Why does the press ignore Bush's accomplishments "Success of surge drops Iraq from front pages"?

Question

Success of surge drops Iraq from front pages

FORGET the briefings from generals, the intelligence evaluations and the Pentagon status reports. There is a handy indicator for whether the war in Iraq is going well — its relative absence from the front pages.
During the past month, the country’s top newspapers have splashed Iraq stories on Page
A-1, but most of them have had to do with the scandal concerning the security contractor Blackwater and the impending (but yet to materialize) Turkish invasion of the Kurdish north. Reports on major trends in the war tend to be relegated to inside pages because — from the blows dealt to al-Qaida, to the rise of Sunni security volunteers, to Muqtada al-Sadrs cease-fire — they have been largely positive.
In Israel, there’s a law that bans reporting on sensitive national-security operations; you could be forgiven for thinking that the U.S. has a similar ban on any encouraging news from the hottest battlefront in the war on terror. The United States might be the only country in world history that reverse-propagandizes itself, magnifying its setbacks and ignoring its successes so that nothing can disturb what Sen. Joe Lieberman calls the narrative of defeat.
In an incisive account of the surge in the new issue of The Weekly Standard, military analyst Kimberly Kagan writes: The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted
to late-2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004.
Seemingly every day brings a new encouraging number. The latest is that rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq have fallen to their lowest level in nearly two years. The lefts initial reaction to the surges success in reducing violence in Iraq was to declare Gen. David Petraeus a liar. Now, a new tack has become necessary — finding creative ways to deny credit to the surge. Democrat Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin says insurgents are simply running out of people to kill.
So between January and today, everyone who could die in violence in Iraq perished? This is childish. It is true that the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad neighborhoods, once it is complete, creates a perverse kind of stability. But the reduction in violence has happened all around the country, in all-Sunni areas as well as in areas in parts of Baghdad that are still ethnic fault lines.
As Kagan writes, U.S. forces interposed themselves between warring factions in Baghdad, and on the outskirts of the city, attacked al-Qaida strongholds. This is why American casualties went up earlier this year and now — with al-Qaida on the run — are back down. As security has taken hold, the Sunnis have felt comfortable partnering with American forces to battle al-Qaida.
Defeating the terror group has been a consensus goal of all sides in the Iraq debate. Now that some U.S. commanders consider al-Qaida in Iraq all but routed, Democrats should be delighted. Instead they avert their eyes from the signal accomplishment of the U.S. military during the past year. Troops have never been so notionally supported by everyone, while having their accomplishments so ignored.
The political reconciliation that is so important to Iraq’s long-term stability has yet to take place, but the first, necessary step is to get Iraqis to stop resorting to violence to resolve their differences. And whatever comes of Iraq, eliminating al-Qaida in Iraq is a desirable goal in its own right.
Bush repeatedly has said that there will be no ceremony on the deck of a battleship to mark victory over al-Qaida; when it comes to any eventual victory over al-Qaida in Iraq, not only will there be no ceremony, well be lucky to get a headline.

Answer 1

The democratic backed media too a harsh stance against Bush and giving him credit now, would make them appear to have been wrong. By the way, I would hope one day the media could be fair and not politically biased.

Answer 2

This is really pathetic! Less than 1000 dead civilians a month is now a huge success for "freedom" made in USA. Don´t you realize that this whole military adventure based on lies is a crime against humanity? That it will only strengthen al-Qaida? And that as soon as the US-troops will pull out of Iraq mayhem will break lose? Defeating al-Qaida my foot ! An increasingly declining power, America should start rebuilding its' own Mickey Mouse-economy and obsolete infrastructure. But probably it is already too late for that.

Answer 3

Clearly not. In his speech Obama took the credit for Iraq - which started 7 years ago and then blamed bush for the economy which has been exacerbated by Obama's ineffective stimulus attempts. Senator McCain said it best - that in the military you give credit where credit is due - to the troops and when you fail, you accept responsibility. Our president has never and, will never understand that everything isn't about him.

Answer 4

What a silly post. Just to set the record straight there have been more American deaths in Iraq in 2007 than in any other year. That's more than 2006, 2005, 2004 or 2003. Additionally this war has cost American taxpayers over $600 billion dollars with no end in sight.

Answer 5

To some these numbers are encouraging. To others, they are more of the same, just slightly lower. There is no real evidence that the so-called "surge" is making a difference. People are still dying and even one death is unacceptable. The again, I suppose it isn't so important when Iraqis die, just so we reduce the number of Iraqis dying.

Answer 6

Because Bush Bashing has become a sport....unfortunately so is bashing our soldiers that are in harms way!....

...Maybe the Elitist Dems need to get a real job!

Answer 7

Because the want us to knocked down a few pegs, they see us as a bully not as people who have freed other people from tyranny, especially women.

Answer 8

Let me get this straight - these are Bush's accomplishments?

Does that mean we have to keep him around for another term?

This was the war that was supposed to cost less than $1B, the war where we would be hailed as liberators, the war where we would stamp out weapons of mass destruction.

And you are claiming that TRILLIONS of dollars later, when the troops make some headway that this is a victory that Bush should take credit for it?

Answer 9

most of the press is left-leaning and the left is heavily invested in defeat for political reasons