President Bush gives the New York Times what they demand: a greater role for Iraqi forces in fighting terorists. And yet they still find fault with him: a distorted no—win approach towards Iraq sovereignity

This is emblematic. Many in the left—wing media and Democratic Party have been calling for more Iraqi involvement in fighting what they call , "the insurgency". This is the story that should be highlighted:"More Iraqi battalions in the lead against rebels."  Or this: "29th base handed over to Iraqis by American military" .
 
Instead the "Bush can do nothing right — even when he follows our advice" New York Times leads with the likes of this: "Sunnis Accuse Iraqi Military of Kidnappings and Slayings."

Why one would trust the Sunnis' account of the situation is beyond me. After all, many Sunnis feel that they have been ousted as the overlords and abusers of the Shiites, so they now have an axe to grind against the Shiite—dominated military. The Sunnis are leading the "insurgency" against their fellow Iraqis. They need allies in the Western Press. Ipso facto, go to the Times who are either incredibly gullible, incompetent, or biased, or some noxious brew of these qualities.
 
The Times are once again taking the side of terrorists and getting a bonus of being able to continue their jihad against George Bush. Now, let's assume that the Times' pressure forces Bush to compel the Iraqi miliatry to ease up. Then more terrorism ensues. Will the Times feel at all abashed that their reportage may have encouraged murder of innocent people? Naah—more reasons to bash Bush.
 
Ed Lasky   11 29 05