP’s take, and because I cannot get a good link directly to the video.

The third video comes from CNN, where Anderson Cooper shows himself better than Olbermann, but still misses chances to grill Obama. After Cooper confronts Obama with some of Wright’s hateful statements, he doesn’t let Obama skate by with the excuses that Wright is retiring, and has been a preacher for decades, and is kind of like that crazy uncle every family has. But, Cooper fails to really press the issue either.

The bottom line here is that anyone paying attention KNOWS damn well, that Obama is lying. There is no way he NEVER knew about Wright’s racist and un-American views.

 If it were me interviewing Obama, I would have asked if the positive reaction from his fellow parishoners to Wright’s racist remarks bothered him. Clearly the statements from the “crazy uncle” Is getting aplause from the rest of the “family”!

UPDATE! ABC uncovers some holes in Obama’s I never knew alibi.

Obama told CNN that he “didn’t know about all these statements. I knew about one or two of these statements that had been made. One or two statements would not lead me to distance myself from either my church or my pastor. … If I had thought that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis, then yes, I don’t think it would have been reflective of my values.”

But according to a New York Times story from a year ago, the Obama campaign dis-invited Wright from delivering a public invocation at Obama’s candidacy announcement.

In  a phone call with Wright, Obama cited a Rolling Stone story, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama,” (the name of which has curiously been changed on the RS website) and told him, according to Wright, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

OUCH! The truth Obama, shall set you free.

H/T Hot Air

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard lays out the facts, free of media spin.

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda’s second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.” According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq’s former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

Among the more interesting findings care these nuggets

In 1993, as Osama bin Laden’s fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to “armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests.”

In the 1990s, Iraq’s military intelligence directorate trained and equipped “Sudanese fighters.”

In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered “financial and moral support” to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

After laying out the facts Hayes explains how these facts never made it to the American people.

How can a study offering an unprecedented look into the closed regime of a brutal dictator, with over 1,600 pages of “strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism,” in the words of its authors, receive a wave-of-the-hand dismissal from America’s most prestigious news outlets? All it took was a leak to a gullible reporter, one misleading line in the study’s executive summary, a boneheaded Pentagon press office, an incompetent White House, and widespread journalistic negligence.

This is a great read, and an eye-opener, laying the blame whee it lies. With the media, and of course, assigning a chunk of the blame to the White House’s refusal to talk about what was in the report.

I think everyone with a functioning brain realizes that the left’s anti-war rhetoric emboldens the terrorists, heck the North Vietnamese said that decades ago.

Now, there is a study that show how anti-war reporting does indeed help those we are are fighting in Iraq.

The paper “Is There an ‘Emboldenment’ Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq” concludes the following:

• In the short term, there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets.

• In periods immediately after a spike in “antiresolve” statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.

• Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.

To be totally fair, you should read the whole article before wanting to put your foot squarely in the arsses of the MSM.

Chicago Sun Times

During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.

Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his “best estimate” was that Rezko raised “between $50,000 and $60,000″ during Obama’s political career.

OOH, that is uncomfortable isnt it? Does Obama suffer from poor math skills?

As ED Morrissey at Hot Air points out, this story is from June of last year. Boy, the media has really buried this one haven’t they?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com…MjA5ZTEyZDEyZjlhNjA

The Washington Post says McCain trails both Hillary and Obama nationally - Hillary leads 50 to 44, Obama leads 52 to 40.

Nice poll among adults, guys. Try registered voters or likely voters next time.

Fifteen percent of the sample is not registered to vote. Also note that the sample is 55 percent Democrat, 36 percent Republican, 7 percent Independent.

Busted! A great example of how many polls are outcome based, biased, and meant to form, rather than measure opinions

http://www.nytimes.com…S6XOL2N6lL6Kax7hJIjLIg&oref=slogin

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

The Slimes just being the Slimes again. They surely knew of this “issue” when they endorsed McCain, they had to. But, it only matters now? Why? Simple my friends, they wanted McCain to be the GOP nominee, but now, it is time for the long knives!

Anthony Cordesman, a former skeptic on Iraq and the surge makes a great case, that, the perceptions of many that these wars are hopeless is dead wrong
http://www.washingtonpost.com…AR2008022202176.html

No one can return from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recently did, without believing that these are wars that can still be won. They are also clearly wars that can still be lost, but visits to the battlefield show that these conflicts are very different from the wars being described in American political campaigns and most of the debates outside the United States.

These conflicts involve far more than combat between the United States and its allies against insurgent movements such as al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban. Meaningful victory can come only if tactical military victories end in ideological and political victories and in successful governance and development. Dollars are as important as bullets, and so are political accommodation, effective government services and clear demonstrations that there is a future that does not need to be built on Islamist extremism.

The military situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are very different. The United States and its allies are winning virtually every tactical clash in both countries. In Iraq, however, al-Qaeda is clearly losing in every province. It is being reduced to a losing struggle for control of Nineveh and Mosul. There is a very real prospect of coalition forces bringing a reasonable degree of security if decisions such as Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s announcement Friday to extend his militia’s cease-fire six months continue over a period of years.

Yep! That is right! When the media reports it! I am sure they meant to mention it, but just forgot. Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters caught it, and the AP, though.

http://newsbusters.org…identity-thief-illegal-alien

A great observation by Patterico on how the media has turned on Hillary and has begun annointing Obama.

http://patterico.com…republicans-ms-clinton/

Hillary had some remarks today about Obama, the relentlessly positive candidate who recently sent out some negative attack mailers against Hillary. By taking exception to the attacks, Hillary is now being portrayed the same way as Republicans are portrayed when they defend themselves . . . she is being called an attacker by the L.A. Times (and pretty much the rest of the media as well).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23304287

For many black Americans, it is a conversation they find hard to avoid, revisiting old fears in the light of bright new hopes.

They watch with wonder as momentum builds for Barack Obama that could make him America’s first black president. And they ask themselves, their family, their friends: Is he at risk? Will he be safe?

What is this? Oh, of course, the media has to play the “It ain’t safe for a Black leader in America” card don’t they? To them, America is still a country where Jim Crow laws and lynchings are a reality. Being Liberal, the MSM is typically and sadly obssessed with race and with the decidedly liberal ideal that racism is pervasive in this country.

http://blog.newsweek.com…not-so-friendly-skies.aspx

But in the aftermath of today’s New York Times story looking at McCain’s dealings with a Washington lobbyist, the mood is decidedly different. Before McCain boarded his plane, reporters were asked to sit farther back than usual on the plane. And when McCain finally boarded the plane, he failed to offer his usual wave at reporters and opted to quickly take his seat. During the flight, the cabin was unusually quiet, save a few quick discussions McCain had with top aides Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter. Near the end of the flight, Schmidt came back to the press cabin, where, with cameras off, he railed against the New York Times for publishing its story. “The Times in a post-Jayson Blair, post-Judith Miller world… went through a painful period of self-evaluation,” Schmidt said. “That went out the window yesterday with this piece on John McCain…This is much more a story about journalism than a story about John McCain.” When reminded that the Washington Post also published a story today, Schmidt shrugged. “The Washington Post piled on (but) the Washington Post didn’t instigate the story,” Schmidt said.

Ah, seems the honeymoon is over! Is McCain, or anyone else surprised? Did anyone really think the media would NOT turn on Senator Straight Talk? Come now, the media got what they wanted, a GOP candidate, they think will lose in November. Now, they have kicked McCain to the McCurb!

http://www.nytimes.com…oref=slogin

You want media bias? HERE you go!

And a few weeks ago, voters in a county that is more than 96 percent white chose a genial black man, James Fields, to represent them in the State House of Representatives. It is a historic first, but the moment is full of awkwardness.

Awkwardness? No, it seems he won 96% of the vote! That is NOT AWKWARD! But, the anti-Southern bigots at the Slimes can’t admit that Alabama is not the racist state they think it is! Read on!

Last fall, another black man, Eric Powell, was elected to the Mississippi State Senate from a district that is more than 92 percent white, and no one could find a modern precedent for that, either. Mr. Fields and Mr. Powell are Democrats who decisively beat white candidates in districts that traditionally support Republican presidential candidates.

OH NO! You mean Mississippi did it too! You mean the media’s portrayal of the South as a hotbed of bigotry is WRONG? OH but wait! The Slimes STILL has the ultimate card to play!

“He’s a dadgum good fellow,” said W. F. Davis, a retired boilermaker, at Jack’s, a roadside restaurant here, as Mr. Fields basked in congratulations nearby. “He’s always been one of us.”

The distinction between “one of us” and something else, of course, is always present in a county where Mr. Fields still sees Confederate flags dotting the landscape.

OH, of course! Those DAMNED Confederate flags again! MUST be racism alive if THEY are still flying right? It couldn’t be that Southerners respect their heritage, ancestors, WHILE being colorblind at the same time! Couldn’t be that the South is a diverse place where people can be diverse and accepting WITHOUT the ignorance of political correcteness! You can read the whole biASSed article, I suggest you do. It is full of typical anti-Southern cheap shots. Sad fact is this, if the NY Slimes was as open minded as 99% of Southerners it would be one hell of a lot better newspaper!

http://newsbusters.org…biofuel-mandate-contributes-inflation

And NewsBusters BUSTS them again!

http://newsbusters.org…measure-castros-heroic-status

Venezuela’s red beret-wearing President Hugo Chavez has inspired a new generation of Latin American leftists but has a ways to go to achieve the heroic status awarded to his iconic friend Fidel Castro.

Castro, 81, stepped down on Tuesday as Cuba’s leader in an armed revolution that made him a hero to guerrillas and young idealists in Latin America, even if he also became a villain for many in the world who saw him as an abusive autocrat.

Media bias? Are ya freakin kiddin me or what? As the good folks, Ken Shepherd in this case, points out. Rueters NEVER uses the word dictator to describe Chavez OR Castro. They never really get into the fact that these two Marxist pigs trample human rights either! Details? Reuters needs no stinkin’ details!