Monday, March 21, 2005
Iraq-Jordan Dispute Deepens, which covers the issues relating to Iraqi displeasure at a Jordanian being involved in a terror attack last month...
First off, here are the first three paragraphs of the story:
The diplomatic moves came on a day when a U.S. soldier was killed and three were injured by a bomb as they patrolled near the northern oil city of Kirkuk, U.S. military officials said. Hours later, 24 insurgents were killed and seven were wounded when they attacked a U.S. military convoy on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, injuring six American soldiers, the officials added.
The recall of the envoys came as Iraqi anger grew over a recent report in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Ghad that Raed Mansour Banna had carried out the Feb. 28 suicide bombing in Hilla in which 125 people died, one of the deadliest single attacks since the U.S.-led invasion. The report said Banna's family had honored him as a heroic martyr during his funeral.
What is the second paragraph doing there? What does it have to do with the Iraqis and Jordanians recalling their respective diplomats? The diplomatic moves also came on a day where much of Washington was talking about Terry Schiavo, and where most of the country is talking about the NCAA's.... either of which has as much relevance to this story as the reporter's recap of US casualties.
To continue, further on, the reporter writes:
Yes, the insurgents are likely anti-American. But they are also anti-Shiite, they are anti-democracy, and they are pro-Hussein loyalists. Any of these three descriptions would be just as accurate, and considering the attack in question featured a Jordanian Sunni targeting Iraqi Shiites, either of the first two of my alternatives would have been more relevant to the story in question. But the reporter has to get his digs in...
And, in concluding, the reporter lets us know that:
The above has absolutely nothing to do with the Jordanian/Iraqi diplomatic rift. It's nothing more than the reporter using a few inches of column space to throw in some more bad news coming from Iraq. Sure, the reporter could have used this space to report on a school being re-opened, or any of the other good works being done by the US and the Iraqis - but that would have violated the Post's rules of engagement... nothing good about Iraq without compensating negatives.
As I've long said, the Post is just as biased as the rest of the MSM. They just do a better job of keeping it subtle... no forged documents for them.