Here, for example, we see an article that is clearly meant to be critical of American progress in Iraq. See the headline: "Falluja’s Calm Is Seen as Fragile if U.S. Leaves." See, says the Times, the U.S. hasn't achieved anything in Iraq--if we go home, it'll all horribly collapse. And as supporting evidence, the Times' reporter writes: "Rank-and-file marines question how security forces here would fare on their own, especially when the vehicle ban is lifted. If Falluja were left unsupervised too soon, “there is a good chance we would lose everything we have gained,” said Sgt. Chris Turpin, an intelligence analyst with a military training team here."
Yes, indeed! And so a clear reading of what Mr. Turpin is saying is this: what many Democrats and progressives are advocating is wrong! A quick pullout from Iraq would be precisely the wrong move. If we stay, there might be a chance. Unsurprisingly, the Times' reporter tries to spin it differently.
I don't do this--critiquing the rather biased slant of many mainstream news pieces--that often, because one literally could do it on a daily, nay hourly, basis, and we'd never have the chance to examine anything else. But this time...
