May 26, 2004
WIN-WIN:
U.S. troops capture key lieutenant of radical cleric (ROBERT H. REID, May 26, 2004, ASSOCIATED PRESS)
U.S. troops captured a key lieutenant of radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr during overnight clashes in Najaf that killed 24 people and wounded nearly 50, hospital and militia officials said.Riyadh al-Nouri, al-Sadr's brother-in-law, offered no resistance when American troops raided his home during a series of clashes in this Shiite holy city, according to Azhar al-Kinani, a staffer in al-Sadr's office in Najaf.
The capture of al-Nouri would be a major blow to al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army, which has been battling coalition forces since early April. Al-Sadr launched his uprising in response to a crackdown by coalition authorities who announced an arrest warrant against him in the April 2003 assassination of a moderate cleric in Najaf.
In Baghdad, diplomatic sources confirmed reports published Wednesday that Dr. Hussain al-Shahristani, a science adviser to the Iraqi government who spent years in Abu Ghraib prison, was among several people under consideration for the job of prime minister of an interim government to take power June 30. The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, emphasized that no decision had been made and other candidates were under consideration.
Before the Iraq war, al-Shahristani was among the Iraqi exiles who had insisted that Saddam maintained weapons of mass destruction. In February 2003, he told CBS' "60 Minutes" that such weapons may have been hidden in tunnels for a Baghdad subway that never opened.
The news just keeps getting better... Posted by Orrin Judd at May 26, 2004 10:13 AM
But will the major media cover it? Probably not. The facts on the ground in Iraq seem to be much better than the US public thinks. Bush's job (and his supporters) needs to be getting this better information to the public. Ditto for the economy.
Posted by: AWW at May 26, 2004 12:04 PM>Why? We're winning whether he media reports it
>or not.
Not if the media (i.e. Fifth Column) indoctrinate enough Americans that We're Losing And It's All Bush's Fault and the new President Kerry (all genuflect and burn the pinch of incense before his image) cuts and runs like a Good Little Dhimmi.
Posted by: Ken at May 26, 2004 12:27 PMInteresting Orrin. So do you believe that mainstream media bias will have little impact on the election?
Posted by: jefferson park at May 26, 2004 1:06 PMThey've been biased in favor Democrats for decades and it doesn't seem to have made a significant difference. Who trusts them?
Posted by: oj at May 26, 2004 1:16 PMI agree that the media's impact on America reached a top some time ago, and is only going down. It is, however, still an important factor, especially among the undecided -- and I suspect, more among women than men. I think the have already overplayed their hand.
I have a hunch that the biggest "losers" from the Administration's under the radar screen or weak (take your pick) intellectual/propaganda counter-offense have been pro-war pundits (which includes the bloggers). These guys decided to engage (even if in cyberspace) established, "sophisticated" liberal elites in the serious battle of ideas, only to find that for their adversaries national security was never beyond debating points, gotchas, changing benchmarks, and who is ahead today with the media keeping score. Is not surprising that many of them are feeling the heat, and some are starting to sound downright "heat-stroked". (To wit, Perle, if he can define we got out in June and not January as "failure".)
Posted by: MG at May 26, 2004 2:00 PMMG--you call to mind that brilliant aphorism of the tragically underappreciated Gen. Creighton Abrams: "Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it."
Posted by: brian at May 26, 2004 2:18 PMOJ - To MG's point - I know a good number of people who don't read blogs and get almost all of their news from the 7 or 11 o'clock mainstream news. These people are for the most part in full Bush lied/the economy stinks/Kerry is great/We should follow the UN/We should follow Europe mentality. It is these people who make me believe the main media can still sway a good number of the electorate.
Posted by: AWW at May 26, 2004 3:38 PMPeople seek news they agree with, not vice versa.
Posted by: oj at May 26, 2004 3:44 PMWhich is why nary a day goes by that I don't log onto brothersjudd.com.
Posted by: Bartman at May 26, 2004 5:12 PMAWW --
Man, you live in Boston, MA. What on earth are your neighbors going to think? And when did they think differently?
Posted by: MG at May 26, 2004 6:34 PMThey've been biased in favor Democrats for decades and it doesn't seem to have made a significant difference. Who trusts them?
Oh, really? You don't think Clinton getting in with 43% of the vote in '92 might have had something to do with the constant media attacks on Bush and Quayle, the moaning about the "terrible" economy, and the rather uncritical cheerleading for Clinton and Perot?
Posted by: PapayaSF at May 26, 2004 9:02 PMPapaya:
No. It had to do with George H. W. Bush running as the third most conservative candidate in the race.
Posted by: oj at May 26, 2004 9:12 PM