Answer: According to columnist Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the reason is simple: because of the Petraeus strategy, coupled with growing support from former Sunni insurgents, the U.S. is winning the war -- and al Qaeda is losing.
For a first-rate analysis of the emerging situation in Iraq, read Jack Kelly's column in the Sunday, October 7, 2007 "Forum" section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. You can find it at: http://post-gazette.com/forum.
Kelly's Conclusion: What's good news for America is no news for the media.
On Monday and Tuesday, I'll talk more about Iraq, and the surprising influence it might have on the election.
Tomorrow (Tuesday) I'll write about Mrs. Clinton's shrill, old politics line that "This is GEORGE BUSH'S WAR." I'll discuss what her position on Iraq, which is not profoundly different from George Bush's by the way, says about her as a person and a candidate.
NOTE THE FOLLOWING NY TIMES STORY FROM 9/26/2007
By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY Published: September 26, 2007 HANOVER, N.H., Sept. 26 — The three leading Democratic presidential candidates refused on Wednesday night to promise that they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq.
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards agreed that it would be wrong to promise that they could get all American forces out of Iraq by 2013. But some of the candidates still tried to highlight differences in their approach to ending the war.
Steve says: By 2013??? Now they tell us! Why are the "leading candidates" saying this now, after indicating previously that they wanted us out by yesterday?
Because we're winning the war, and they are trying to reserve a seat on the bandwagon.
JACK KELLY ON SUCCESS IN IRAQ:
Jack Kelly's Sunday column on Iraq has the headline: "On a Roll in Iraq." The sub-head is: "The U.S. and its Sunni Allies are Dismantling al-Qaeda."
For her own political reasons, Nancy Pelosi is still muttering about "the rising level of violence" in Iraq, but the realities on the ground are quite different. The only rise in violence is that directed against al-Qaeda, which is suffering heavy losses that are causing its infrastructure to unravel.
The first paragraph of Kelly's column begins with these words: "The last days on earth of Abu Osama al-Tunisi apparently were filled with anxiety. 'We are desperate for your help,' he said in a letter to al-Qaeda chieftains."
Kelly continues, "A copy of the letter was found by U.S. troops sifting through the rubble of the building in Musayh, about 40 miles south of Baghdad, where on Sept. 25 Mr. Tunisi had been meeting with two local al-Qaeda operatives when an [American] F-16 cut their discussion short."
Columnist Kelly points out that dramatic decline in the number of U.S. deaths that has occurred since Sept. 1. Somehow, most of the media in this country seem to have missed this striking positive development. It just doesn't fit with the media "narrative" we've been hearing for years.
The American military have been busily involved in capturing and killing key al-Qaeda figures, including Tunisi. U.S. forces are being assisted in this effort by Sunnis, especially in formerly hostile locations like al Anbar and Diyala provinces.
Here's how Investor's Daily interprets the media's non-response to the good news in Iraq: "That the media are no longer much interested in Iraq is a sure sign things are going well there."
Kelly cites comments by British Mideast expert Bartle Bull who's recently written an article called "Mission Accomplished." Bull observes, "With most Sunni factions now seeking a deal, the big questions in Iraq have been resolved positively. The country remains one; it has embraced democracy and avoided an all-out civil war."
If success in Iraq is no news for the media, it's also bad news for House and Senate Democrats. They have largely surrendered in the battle with al-Qaeda in Iraq, while the U.S. military is going successfully about the business of winning the War.
The main-stream media will have to look elsewhere for stories that reflect badly on the U.S. Of more importance, Democrats will have to invent another issue to sustain their electoral successes in the recent past.
(More to come on Tuesday, October 9. Thanks for visiting. Your comments are always welcome.)
Stephen R. Maloney
COMMENT & RESPONSE:
To be fair though, the message coming from most of those people is that we've been winning continually since 2004. If we're winning more now, how is that news?
October 8, 2007 3:33 PM
Stephen R. Maloney said...
To be extremely fair . . .Who exactly are "those people?" They aren't most of the media; they aren't Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. They aren't even Jack Kelly, who has presented a mixed view. They also aren't me. And they certainly aren't Gen. Petraeus. Are they perhaps somebody you have invented? A variation on my theme of "good news from Iraq is no news to the media" is that good news from Iraq is bad news for certain Democrats, apparently including one Daniel K.