so it's the NYT that wrote a biased piece? hogwash.
the battle in najaf was a story which changed daily until the true facts were finally disclosed. the attack was to be done by the iraqis themselves, but according to the details of what happened the iraqis were not up to the task. the reasons given for this failure is 1) the iraqis grossly underestimated the cult's numbers as well as its firepower, 2) the iraqi troops were not ready to fight to the end for their government, and 3) due to the aforementioned the strategy was not working and the battle was being lost. so what else could the iraqis do? they called in the americans. the us troops saved the iraqis, and that is the story.
the problem arose when there was an attempt to not tell the true story, but to supress it. only after repeated inquiries did the truth come out.
the moral to this: tell the truth, nothing but the truth, for the truth will eventually come out.
as for malkin's apparent contempt for the NYT columnist who reviewed the super bowl ads and had the audacity to devote three whole lines to the prudential ad.....get over it. the point of the review was to comment on the pervasive violence that ran through these ads this year, from the astronaut getting wasted by a meteor (very odd ending imo) to the use of the rock. three lines in a review? seems michelle is a bit testy.
|