I was going to put together a response, but commentor Phoenix Woman over at IsThatLegal has done it better than I could have:

This is all about the mythical "Dolchstoss" or "stab in the back". That's where the people responsible for the grand fuckup blame somebody else for it. It worked for Germany's ruling classes in the post-World-War-I era (their scapegoats of choice being -- surprise! -- lefties, Jews, and other non-Aryans), so of course the neo-cons must give it a whirl.

The religio-racist right can never, ever admit that a) invading Iraq was a bad idea, b) BushCo lied about why they wanted to invade, c) anyone with a brain and who wasn't on the boards of any oil companies (such as most of the Pentagon's general staff -- most of whom drive hybrid cars) knew it was a bad idea, and/or d) the post-invasion situation was gone from bad to worse to horrible. So that's why they have to pretend that the Great Big All-Powerful Left (which is so powerful that it got John Kerry and a Democratic Congress elected in 2004 -- oh, wait, that didn't happen, did it?), and not their own fuck-up-itude, is to blame.

Thank you for sharing that hissy fit with us, C.O. For the record, I don't agree that you could not have done it better.

My assumption, clearly not shared by everyone, is that the question of underreported news from Iraq whether good or bad is a serious one worth putting our more volatile emotions in park to think about for a minute. In Austin Bay's defense -- and I certainly don't subscribe to everything he's said on this subject -- similar criticism about "police blotter reporting" can be made about almost any local television news program in the United States. It's no more than common sense to wonder if the same dynamic that drives local news to cover crime stories more than others drives international coverage toward disaster stories more than others.

So, this is a bad thing?

The only person worth reading from Iraq is Michael Yon. I like particularly like the stuff from about a month ago, where he drives 30 miles north of Mosul into Kurdish territory to find...nothing much except regular life going on. U.S. forces go there for R & R (and leave the body armor in the car), people eat at roadside cafes, shop at supermarkets, etc. You never see that kind of stuff in the MSM. It's like it doesn't exist.

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

Yup, the MSM never covers regular life or how peaceful the Kurdish areas are.

This article in the BBC was clearly a figment of my imagination:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145110.stm

That being said, obviously the media is focusing on the more sensational issue. Let me put it this way -- if a state with population equal to Iraq in the US had car bombs, attacks, bandit gangs, kidnappings, then no one would cover the more peaceful areas of the state as well. Obviously reporters will look for more spectacular news, but the unfortunate fact that some don't want to face is that there is a lot of spectacular news from iraq that is bad.

Of course the MSM would report the good news, which we see every day from Iraq and Afghanistan. The hopeless spin of the MSM is a joke and that's why I regard the blogging of the troops and Yon far more interesting and substantive than jouralists hanging out in the equilavent of the Siagon Continental passing on rumors and fantasies.

this morning NPR reported on a horrible triple bombing in Baghdad, that "broke the recent period of relative calm"

Of course NPR had NOT reported that recent period of relative calm. At least not that i heard, and im a pretty regular listener.

Not cause they didnt have enough reporters there - they obviously KNEW about the period of calm,since they mentioned it when it was BROKEN. They just decided not to mention it on air.

Sometime I think im living in the old USSR, trying to decipher Pravda.

And yes, if there IS a groundswell for withdrawl, and the admin DOES withdraw, over neocon objections, and Iraq goes to hell, there WILL be intense discussions of who was responsible.

Stab in the back was a legend in 1920s Germany. That doesnt prove it always is.

Erg? That State would be Texas, where 1300 to 1400 people a year are murdered, let alone the annual number killed. Some 2200 die by being shot, malace or no.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/2004CIT.pdf

Yet no one portrays it as unlivable. So much for your theory - try again.

When Texas starts having 2 car bomb attacks a day, 6-10 police officers or army personnel killed every day, regular mortar attacks, regular pitched battles between police and criminal thugs involving artillery and planes, when the road from Austin downtown to its airport is constantly attacked by snipers, when foreign journalists (and Iraqis too) are regularly shot or captured and held for ransom, when the Gvoernment of Texas has to operate in a huge area of barbed wire and fences, and military troops, when members of government are regularly assasinated then maybe we can talk about the relative livability of Texas vs. Iraq.

"Of course NPR had NOT reported that recent period of relative calm."

Well, calm isn't news. Even of Septemember 11th, 10s of millions of Americans went about their business peacefully, and even in NYC, the large majority of people had to put up with nothing more than inconvenience (I was one of them), although of coruse a few were impacted far more tragically. But all the news coverage was about Septememebr 11th ? Was that wrong ? Of course not !!

And returning to Texas for a minute, one armed standoff that led to death in Waco was covered extensively in the media. Well, in Iraq, you have the equivalent in casualties of Iraqis and Americans practically every week.

i come from best search engine http://www.google.com

Mark - If you did a 'man on the street' in this country, and asked the passers-by how many people are murdered in Texas every year, they wouldn't come anywhere near 2200, given that the 1800 KIA number is their main point of reference.

Again, where are the horror-stories about whether or not Texas is going to fall into chaos unless it becomes a heavily-armed police-state?

That's right - they're aren't any. Stop playing make-believe.

There are 120 - 180K US troops in Iraq. There have been maybe 800KIA in the last year among the troops who served there. By contrast, the population of Texas is 30 M.

So % vise, 2200/30 M is much smaller than 800/(around 200 K) soldiers.

So stop playing games with numbers. The appropriate comparison with texas might be to compare casualties with the total population of Iraq , which is only a few million above Texas. A comparison of a much smaller population is obviously not going to work.

One Branch Davidian showdown in Texas generated hundreds of articles and TV reports. Iraq has the equivalent of that every week.

Actually, according to the icausalties.org website, there have been around 1000 Americans KIA in the last year.

So to get an equivalent rate in 30M Texans, we would have around 1000/200K * 30 M = 150K.

If there were 150 K violent murders in Texas a year, that would be the equivalent. T