Surprise! With More Good News From Iraq, MSM Reports Less News From Iraq

Inverting the old saying, good news is no news.

FoxNews was recently called out -- rightly, I think -- for reporting less on Iraq as the war turned badly and the nation turned against the war. Other MSM outlets pounced on that, of course; Keith Olbermann especially snickered.

Well now it appears the MSM has lost interest in the war as the news is relatively good. Anyone think this will make Countdown tonight?

And what's worse-- a reluctance to trumpet bad news and military set-backs, or a reluctance to report good news and military victories?

Another Astounding Flip-Flop: A few months ago anti-war liberals were complaining that the Bush case for war could not be falsified. If we were winning in Iraq, they claimed, Bush claims that that success shows we should stay the course. If we were losing in Iraq, they said, Bush would claim that the very fact we were losing proved we should stay the course, as we couldn't afford to lose.

Another fair complaint... although what is being complained of here is simple reality: A loss in Iraq would be somewhere between "extremely harmful" to "calamitous" to American foreign policy, so yes, Bush is going to argue that we can't afford to lose and thus it really doesn't matter whether we're winning or losing at any moment. Whether we're winning or losing at a particular time is a temporary condition. What never changes is that a defeat would be disastrous.

At any rate, this was the liberals' complaint. They all parroted it. Ha, ha! Look at the silly Bush Administration! No matter what the facts are, he argues it's important to push through to victory!

Well. Then I'm sure they'll note this interesting spin from Hillary!: Now that we're winning in Iraq, it's the perfect opportunity to bug-out and leave Iraq to Al Qaeda and al-Sadr/Iran!

Seems to me that Hillary! also has a non-falsifiable syllogism on Iraq: If we're losing, we need to abandon Iraq; if we're winning, we also need to abandon Iraq.

Anyone think the lefty bloggers will even mention this?

Of course not. And yet Bush's formulation was good comic fodder for them for a month. Look how stupid Bush is, they all tittered. No matter what the news might be, his conclusions never seem to adjust.

Well? Is Hillary likewise stupid or dishonest? How about Matthew Yglesias & Kevin Drum & Co. themselves?

Also at the Hot Air link is the suggestion that General Petraeus might testify on 9/11. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The White House needs to get its moronic partisan brigade under control. It's one thing to be partisan; it's another thing to be a moron about it. The stunt of arranging Petraeus' testimony to occur on 9/11 is so transparently manipulative that far from helping the cause it will actively sabotage it.

I feel the need to remind some high-ranking Republicans once again: We're conservative, guys. Not retarded. There is a difference I assure you.

The condescension and contempt demonstrated towards conservatives by the GOP rivals and sometimes exceeds that demonstrated towards us by the liberal Democratic Party and the MSM (but I repeat myself).

Ramesh Ponuru "Hears" Congress Chose the 9/11 Date: If they did, they're stupid and they're stepping on a day that should be as free from overt politics as possible. But perhaps their idea is to have the 9/11 commemorations crowd out Petraeus' report, and perhaps reduce two bad news cycles for them to only one.

If so, then they're the ones who should be castigated.

Thanks to TopsecretK9.