Yes, except that your original assertion was that the story wasn’t important because it first appeared only in Australian papers. That was simply wrong. But then again you’ve been wrong through out this thread on every major point you tried to make. One hundred percent wrong. And yet here you are, floundering around trying to salvage whatever shred of self-respect you can grab. It’s sad really. Here was my original comment on the story: “Can we go now?” The story makes it clear that the Iraqis we are there to help no longer trust us. Simple as that. You can spin it however you want, and naturally you will because you have no integrity, but there it is.

You’re an angry narcissistic sociopath today, huh, Paul?

{In case you’re wondering, buma, and I’m sure you’re terribly concerned about my newfound preoccupation with the nember of days since “Mission Accomplished”, I’m only going to do it until the thread gets “bumped” onto the next ‘page.’}

And how many times do I have to tell all of you — It’s not my blog!

It’s not a story. It’s two days later. and it has appeared (according to google news) in 6 news sources (three Australian, one British, two American). Six, Paul.

JUST. SIX.

The Iraqis are throwing out the Americans, so you say, and what ought to be the biggest story of the year has appeared n SIX NEWS SOURCES

SIX NEWS SOURCES.

What in the hell does that have to do with anything? How does that at all follow from this statement of yours:

“I repeat,  Why is it only appearing in three Australian newspapers after 22 hours?”

That doesn’t sound like you were referring to when I found the articles, probably because you posted it BEFORE I found the articles. The NY Times and Reuters did not “pick up the story” 24 hours after it ran in the Australian papers. They ran it THE SAME DAY. It’s unbelievable how dishonest or how stupid you are. Just incredible.

And, no, that story is not a big story. Still isn’t. And won’t be, your whimpering posts to the contrary notwithstanding.

As hard as you might find this to believe, O rabid one, you. fucked. up.

And I suppose the insurgency in general is just a misunderstanding that the Iraqis will work out over tea eventually. No biggie.

Just keep digging that hole, Frank. Keep digging.

Frank, did you check the date line for the NY Times piece and the piece in the first article I linked to? They both ran on the same day: March 28 2006.

That makes you three times the idiot. Care to go for four?

Frank, did you check the date line for the NY Times piece and the piece in the first article I linked to?

Here’s an important 25th Anniversary

President Reagan was shot 25 years ago today

What does that have to do with anything?

Not a damn thing — just like 1,063 days since  Mission Accomplished

And copying frameone — that way leads to madness.

I’m not sure how (but then again, am I ever?), but somehow that makes me, not once, but twice, an idiot. I guess that’s once for each new article. The fact that these stories came out after my post means not a thing to you. I’m still an idiot.
Then you proceed to introduce a comment with, “But seriously”. What am I supposed to make of that?

But, I’ll tell you what I’m gonna do, Paul. By exercizing my imagination to the fullest, I can pretend you’re not a vicious, narcissistic sociopath, and actually respond to your comment, even though I’m sure that your response is already typed up in Word, and waiting to be posted, and, undoubtedly, contains the word “idiot” within it.

I will only address one point you made: An erroneous ‘gotcha’

First the press is not covering enough good stuff because the good stuff is really important to cover. Now, according to you, underreporting bad stuff means the bad stuff doesn t really matter. Furthermore, if the US media is so liberal and biased against the US, why isn t it trumpeting this highly negative story in banner headlines?

First, the press is not covering enough good stuff, not because it is really important to cover. They are not covering enough good stuff, because it conflicts with their proactive (as opposed to neutral / impartial) agenda: 1) Anti – Bush; 2) Anti – Iraq War; 3) Anti – War — choose 1, 2, or 3, or all of the above.

Second, underreporting anything means it doesn’t really matter — to the correspondent. An impartial reporter would report as much news as there is; a reporter with an agenda reports what fits the agenda. What doesn’t fit the agenda, becomes, in the reporter’s mind, unimportant. (See minimizing: To represent as having the least degree of importance, value, or size, as in “but they’ve painted another schoolhouse!”

Third, This “highly negative story” is not being “trumpeted in banner headlines” for one reason, and one reason only: It is not a highly negative story. The Iraqi government — or council of religious leaders, whichever, is not asking the Allied troops to leave, as you implied. They are very angry over a shootinmg incident, and want exclusive control of security to be handed over to the Iraqis. This issue is under discussion, the outcome of the discussion is truly in doubt, and that’s pretty much it. “Move along — nothin’ to see here — go home and tell your mother she wants you”, as the cops in my neighborhood used to say.

If I appeared to have “moved on,” it’s because, as I have said, “There’s no ‘there’ there.”

“… right after AlexC proves that millions of people demonstrated against the Iraq War, when it began.”

“It s not a fact. I disagree.”

“Why is it only appearing in three Australian newspapers after 12 hours?”

Or have you just moved on?

Yes, I’ve gone around the bend and once again you make a statement, back away in the face of the facts, respond with an partially incoherent non-sequitor, get called on THAT, back away again and then whine that you’re being called names. Total dumb-ass.