It's no longer news because there wasn't a body count of US soldiers accompanying it.

It's front page news here:

http://english.aljazeera.net/

It's on the Middle East page here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm

It was front page here yesterday:

http://english.daralhayat.com/

Lorie,

You hit the nail on the head, it's not news here because it doesn't help the democrats.

AFP admits that they will slant coverage to hurt the conservative party. BBC acknowledges their anti-Christain bias. Yet here in America the MSM continues to proclaim that they are un-biased.

And they wonder why subscriptions and viewers are down.....

But US news? Sorry, there's always something else more important, like Christy Brinkley's divorce or Obama 'clarifying' a position.

One must have priorities, after all.

While Obama grasps to find a way to reconcile the things he has said about Iraq...

'Grasps' is a poor word choice; 'flails' is much better.

Barry's upcoming trip to Iraq--provided he doesn't cancel his ticket first--is going to be an unmitigated political disaster for him.

Makes you wonder if some superdelegates might be changing their minds...

So we'll be out in 5 years if we continue on this trend?

I thought I'd wait at least a day for the American press to catch up and see who's reporting this. As of this morning, most of any coverage at all on it is by outside sources. Most of that is Middle Eastern news sources. The LA Times managed to weigh in, but most of it was negative.

So this strengthens the Iraqi's demand that coalition forces withdraw, right?

I can't believe it. Almost 24 hours after I posted this and not one of the usual liberal readers telling me how wrong I am about Iraq and that it is every bit the unmitigated disaster they have claimed it would be from day one. You guys have had no problem saying that in the face of all the other good news coming from Iraq over the past year. What happened? Have things actually improved to the point that even the Bush haters have to acknowledge the truth on the ground? It is pretty disturbing when the Middle Eastern and foreign press is reporting this stuff more prominently than the US press. I guess they are too busy trying to nail down that Miley Cyrus interview.

"So this strengthens the Iraqi's demand that coalition forces withdraw, right?"

As usual, you cloud the issue with your snidery. First, we have this. Then we have this from Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak Rubaie.

So yes, they want us to leave, but they also know they're not quite ready.

Putz.

"So yes, they want us to leave, but they also know they're not quite ready.

Putz."

Iraqis have been ready:

Iraqi Factions Seek Timetable for U.S. Pullout (2005)

Most Iraqis favor U.S. pullout in a year (2006)

Their government seemed to have agreed a while ago:
Majority of Iraq Lawmakers Seek Timetable for U.S. Exit (2007)

Every time, their demands have been rejected. It must be because of all the milestones reported at Wizbang.

U.S troops seem to have agreed some time ago as well but that maybe difficult for you to grasp.

Asshole.

Iraqi Factions Seek Timetable for U.S. Pullout (2005)

A pomp and circumstance meeting of Iraq's leaders who, if you actually bothered to read the article, placed a lot of conditions on setting those timetables--like "dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces", which were only at 75% at the time and incapable of taking over security operations.

Most Iraqis favor U.S. pullout in a year (2006)

Of course they would. I know I would. Of course it's always the question that wasn't asked that's more telling: "Would you still favor a pullout in a year it it meant the utter collapse of your country and a virtual bloodbath?"

You'd get a crickets and tumbleweeds response on that one. Had it been asked.

Their government seemed to have agreed a while ago:
Majority of Iraq Lawmakers Seek Timetable for U.S. Exit (2007)

It's called politics. What Iraqi politician wouldn't want to be seen seeking by his constituents. Does that mean it's the right strategic thing to do? Um, definitely not.

Every time, their demands have been rejected. It must be because of all the milestones reported at Wizbang.

What?

U.S troops seem to have agreed some time ago as well but that maybe difficult for you to grasp.

Nice try. But that was from 2006. Long before the incredible successes of "the surge" in 2007--including the important appointment of Gen. Petraeus and the complete shift in tactics.

Would you care do start backpedaling now, or will you wait for Obama to do it in a couple of weeks after he visits Iraq?

One sign the surge has been a success -- instead of liberals insisting the surge is a total disaster, as they have been doing for the past year (actually beginning before the surge even began) they are now arguing about how quickly Iraqis would like us to leave.

Another sign -- instead of arguing current facts, they are pointing to old information and calling people names.

Heck, I'm not complaining. It beats when they seemed to celebrate every body count.

It beats when they seemed to celebrate every body count.

You should apologize for this, Lorie. Nobody here celebrates the death of U.S. soldiers, unless you want to drag poor ol' Ward Churchill's straw corpse out of the woodwork again. What an uttlerly classless statement to make.

There is a distinction between "Hey, more soldiers got killed--maybe that would stop if they weren't stationed in Iraq anymore"; and "Woo hoo, more dead troops! Pass the popcorn, Allahu Akbar, death to America, etc.!"

Provide an example, or apologize, or do neither--it's your blog, but that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Do better.

It was a horrible thing to say, but sadly that is what I have seen from many liberals. I should have been more specific and said "some" rather than "they" because obviously not all against the war celebrated the body count. I did say "seemed" to celebrate. In other words, I am not saying they were breaking out champagne bottles, but honestly, have you not seen the glee in some of the liberals on television when talking about casualties in Iraq? I saw it more times than I would have liked. It is horrible and obscene, but I am not going to apologize for pointing it out. As for specific examples, I know that other bloggers (with far more free time than me) have compiled quite a few and I'll pull up some of those posts, but off the top of my head one of my most vivid recollections is of some Dems on Capitol Hill saying that if things continue to improve in Iraq it would be bad. Sorry, but when I hear people so concerned with their political fortunes that good news for them is more dead American soldiers it sickens me and I am not just going to pretend it didn't happen or that it is cool to say such a thing and ignore it.