How about a quiz?
Answer the following questions.

As of July, 2008:
• What percentage of strength did Al-Qaida retain?
• Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government achieved “satisfactory” progress in how many of the 18 political benchmarks established for his country?
• Who initiated the time sequence for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq?
• Who forgave Baghdad its almost $7 billion debt?
• Why was the debt forgiven?
• If America were winning a war, would our media be quick to inform us?

The answers: 12 percent; 15; Prime Minister al-Maliki; United Arab Emirates; express confidence in a free Iraq; and NO!

That’s right, out of 12,000 fighters, Al-Qaida only had 1,200 remaining, and, according to London Times reporter Marie Colvin, who traveled with the Iraqi, the remaining Al-Qaida were cornered in Mosul. That’s right, a mere slip of a woman reported dramatic information that our highly influential media never mentioned.

Said Colvin, “Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion in debt owed by Baghdad – an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a FREE Iraq.”

Now, I don’t know about you folks, but the above is what I consider great news. How many of you heard about it? Now, I did hear about a timetable. Fox mentioned it on July 8, but addressed none of the other issues in the article; CBS spoke of the timetable once in 21 on Iraq on that date, and then only to say McCain had given his opinion on it; and NBC, CNN, did not mention it.

None of them spoke of Al-Qaida, benchmarks, debt, or the reasons for forgiving them.

Now I wish someone out there a lot smarter than me would offer an explanation as to what in the Sam Hill is going on with our media. It seems to me when we are indeed accomplishing what we set out to do, the least our media could do is tell us.

I can’t suppress the anger that comes from knowing that the only way Americans know they’re winning the war in Iraq is by way of the British Press.

The day after the London Times broke the story, it was picked up by a financial publication in the U.S. the Investors’ Daily Business. They were outraged.

Said the latter a few days later, “But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, ‘The CBS Evening News,’ ‘NBC Nightly News’ and CNN’s ‘Anderson Cooper 360’ were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks” that signaled political progress.

“The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don’t seem to consider this historic event a big story.”

I ask myself, why would they neglect such a story? I know they can’t stand Bush, and it is no secret they pandered to Obama. They wanted him for president as did the majority of the voters, and they all got him.

They ferreted out everything they could to make Bush look the incompetent loser. Bush has many accomplishments and many failures. Unfortunately, he is as detested in some quarters as was old Harry Truman. History has proven Truman was right, and the narrow-minded naysayers, as all narrow-minded naysayers, were wrong.

What do you want to bet that after the inauguration, the “big” media will break the Mosul story and attribute the success in Iraq to Obama?