From the first line of today's editorial:
The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse.
What can you say to that? The editors at the Times have clearly stopped reading their own newspaper. Here's an AP story published in today's paper:
A U.S. helicopter opened fire on a group of men as they were planting roadside bombs in a Sunni stronghold north of Baghdad on Tuesday, then chased them into a nearby house, killing 11 Iraqis, including at least six civilians, the military said.
The airstrikes came a day after Osama bin Laden scolded his al-Qaida followers and other insurgents, saying they have ''been lax'' for failing to overcome fanatical tribal loyalties and unite in the fight against U.S. troops.
The message of his new audiotape reflected the growing disarray among Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents and bin Laden's client group in the country, both of which are facing heavy U.S. military pressure and an uprising among Sunni tribesmen.
That's the lede...I'm sure the AP would have stacked it with bad news if they could have. And here's more from the same piece:
U.S. and Iraqi forces, meanwhile, banned vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles in the streets of the Anbar provincial capital of Ramadi to protect a celebration to commemorate Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the founder of the first anti-al-Qaida group of Sunni tribal leaders who was assassinated by a bomb Sept. 13.
Abdul-Sattar's brother, who has taken over the movement, said it was important to keep pressure on insurgents, recalling that about 50 al-Qaida militants marched through downtown Ramadi a year ago in a show of force.
''The people felt weak and afraid because of al-Qaida. Now there is a feeling of strength,'' Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha told The Associated Press at his heavily guarded compound as a band practiced for the parade. ''This year, I want to have a good parade to show that we support the law.''
Given the actual state of things in Iraq, and Osama's message confirming that things are as bad for al Qaeda as they seem, I'm starting to think the editors at the Times aren't being completely honest with their readers, or themselves. Even Richard Clarke has turned on them. But the editors at the Times don't seem to have much of an interest in al Qaeda, or terrorism, or the Army, or General Petraeus. What are they interested in? Check the list of the "popular tags" at their new blog--it's self-parody.
