Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.
That's big piece of trash Adam Nagourney, the centrist Democrat, the Blue Dog, the DLC's ball boy dithering away in "Iraq War Taking Back Seat to Domestic Issues" in this morning's New York Times. The press can't always get the outcome they want on any given topic, but they can and do influence what wastes all of our time. So in the late 90s, for instance, they pushed for impeachment with their ditherings and yammerings. The people didn't want Bill Clinton impeached and the press didn't get their way, but didn't it take up all of our time?
Adam Nagourney, human filth, used his supposed 'reporting' to do advocacy journalism post-2004 elections, a few may remember: one hit piece after another on Howard Dean's run for DNC chair. If you've forgotten that creative writing passed off as 'reporting,' Dean was never going to win. Marty Frost was Ad Nags dream lover (naturally). Frost never stood a chance in hell but Ad Nags just knew if he pushed hard, it would happen. Then he was interested in someone else, fickle lover that he is. And none of his boyfriends ever became the chair of the DNC.
Ad Nags had more success lying about poll results after the 2004 elections and is one of the liars who invented the myth of the 'value voters' and pushed the rise of the 'vangicals in order to push the Democratic Party further to the right (always a move Jaundice Boy will go for). He lied so well, distorting his paper's own poll (go to the November 2004 archives) and he got away with it because you've got a really weak left presenting themselves as 'leaders' and, besides, looking at raw polling data takes time, so let's all take the liar's word for it.
Today, he's in the paper as part of their continued assault on reality. Iraq remains the top issue in the polls, despite the fact that Operation Happy Talk tries to resell the illegal war. Iraq remains the top issue in the polls, despite the fact that the press (big or small) doesn't give a damn about the illegal war.
Let's stay with that for a moment. Writing about Iraq would require real work and as we all saw with the phony Bill Clinton 'scandals,' it's so much easier and quicker to 'report' on non-issues. It's not reporting, it's gossip and four or so decades back, the likes of Adam Nagourney would be writing for a monthly magazine with "Hollywood" in the title (maybe "Rona Barrett" as well) and no thinking person would admit to knowing his name, let alone reading him.
In that paragraph quoted above, you find the supreme liar at the paper (a competition that was fierce but he won it) doing what he does best -- sprinkling in a tiny fact and surrounding it with spin.
The fact he gets is that Iraq still tops the list and from there it's off to the world as he wants it to be. Ad Nags especially (tutored by War Hawk Dems throughout this decade) doesn't want to write about the war. He wants to build a mass hysteria in the public, create a panic that allows him to churn out more tabloid stories, which is why he elevates the non-issue of "immigration" high on his list (the same polling he's referring to that put Iraq at the top put immigration as a concern of 2% of respondents -- but we covered that in yesterday's snapshot and made a point to include it because liars in the press would be trying to whip up hysteria -- where there is ugly, there is Ad Nag's sour puss).
Any real reporter could tell you (a) most of the candidates have run from the Iraq War as a campaign topic (voters continue to make it one), (b) the press has lost all interest (big and small), so (c) the press that can influence what's discussed -- if not the outcome (see the results from their advocacy of impeaching Bill Clinton or, for that matter, Ad Nag's own paper's long attempts at destroying Social Security).
Ad Nags who writes like a gossip columnist shows up today to babble on some more. In a functioning Big Media, his sorry ass would have been fired and he'd be hosting Access Hollywood or some other bottom feeding program that no one takes seriously. But the New York Times will keep him around as long as he toes the party line.
Even when he embarrasses himself by running to a public editor to LIE that a reader threatened him (a wish is not a threat, nor was any personal violence offered to Ad Nags). He's a bad reporter and, worse, a coward. In a just world, Ad Nags would be nothing but an ambitious deb who realized shortly after the coming out party that no one gave a damn and that he couldn't influence trends, instead he fancies himself a reporter and the whole world suffers.
Meanwhile, as the paper rotates some Baghdad, Solomon Moore either struggles or throws in the towel early on with his piece "Attacker Bombs Pro-U.S. Sunnis in Iraq." Like a closeted gay man who's telling his family about his new relationship, Moore opens with two paragraphs revolving around one person and "the person" (or maybe "the special person") is gender-less. In the third paragraph he tells you the American military claims the bomber was a man. He's offered nothing in the two paragraphs prior (the paper's first report on the incident) to indicate otherwise and, of course, he offers nothing that would dispute the US military. He then turns his attention to the so-called "Awakening" Councils:
But Awakening Council members, often lightly armed and poorly trained, say Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not their only adversary in Diyala. Iraqi security forces remain distrustful of the former insurgents, and last week staged a raid with American forces against one of their headquarters in the town of Buhruz. The Iraqi police said the tribesmen killed a Shiite hostage during the raid and fired at the officers. United States helicopters returned fire and killed at least 10 council members.
They're on the US tax dollar and Moore wants to get them a raise. How noble. (That was sarcasm.) They are not lightly funded by Iraqi standards and they certainly aren't "lighlty armed". Poorly trained? Collaborators with foreign occupiers usually have their own personal defects that prevent intensive training.
If you feel like wading in, about half-way into the article, it gets better.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
the new york times