The New York Times's liberal readership surely got indigestion over Tuesday's lead story from Baghdad by Damien Cave and Alissa Rubin, "Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves." It's even accompanied by three photos of normal life in the Iraqi capital.
Yes, this is the same New York Times that declared less than a month ago in the lead sentence to a lead editorial:
"The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse."
But on Tuesday the Times made a public bow to the improving reality in Iraq, admitting:
"The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.
"As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.
"Iraqis are clearly surprised and relieved to see commerce and movement finally increase, five months after an extra 30,000 American troops arrived in the country. But the depth and sustainability of the changes remain open to question."
To be sure, the article has plenty of anecdotes suggesting people still live in fear in Baghdad, and emphasized the incomplete nature of the gains.
"By one revealing measure of security -- whether people who fled their home have returned -- the gains are still limited. About 20,000 Iraqis have gone back to their Baghdad homes, a fraction of the more than 4 million who fled nationwide, and the 1.4 million people in Baghdad who are still internally displaced, according to a recent Iraqi Red Crescent Society survey."
For the full version of this article, visit Times Watch.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My favorite thing about the
November 20, 2007 - 15:22 ET by zfMy favorite thing about the reporting of positive news in Iraq is how some in the media have spun it as due to the terrorists "running out of people to kill."
This applies that the the efforts of our military who have have been there for 5+ years kicking ass and helping rebuild were inconsequential then.
MSM = No CS. Common sense.
if the news in Iraq is so positive
November 20, 2007 - 16:50 ET by professor truthwhy does Bush need 200 billion dollars more for war?? Can we say war profiteers?
its positive
November 20, 2007 - 16:53 ET by TruthMongerits positive investment!
like the gazillions we spend on American education:)
- which is not going very well, incidentally...
can you say academic profiteers?
the surge is working??
November 20, 2007 - 17:13 ET by professor truthThis is more Bush spin on a failed policy. Remember all the previous premature triumphalist nonssense: Cheney: the insurgents are in their last throes(2004), some military officer commenting on Fallujah(2004): we've broken the backs of the insurgents, and from history's worst president: "Mission accomplished"; this is just more false triumphalism which remains to be seen what happens in the future. Iraqis hate being occupied, I guess there will insurgents until we leave.
Hey Prof......Mission accomplished was hanging on the ACC
November 20, 2007 - 17:25 ET by JayTeeProfessor Dem, the Mission Accomplished sign was hanging on the Aircraft Carrier, not around Bush's Neck.....the Aircraft carrier returned to Port after Bombing and helping eliminate the Iraq Army......they were out of Ammo, Gas, Food, and by any measure their mission was Accomplished.
It's nice to see you branched out from un-proven Man Made Global Warming to being an Iraq War expert.....Do you know Harry Reid from Nevada ?.....
We haven't left Germany or Japan yet for Troops, I doubt we will be leaving Iraq anytime soon....for the same Reason we're still in Japan and Germany....They like us Americans.
Americans are the good Guys, the Terrorists and Dems that support them by suggesting retreat while our Military is winning against the Terrorist, are the Bad Guys.
And if you don't think we're winning, read the front page of the NY Times.....it's so Obvious even the NYT had to take it off page 19A.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Americans are the good guys
November 20, 2007 - 17:49 ET by professor truthbut the Bush administration criminals are destroying this country.
Bush's only correct statement:"our enemies are resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to kill us, and neither do we." Truer words were never spoken.
Bush administration criminals
November 20, 2007 - 17:55 ET by MightyMouthReally?
Which crimes has the current administration been charged with?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
where does one begin?
November 20, 2007 - 18:06 ET by professor truthexposing a CIA asset(Valerie Plame) for a start(who was trying to find info about WMD's, why would any one trust being a spy again?)
2)signing statements(hundreds of signing statements openly flouting congressional laws signed by Bush
3) international war crime of starting a war of aggression(think Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland) , according to the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme war crime.
4)violating fisa laws and lying about it: remember when Bush said"whenever you hear the word wiretap, remember a wiretape requires a court order.
5) Allowing legal justification or torture and denying it, a violation of international law
Bush is a criminal and should be impeached. Conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein who was an assitant atty general in the Reagan administration agrees.
Where does one begin?
November 20, 2007 - 18:09 ET by MightyMouthWell how about the "been charged with" part?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
If Bush is so innocent, they should appoint a special prosecutor
November 20, 2007 - 18:19 ET by professor truthBush's atty generals are partners in crime. Gonzalez perjured himself when he claimed that the US attorneys who were fired were for performance reasons, a TOTAL Lie! Gonzalez was Bush's boy so why would any crimes he committed be investigated. Bush committed war crimes with his illegal invasion of Iraq, sanctioned only by Bush. I thought you guys hated illegal aliens, except when Bush orders it. If this isn't a war crime, then there is no such thing as a war crime and the Nazi invasion of Poland , Europe and Russia was legally justified.
Bada Bing! The Nazi
November 20, 2007 - 18:27 ET by MightyMouthBada Bing! The Nazi reference!
You have now come full circle my BDS inflicted moonbat friend!
You now deserve the title of "Moroon"!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Iraq and Poland
November 20, 2007 - 18:45 ET by sunandsteelTwo completely different scenarios, but why would that bother a moonbat such as you. How about 10 or so years of defying the UN by Iraq? Poland was minding its own business. Read some history sometime perfesser, stop smoking that bong, maybe develop a thought of your own sometime, you might actually like thinking for yourself.
What doesn’t kill you, only makes you pissed off. -Children of Bodom
Congradulations prof. You
November 20, 2007 - 18:57 ET by bassndudeCongradulations prof. You have officicaly established your calim on the title, "totaly insane moron". You make no mention about Clinton firing ALL the US attorneys, well all of them but one. No mention of Kosovo and no mention of Clinton sanctioning the votes of millions of illegal aliens. Only Bush did these things? Think again dude. Lies? The Clinton whitehouse was rife with them, at every turn, every event, every speech.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You are a joke. #1.
November 20, 2007 - 18:39 ET by KevroyYou are a joke.
#1. Armitage leaked Plame's info. Nothing to do with Bush. (but you already knew that). Covert? Don't think so....they just dismissed her suit against Bush and Cheney or did you miss that?
2. Nothing illegal about signing statements. Otherwise, Clinton would be in jail...
3. International war of crime? You mean the one APPROVED BY THE US CONGRESS, or the one AUTHORIZED BY THE UN? The 'illegal' war that congress keeps approving money for?
4. Turns out it's not illegal. That's why we are still doing it and nobody has been charged.
5. We dont torture. Which would you prefer: waterboarding or having somebody cut your ears off, rape your family in front of you, beat you nearly to death before throwing you from a rooftop? WHO tortures?
You've done a poor job, Mr. Prosecutor. I have no choice but to dismiss your case...
Hey Kev... Thanks...I
November 20, 2007 - 18:47 ET by bigtimerHey Kev...
Thanks...I read his post awhile ago and wanted to say something similar to yours but thought...what's the use....
You did a better job than I could of anyway plus some days I have a lot of patience with critters...some days I don't.
Lol...
BT, that guy is a real
November 20, 2007 - 18:59 ET by bassndudeBT, that guy is a real looney tunes fellow. He is out there...far past the moon.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
your facts are wrong
November 20, 2007 - 19:02 ET by professor truth1) others leaked Plames name. She was a NOC, acknowledgedby the CIA.
2) signing statements are a violation of law. Presidents are not free from the law. Bush violated FISA laws.
3) The war wasn't sanctioned by the UN. The security council did not vote on it. The UN charter specifically states that unsanctioned wars or wars not undertaken for immediate defensive purposes is a violation of international law. What immediate threat did Iraq pose, with or without WMD's??
4)We don't torture is an out and out lie. John Woo wrote memos trying to create legal justifications.
5)I guess you could argue that Hitler wasn'tguilty of crimes. After all, the repressive laws in Germany were still laws, and did anyone personally see Hitler kill anyone during WWII?
6)Bush clearly violated the FISA laws against unlawful wiretaps and lied about it. With a criminal attorney general, of course Bush won't be indicted.
7)OJ wasn't a criminal either, was he? Remember, a criminal jury found him NOT GUILTY. The civil court held him liable for the deaths, but he wasn't acriminal.
Prof truth... What state
November 20, 2007 - 19:10 ET by Clear thinkerProf truth...
What state do you teach in?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
ProfTruth
November 20, 2007 - 19:54 ET by MrShyNow I'm chiming in........
7)OJ wasn't a criminal either, was he? Remember, a criminal jury found
him NOT GUILTY. The civil court held him liable for the deaths, but he
wasn't acriminal.
That is what all this boils down to, PT.
I believe OJ is guilty as sin, yes, but I'm not on some pro-OJ website(s) waving my finger, on a determined crusade to prove, with my own perceived evidence, that OJ is guilty. I ACCEPT that the verdict came down that he's found NOT GUILTY, and after a few days of maybe being a bit annoyed, back in 1995, I moved on in life.
Bush and his administration have not been indicted of anything, and not been found guilty of anything, so I have been moving swiftly along in my life, and rather nicely I must say. Yeah, sue me, the quality of my individual life and the safety of the country I live in comes first and is how I instinctively grade the person currently in the Oval Office.
Bush has done a pretty swell job in my book, and the utterly unfair abuse and vitriol he's taken FROM DAY ONE of being elected (yes, elected) is far and beyond what any of the previous 42 presidents have had to endure, and many of them have waged much more costly and lengthy wars than this one -- and most did not inherit a near-crashing economy (.com) like Bush did. I'm told Lincoln put up with a lot of dissent and a polarizing populace, but I still don't believe it was this bad. Back then there was the north vs. the south, slavery, etc... so much more within the country to create a divide, obviously, than what we have today. And yet, Bush is looked upon so over-they-top viciously by a large swath. It's amazing.
"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)
Professor.........you know about some criminals ?
November 20, 2007 - 17:57 ET by JayTeeProfessor, if you have information on Bush Administration "Criminals" or maybe know of some Impeachment proceedings like what Clinton went thru, Tell us all about it. Otherwise it's just Professor truthless.
But....Don't mention Rove, Cheny, Gonzales, or any other BS....we want specific convictions of Bush Administration Criminals......you know, Like Sandy Berger.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
According to Nuremberg principles, Bush committed war crimes
November 20, 2007 - 18:10 ET by professor truthby his aggressive invasion of Iraq which was not sanctioned by any international body. Bush has knowingly committed the crime of allowing torture.
Bush made hundreds of signing statements where he openly stated he gets to interpret the laws he signs. When you break laws, that's called acting like a criminal. The fact that you seem to want to defend him says a lot about your respect for the law.
Professor....speaking of criminals...
November 20, 2007 - 18:26 ET by JayTeeI would be interested if you think Illegal Aliens are "Criminals" in this Country Illegally ? Which would make them Criminals ?
As for your list above, I don't think the Congressional Investigators found ANYONE Guilty of "outing Valierie Plame".
And your other stuff is Opinion based, not criminal based....sorta like your Global warming Argument in a Snowstorm.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
According to Nuremberg Principles
November 20, 2007 - 18:39 ET by Del DolemonteClinton did the same thing with his non-UN sanctioned war of choice in Kosovo. Where did you get your law degree?
Speaking of which, have have you testified as an expert witness at Slick's war crimes trial at the Hague yet?
I was unaware that our
November 20, 2007 - 19:02 ET by bassndudeI was unaware that our Constitution required the permission or sanctioning by an international body for anything. Tell us prof, where at in the Constitution is that little tid bit?
Clinton made thousands of signing statements. Where is your anger about that?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
the constitution states that international treaties that
November 20, 2007 - 19:07 ET by professor truthare signed by the US become part of our law. We are a signatory of the Geneva accords, which outlaws torture.
There's also a little problem Bush has regarding the bill of rights. The 4th amendment protects people against unreasonable searches. The 5th amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial, the 8th amendment protects against cruel or unusual puni shment(can you say waterboarding)
The accords do not say
November 20, 2007 - 19:16 ET by bassndudeThe accords do not say anything about going to war, it deals with warfare. Torture is defined in the accords, and water boarding, prolonged periods without sleep, subjected to heat and cold IS allowed by Geneva. So is shooting a non uniformed combatant without trial. Non uniformed personel are not covered by the Geneva accords. You should brush up on that. The Constitution dosent cover non citizens. If that were so, then ALL peoples in ALL nations would be protected by our Constitution.
So there you have it. Constitution = US Citizens.
Geneva Accords = Uniformed Soldiers fighting under a National Flag. Not non uniformed personel. We, by rights under the Geneva Accords, are allowed to summarily shoot them when caught.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
That's irrational, "perfesser"
November 20, 2007 - 17:28 ET by RJWhy would the recent "good news" have an immediate bearing on the funds needed to continue operations?
RJ
November 20, 2007 - 17:53 ET by professor truthThis is Bush spin. Other reports attribute the sudden fall in violence to the 6 month moratorium imposed by the Mahdi army of Muqtada al Sadr. It remains to be seen what the future holds. We do know the Iraqis HATE being occupied, so if we really want to lower the violence, we should do what the British did in Basra and leave. In Basra, violence fell by 90% after the Britich left. So it seems that a 'negative'l surge is just as effective, n'est ce pas?
Way to ignore my question, "perfesser",
November 20, 2007 - 18:11 ET by RJand way to change the subject away from your irrational post.
My question: "Why would recent "good news" have a bearing on the funds needed to continue current operations?"
if things are going so well
November 20, 2007 - 19:11 ET by professor truththen less money would be needed. Common sense. You need less money for a war when there is less fighting. Unless you are a war profiteer who steals thesame amount of money regardless of the circumstance. Have any moresoftballs I can hit out ofthe park?
Here's my question. How specifically are the soldiers in Iraq protecting me? Are you saying the people who are being killed in Iraq would be coming to the US to get us??? and how would this occur exactly??? Rational thinkers want to know.
Softballs to an ideologue, "perfesser"
November 20, 2007 - 19:26 ET by RJbut clearly irrational to anyone willing to use their brain honestly.
You said: "If the news in Iraq is so positive why does Bush need 200 billion dollars more for war?"
As I said, why would recent "good news" bring about an immediate need for less money? The same number of units are still there, with the same need for logistical support.
Your statement was clearly irrational, but I don't expect you'll be honest enough to admit it.
You wanna know why Bush
November 20, 2007 - 18:42 ET by KevroyYou wanna know why Bush isn't going to accept any legislation that demands a timetable for withdrawl? Because we've already planned it. They'll start coming home next year and we aren't going to let the Dems try to take credit for it like they did with the Rush Limbaugh-Harry Reid letter.
Do Your Homework
November 20, 2007 - 18:43 ET by Del DolemonteHate to tell you this, professor, but in Bill Clinton's non-UN sanctioned war of choice in Kosovo, he used Halliburton.
And do some research on (Democrat) President Lyndon Johnson's cozy, decades-long relationship with the same firm. He made Dick Cheney look like a piker by comparison.
NO Not Halliburton!!!!
November 20, 2007 - 18:48 ET by sunandsteelDick Cheney and Clinton conspired to start a war for, um, what does Kosovo have?
What doesn’t kill you, only makes you pissed off. -Children of Bodom
I agree with you
November 20, 2007 - 19:18 ET by professor truthJohnson was a war criminal. Clinton's actions could also have constituted war crimes. No argument here.
They need to go and see what else is happening
November 20, 2007 - 16:01 ET by FastEd"Troops and locals stop twenty car bombs from reaching the streets of Baghdad." from Iraq itself.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Now to get to work on Philadelphia
November 20, 2007 - 16:54 ET by KC MulvilleIs this surge thing just for foreign countries, or can we have a play-at-home version?
Hey Rudi fixed crime in NY with a Police Surge
November 20, 2007 - 18:01 ET by JayTeePhilladelphia should try the Rudi methodology......you got Insurgents ?
2000 a yr murders in NY, down to less than 800.......2000 a yr murders in NY makes Bagdad look like.....Detroit ?
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
JayTee, I agree that Rudy
November 20, 2007 - 18:05 ET by LeonJayTee,
I agree that Rudy did a great job with the police and Bloomberg continued the great job that Rudy started. I moved out of NYC recently and I still can't believe how safe I felt in all parts of Manhattan. Police everywhere.
Now I live in Philly and every month I read about a new group of cops graduating from police academy, but there never seem to be any cops on the street. I have no idea where they are or what they're doing, but stopping crime doesn't appear to be a priority.
You're dead on with your Rudy call. You want to stop crime in Philly, put a cop on every street corner.