Maybe Feuer will answer what seems to me the great mystery of the press in Iraq: Why American reporters, almost to a man, had a more pessimistic view of the war than seems to have been warranted. I don’t think you can simply say they were blindered by anti-war or anti-Bush ideology: these are conscientious, smart, experienced people of varying political stripes and they virtually all seemed to predict a greater disaster than transpired. That goes for the private, unprinted predictions of those few I encountered in person. … P.S.: I’m not saying the war is already great success. Even our own top commanders admit we might lose it and the blowback from Abu Ghraib, etc. will last generations. But it seems a much, much, greater success, so far, than you’d have thought possible reading the dispatches from Baghdad in major papers. …
Precisely when and where have journalists from major, mainstream television and print outlets made assessments of the Iraq War that are less optimistic than the generals were last week? Where? Where where where? 839 Iraqi soldiers have died since January, along with countless civilians; where did I see a prediction of that in the mainstream media? Moreover, where did I see a prediction that the situation would be worse? 27 dead today, and another 120 injured. Did I miss the article in yesterday’s NYT suggesting that it would be more than that? Electricity and oil production in Iraq have continued a slow, but sure, decline since the war; did the Washington Post predict that? Dan Rather? I must have been asleep. . .
Does Mickey even read the papers, other than the Los Angeles Times? Either he doesn’t, and has an appreciation of mainstream reporting that he gets primarily from Glenn Reynolds, or he just doesn’t have the faintest idea of the situation in Iraq. Here’s a question; how come he thinks his assessment of the situation is so much more sound than the assessment of those actually in Baghdad?
Worst. Blogger. Ever. Kim Du Toit is proud of being a right-wing thug, and Glenn Reynolds doesn’t try very hard to deny his political position. Mickey combines a writing style worthy of a high school newspaper with a political sense that allows him to describe himself as a Democrat while being slightly to the right of Paul Wolfowitz. He hides behind a light curtain of journalistic objectivity while throwing bombs at the left.
I should really stop clicking on his Slate link; even the train-wreck attraction is growing thin.