Redstate

By South Park Conservative Posted in Archived — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

So where did TIME see fit to list the incredibly turnaround in a major U.S. war?

We find the story "Petraeus Under Fire" at number 5. It is telling that the story is called Petraeus under fire rather than "the surge". It focuses on the grilling by Democrats of a government official rather than the infinitely more important developments on the ground. But what do real world consequences matter when there is a pro-Bush military pig to be grilled?

The way they twist reality to try to make Democrats look good is stunning:

"House and Senate Democrats denounced the "surge," and, as they predicted, things got worse at first: May was the deadliest month for U.S. troops since November 2004."

Why does fact that American casualties went up for one month mean things are getting worse? Did they even bother to try to figure out if enemy casualties were worse? In that case, wouldn't we be winning? Of course enemy casualties were far worse and developments on the ground were largely positive, as is clear based on the steady improvement in Iraq since then. It is amazing to me that TIME would have the audacity to craft a sentence saying that the Democrats were right about the surge in any way at all. The liberals at TIME are defending the Demcrats on the surge at all costs because it could be deadly to them in 2008.

"Petraeus faced hostile questioning when he returned to Washington in September to brief Congress on his slow progress."

By September violence in Iraq had been more than cut in half! Violence in Baghdad had been reduced even more. That's the barometer that the media wants to use and we succeeded beyond our wildest expectations in only the first 3 months of the surge. The statistics could not be more clear. This is a bald-faced lie.

"But recently the relative calm and the drop in American casualties has kicked Iraq from the front pages, at least temporarily, while the first significant pullback of troops — a brigade of 5,000 — began just after Thanksgiving. That's got pundits wondering how much of a role the war will play in next year's presidential election."

They don't even consider that improvement in a major American war should be mentioned on the front pages! What conclusion are we given by TIME? The war might not be a big issue next year. Isn't that convenient? I thought the war was the reason the Democratic congress was elected? All of a sudden it's not an important issue. There is nothing more important than American losing a war, but when America is winning a war, who cares?

The Democrats said our troops' mission was doomed and called the war lost before the surge even began. They were completely embarrassed and wrong on the most important issue of our time. This is analogous to if the Republican party had said we had already lost World War II right before D-Day and then tried to withdraw all of our forces even while the Nazi and Imperial armies promised to attack us at home. Surrendering a war we could still win has consequences and, despite the lies of the mainstream media and its alliance with the Democratic party, the American people are going to figure out eventually that the Democrats would have withdrawn from Iraq, leaving all but Kurdistan to be taken over by Al Qaeda and Iranian Jihadist militias.

Are you curious what story was ranked at #4, meaning that it is more important than the surge? The conclusion of the Harry Potter series.