Thursday, March 27, 2003
Coulter is right when she takes on the NYT, Forrest Sawyer, and the rest of the media for their coverage of the war.
After all, their headlines could just as easily have read:
Having no success on the battlefield, Hussein is shooting his own soldiers in a desperate attempt to prevent widespread desertions and surrenders.
Unable to engage Coalition forces on the battlefield and running out of places to hide from Allied airpower, Iraqi troops are seeking shelter in schools, mosques and other residential areas.
Cut off from central command and abandoned, Iraqi troops are engaged in annoying, yet ultimately futile attacks on Coalition forces.
In what might be the final atrocity inflicted upon the Iraqi people, supporters of the outlaw regime kill hundreds of Iraqi civilians.
Despite threats of reprisals from Hussein loyalists, Iraqi civilians welcome Coalition troops as liberators.
US military losses still minuscule compared with US civilian casualties averted by military campaign aimed at depriving Hussein of ability to use WMDs against American targets.
Iraq is suffering 50 battlefield casualty for each US casualty - at this rate, Iraq will soon run out of soldiers.
Fears of Mideast erupting in bloodshed in response to US-led attack on Iraq have so far failed to materialize.
With each of the above headlines accurately describing the situation in Iraq, why wouldn't the networks and press use the above headlines instead of the headlines they have used? Aw, silly question, for we all know the answer...