Over at The Corner, Stanley Kurtz makes a good point regarding the Washington Post‘s coverage of the Iraq “surge” debate.
There is something awfully odd about today’s big Washington Post story on the proposed troop surge. The headline reads, “Critics Say ‘Surge’ Is More of The Same,” and the article hammers that point home: “A sense that the White House is preparing more of the same is generating deep skepticism among Democrats in Congress.” The problem is that the article fails to report on the genuine tactical changes being proposed by the chief advocates of the surge…. [T]he Post reinforces the arguments of the surge’s critics, without giving a fair shot to its advocates. In fact, the whole article, from the headline to the chart, is an effort to back up Democratic critics, without even conveying the key argument of proponents of the surge.
Kurtz also rightly notes that there are “plenty of ways in which a surge might fail. But the Kagan-Keane plan has at least a prospect of success, and that’s more than we can say for the battle plan we’ve been relying on up to now.”
