Michael Yon makes some observations about two pundits debating Iraq.

This morning I watched the television screen in Mosul as Kagan and Rosen debated Iraq, hosted by Jim Lehrer. Kagan’s statements were entirely consistent with what I see and hear unfolding here. By comparison, Rosen came across as a new Baghdad Bob. While he might be articulate, well dressed and highly credentialed, Rosen’s characterizations of the situation were at best inconsistent with ground-based realities, and at worst completely false . Kagan is worth listening to. Nir Rosen is not.

Being as they are experts, they have access to the truth, and therefore, should agree. Im confused. Someone help me out. How can experts disagree about the truth?

Apparently Fallujah had its first community race. Why is this not a top story?

Here are somethings that war has brought about.

Gerecht bases his argument on two observations. The first is the apparently tiny number of jihadist radicals now entering Iraq from neighboring countries, especially when compared to the large number of fighters who traveled to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight the Soviets.

I guess were not making as many terrorists are Ron Paul would like us to believe. Shocker there.

It’s important to note that, whatever the raw numbers of jihadis in Iraq, they have been by far the most lethal aspect of the so-called “insurgency”; their aim all along was to foment a sectarian civil war among Iraqis, especially by slaughtering as many innocent Shiite men, women, and children as possible.

Wait. Most of the people killing civilians, I mean revolting in Iraq, were not even Iraqis? You don’t say.

Gerecht’s second point is that the jihadis who have entered the country have not been embraced by the Iraqis. As he puts it, “the arrival of foreign holy warriors is deradicalizing the local population — the exact opposite of what happened in Afghanistan.”

According to Gerecht, the result is that “Sunni extremism is now in retreat. More important, the gruesome anti-Shiite tactics of extremist groups, combined with the much-quoted statements made by former Sunni insurgents about the positive actions of the United States in Iraq, have caused a great deal of intellectual turbulence in the Arab world.”

Gerecht’s argument about the state of Sunni extremism is consistent with polls released last year by Pew, which found that “large and growing numbers of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere rejecting Islamic extremism.”

According to Pew, “The percentage of Muslims saying that suicide bombing is justified in the defense of Islam has declined dramatically over the past five years in five of eight countries where trends are available. In Lebanon, for example, just 34% of Muslims say suicide bombings in the defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified; in 2002, 74% expressed this view.” In that survey, Al Qaeda’s reputation in the Muslim world had plummeted. To use Bin Laden’s own imagery, he had become the “weak horse” in his battle with the U.S.

Wait a minute. So going into Iraq and giving the extremist an opportunity to butcher fellow muslims has reduced support for Muslim extremism in the Middle East? This outcomes is shocking. I was told countless times by countless people that going into Iraq would create way more terrorists. However it seems that by going in Iraq we have helped people in that region see what kind barbarian the extremists use and the whole region is starting to turn against them.

Maybe establishing a democracy in the Middle East was not such a bad idea after all.

Here is another objective report on Iraq. Objective news coverage of Iraq exists just no in the left dominated MSM. Imagine that.

This report focuses mostly on the development of the Iraq federal government.

In reference to Bush’s budget for 2009 Cato-at-Libery writes:

And in a continuation of dishonest accounting for the “Global War on Terror,” the budget includes no funding for years after 2009. The GWOT cost roughly $200 billion in both FY2007 and FY2008, funded through “emergency supplementals.” In the new budget, the administration includes just $70 billion for the GWOT in FY2009, when in fact the cost will be likely much higher. The bottom line is that the FY2009 deficit will be well over $500 billion, not the $407 billion that the administration claims.

This kind of thing bothers me. Bush should have the integrity to report in the budge the cost of the war instead of relying on supplemental packages being passed later on. Given that its his last year in office I can’t even see what it costs him to be honest about the cost of the war this year. Thats annoying.

Michael responds to a previous post which reflects his bias:

And of course the media was going to play up the negative aspects of the war, seeing as how the whole thing was unnecessary to begin with.

You were one of those people that didn’t believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction despite his intentional efforts to fool the Iranians into thinking he did. President Bush clearly did not see it that way. Given the intelligence at the time, he felt action was necessary. It easy to say Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction when its not your job to make sure none of those non extant weapons find there way into the country and kills thousands of people. When faced with the responsibility of protecting the citizenry there is a really good chance what you view as necessary and unnecessary will change.

You were not alone in thinking the war was unnecessary. Within journalism there is a large concentration of people that agree with you that the war was unnecessary. This belief clearly had an effect on coverage turning off large groups of people that didn’t believe the war was unnecessary.

The NYtimes serves as a fine example of showing how the staff’s bias led to coverage focused on the negative aspects of the war. This news organization put on the front page of its newspapers the Abu Ghraib story for forty four days in a row. Forty Four days it was on the front page. Recently the newspaper did a huge piece erroneously ‘reporting’ that vets coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan were more likely to kill. The people that made decision about this being ‘news’ agree with you that the war was unnecessary.

This fucking paper, to my knowledge, has never had a single fucking story about any, just any, of the heroics any of our soldiers have displayed while fighting brutal terrorist that enjoy sawing people’s head off. Even when the war was at it’s ugliest, none of the MSM took any time to show the valor or bravery of our soldiers. Astoundingly returning soldiers complained about the disconnect between the press’s war in Iraq and the war in Iraq they were fighting.

I have read about the selfless act of our soldiers in Iraq. Not from CNN, which published our enemies propaganda sniping OUR OWN FUCKING soldiers. Not from NYtimes, which ‘broke’ the story of the secret intelligence program which had extensive legislative and judicial oversight. No its not the MSM were I go to get actual information on the war in Iraq. If I wanted to hear the stories that come from people that see the war as necessary I read pro war bloggers that actually bothered, to you know, go to Iraq. It was here where I read about the heroics of our soldiers. It was here were I read about the sacrifice Iraq has made to transform a despot into a democracy.

By the way, these pro war bloggers were significantly more objective than any piece of shit report I ever read on CNN or NYtimes. It turns out when you see something as necessary you are more likely to give sobering accounts of it. The pro war bloggers were ahead of the MSM curve in reporting on how the aspects of the war were being mismanaged. I read first from them that country was heading into sectarian war months before the MSM go their slimy hands on that development. Those that believed the war was necessary reported both good and bad news and in the process gave a much more objective picture of the war.

I have know for years that the press leans left which leads to skewed reporting. For the most part I have accepted this problem. However, when it came to this war it’s biased coverage made me irate. This was because it was stated policy of our enemies to kill as many civilians as possible to get the top story coverage which, it was hoped, would then result in political pressure to pull out of the war.

It was the explicit strategy of Al Qaeda to use our news organization against us to generate the pressure needed to get us to retreat from Iraq.

Knowing this how did CNN, NYtimes and the rest of the MSM respond? By only covering and giving top headlines to the death and destruction Al Qaeda was creating in the country. Indirectly the MSM was complicit in assisting our enemies in succeeding in Iraq. And you know what, it almost worked. The MSM and Al Qaeda almost beat the US Military in Iraq. Fortunately we had a leader wise enough to see what was going on between the press coverage and our enemies and he stood steadfast against the intense political demands for retreat. Since he saw the war as necessary he was willing to make changes when he saw that was needed irrespective of Al Qaeda and the MSM attempts to force his hand.

Many citizen became wise to MSM complicity with our enemies. As a consequence we see many people indicating there unhappiness with the way the press covered the war. This seems obvious, when your coverage harms your own military and helps your enemies then readers are going to turn away from you as a credible new source.

Like you Michael, the MSM saw the war as unnecessary, and this lead to an alliance between Al Qaeda and our press. Ironically, Al Qaeda most certainly saw the war as necessary and fortunately, for the sake of our country, so did George Bush and the countless citizens who saw the war as necessary.

I often wondered why Saddam didn’t just come clean on not have weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam Hussein initially didn’t think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen.

Somehow I managed to forget about Iran. Its seems so obvious now.

The worshippers were searched at the door and snipers stood guard on the roof, but Sunday’s Mass was a joyful one for more than 200 Iraqis who packed a church in eastern Baghdad to see the first Iraqi cardinal.

Under heavy guard and broadcast live on Iraqi state television, the service was capped by a handshake from a visiting Shiite imam—a symbolic show of unity between Iraq’s majority Muslim sect and its tiny Christian community.

There is no market demand for news of reconciliation and solidarity in Iraq. They would much rather hear about the umpteenth suicide bombing.

A common response to the assertion that the MSM decision to cover bad news in Iraq disproportionately is that readers prefer the bad news over the good news. Basically its the argument that if it bleeds it leads. This editorial talks about the massive amount of views certain You Tube videos have received featuring the US military succeeding in Iraq. The demand for this kind of coverage is strong enough that many people have sought it through alternative means. If the MSM editorial decision regarding Iraq coverage was dictated solely by the bottom line then these stories would of be featured prominently on the front page along with the bad news.

The failure of MSM to provide this coverage combined with the fact so many are actively seeking this coverage through MSM means implies that at least partly MSM coverage in Iraq is not determined by selling papers. Of course I have known this for quite some time its getting some of my readers on board were this has proven to difficult.

Jeez I’ve been gone for only four years and Omaha is falling apart.

gunman killed eight people and wounded five others Wednesday at the popular Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, before apparently turning the gun on himself, police said.

I really hope that the media covers this extensively so as to encourage more of these tragedies.

Actually this give me an opportunity to make another point. While I think its bad for MSM to cover these tragedies extensively because its encourages this kind of behavior, I would not vote for legislation to control it. To enjoy freedom of the press I accept the noise of the press encouraging mass killings. There are other ways to constrain behavior other than through regulation. The most obvious is news editors recognizing the wisdom of not celebrating these killings through extensive coverage.

My prognostic skills tells me that some of you will respond that capitalism drives these editors to cover these events extensively. I think that is probably about right. However, markets are only an indicator of what people want so clearly there is a demand for this kind of coverage. In this regard, I would suggest one refrains from excessively indulging in this coverage so as to reduce the overall demand and in turn send the proper market signals that this kind of coverage is not desired. One can convey displeasure with a tragedy being transformed into a circus without using state coercion.

Speaking of wishing editors had wisdom, the way they played into the hands of terrorist in Iraq was despicable. Basic prudence suggested that the news editors realize they were being played like a fiddle and to find ways to cover the news in Iraq without so readily assisting our enemies. As such, they found way to magnify our enemies efforts while minimizing our own. A precedent that continues today with the surge being mostly ignored along with the improvements it has allowed.

Inevitably, this mass shooing will be covered through the gun control angle. Some of you will find yourselves sympathetic to passing gun control laws in an attempt to reduce mass shootings. However, I would argue that it might in fact be more effective to pass laws regulating how the press can cover these kind of killings. Setting up the argument this way pits one cherished right against another. Many of my readers would show disgust at the suggestion that the state should regulate press to save lives, but have no problem trampling all over the second amendment for the same purpose. As a libertarian, I favor neither. The government really needs to spend less time tinkering with my rights every time an unwise person thinks saving lives justifies diminishing my rights