Warning: include(/home/www/instapundit-archive/ad.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/joyent-copy/home/www/instapundit-archive/archives2/011935.php on line 152
Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/www/instapundit-archive/ad.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/usr/share/php') in /home/joyent-copy/home/www/instapundit-archive/archives2/011935.php on line 152
November 20, 2007
IN LIGHT OF THE NEW YORK TIMES' REPORTING OF PROGRESS IN BAGHDAD, Ed Morrissey thinks they owe Petraeus an apology:
Let's put the Times report into context. Just two months ago, the paper gave MoveOn a price break to run an ad that accused General David Petraeus of treason and perjury even before he testified about the security improvements. The editorial board called Petraeus' testimony "empty calories" and complained of his "broken promises and false claims of success" and asserted that Petraeus had not given an "honest accounting" in his Congressional briefings.
The Times waited until the success of Petraeus could no longer be denied to publish the truth. With every other news agency in the world reporting on the drop in violence, the rise in commerce, the flight of the militias even from Baghdad, and the unifying efforts such as the rebuilding of St. John's Catholic Church in the heart of the capital, the Times has no other choice but to rescue its credibility with an acknowledgment of reality. . . .
Now that the Times has finally acknowledged the success of the surge and the reality of Petraeus' testimony, will they apologize for disparaging the American commander so viciously? Will they retract their political hitpiece of an editorial of September 11th? Don't bet on it.
Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Maybe the editors don't make it to page 14! Maybe that's why reporters can get away with putting good news there . . . .
ANOTHER UPDATE: Tom Maguire emails: "Regarding the NY Times story about improvement in Baghdad - Since you twice link to Don Surber's post noting the Wash Post placement on p. 14, it is possible that folks will get confused and think the Times put it there also (unlike the WaPo, online Times stories don't include info about the page on which they ran.) That said, dedicated link-followers will see that Captain Ed noted it as a front page story." And that's what we have here! But just in case, I'm including this clarification.