ch.annel2-i.s-n.ow-a.ngry

Every day, the Reuters news agency compiles a roundup of security developments in Iraq. The summaries show that although the U.S. troop surge has tamped down the bloodshed, Iraq remains extraordinarily violent. Monday’s developments, as Gen. David Petraeus reported to Congress on the surge, were fairly typical:

• Baghdad. Seven U.S. soldiers were killed and 11 injured in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

• Near Mosul. A suicide truck bomb killed 10 people and wounded 78, Iraqi police said

And the list goes on…

The U.S. Senate later voted 72-25 to repudiate the [move-on.org] ad [denouncing the Petraeus and Bush strategy] . Twenty-two Democrats joined 49 Republicans and one independent in denouncing it.

I hope  no one in Congress wonders why they’ve been called the do-nothing congress.

Moveon.org confirmed it paid $65,000 for the full page ad headlined “General Petraeus or General Betray Us.”

The New York Post ran a story on Thursday asking why the basic rate of $181,692 for such an ad was discounted.

“The quandary the Times gets stuck in is they don’t want to admit you can buy an ad for that rate, no matter who you are,” [Jeff] Jarvis said, noting that with print advertising revenues in decline newspapers generally did offer big discounts.

 On a more general note, Jarvis said U.S. papers should emulate their counterparts in Britain where, for example, The Guardian makes no effort to hide its liberal stance.

“In the U.S., I would argue newspapers should be more transparent and open about the views taken … and the (New York) Times is liberal,” he said.

The New York Times is liberal… but promoted Bush’s effort to invade Iraq. And now can only find Iraqis to interview that want US presence to stay, despite at least 50% polling saying they want the US gone as soon as possible?

The NYTIMES does an article about Iraqis’ reactions to Gen. Petraeus’ (rhymes with betray-us, like any good movie villain name rhymes with something bad) report to Congress. Unsurprisingly, they find people who think American forces should be gone immediately… but not really. In fact, they didn’t manage to find one Iraqi who really wanted the American troops gone for reals, they just found some that would say it, then confide in a low voice that they needed our help, they were just too proud to really say so. In fact, some wanted American troops for 3, 5 years or more. How is it journalism when your reported opinions don’t even bother trying to reprent polled demographics?