Flop Number Two For Filkins: New York Times Still Can't Say "Terrorist"

Dexter Filkins, noted columnist for the New York Times, who was thoroughly flogged by the blogosphere yesterday over his erroneous report of counterfeit ballots being brought through Iraq's closed borders (myself among the floggers), presented a new story today. The headline?

Heavy Sunni Turnout Is Reported; No Large-Scale Attacks by Rebels

Rebels? Memo to the editorial staff of the New York Times: They're called terrorists, you nitwits. "Rebels" denotes a native insurgency. That insurgency is small in comparison to the foreign terrorists plotting, planning, and killing in Iraq. Can you guys try that word on for size, just once, please?

In a day remarkable for the absence of large-scale violence, millions of Iraqi voters, many of them dressed in their best and traveling with other family members, streamed to the polls today to cast ballots in a nationwide election as Iraqi leaders predicted that the vote would split almost evenly between secular and Islamist parties.

Was Mr. Filkins expecting attacks all day long on the voters? Seriously? With US, coalition, and Iraqi forces in place to provide security, what moronic terrorist would want to go out today? That would be like expecting Hitler to crawl out of his bunker, and meet the Russian army as they were entering Berlin. The infrequent violence of the day claimed three lives, but that isn't the main story. Oh, I'm sure the media will latch onto that piece tonight, but that's not the real story.

Here are some facts for you: January saw a 59% turnout for voters for the interim parliament elections. There was a 64% voter turnout for the vote on the new Iraqi constitution. Today, it's estimated that between 70-80% of the 15.5 million registered voters turned out to vote for their very first four-year parliament. These are the ones chosen to represent this new, free nation on the world stage. And just think, a couple years ago, people like John Kerry were calling such a feat simply a pipe-dream. The Iraqi people proved him, and the liberals in this country wrong today.

In Baghdad, families reclaimed streets that had been off-limits to them in recent months because of the frequent bombings and other violence. Several generations made their way down the middle of quiet boulevards, and children played soccer in the streets, using stones to mark their boundaries and goals.

"This election is the one we've been waiting for - it's going to determine our destiny," said Ali al-Nuaimy, 49, a physical fitness trainer, who voted in Baghdad.

In Yarmouk, a predominately Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad, Zuhiar al-Zahawi, a retired airline mechanic, was one of many Sunnis who sat out the elections in January but voted today. He said he was hopeful that Iraq's three main communities could reach an understanding. "We will talk to each other, and we will connect with each other, and we will weave the country together like a piece of cloth."

((GASP)) The New York Times said something positive! Don't think for a moment that Mr. Filkins, or anyone else at the Times, is seeing the beginning of a bright, new future. They're still going to report all the bad news they can coming out of Iraq. Much like the media's coverage of the aftermath of 9/11, they gave the president all of maybe two weeks before they started reporting bad news again. The unanimity of the liberals with America lasted a lousy couple of weeks before the attacks resumed. We'll be lucky if we make it the day before someone opens up their yap to take a swipe at the president.

The results of the elections are likely to determine whether and to what extent the Bush administration can begin significant withdrawals of American troops next year. American officials, including Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador here, are expected to take an assertive role helping the Iraqis put together what is likely to be a coalition government.

American commanders here have been under growing pressure to push the Iraqis into a more independent role in the governing and securing of Iraq, but they have repeatedly said in recent weeks that the critical decisions on American troop strength will be largely determined by whether the country begins to stabilize.

I knew it. I just knew it. I knew that someone would bring up the withdrawal. They liberals truly are sharing the talking points, and they still want us to leave. They just can't drop this. Here, once more, with feeling (and from the cheap seats): WE WILL LEAVE WHEN THE JOB IS DONE!

America's not running simply because the Iraqis voted. This doesn't solve all the problems. It doesn't quell the violence. It hasn't delivered Zarqawi's head on a platter to our commanders, yet. This is a first step. The old adage goes, "You have to learn how to crawl before you can walk." The Iraqis have just pushed themselves up on their feet for the first time, and are maintainin their balance. This was a baby step, and they didn't fall over. We're staying until they can walk and run. Give us a little more time. Thomas has predicted that there will be a skeleton force of troops in Iraq by the end of 2006. We'll see, but he could be right.

It also matters as to how quickly we can wrap up these bad guys. They're still there, and we're not going anywhere until the terrorists are gone. Filkins goes on after the above point to deal with the divisions amongst the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds. To be honest, no one said this was easy. We had a functioning government long before we had a ratified constitution. And we had our fair share of problems along the way. I'm sure the troubles for the new nation aren't over yet. If history is a guide, they still have a ways to go.

But they can do so as they did today. With their voices, untied in freedom, and giving a giant purple finger to the terrorists trying to tear down what they have fought so hard to rebuild.

Mistress Pundit