What is this now....?...reason number 4,009,855 for not reading the New York Times? 

"Hmmm, check this out: yesterday’s New York Times headline on its lead Iraq story was ‘Iraqi Army’s Assault on Basra Stalls Against Shiite Militia in Daylong Battle’, while today’s front-page headline in the same paper is ‘Assault by Iraq on Shiite Forces Stalls in Basra’.

How can something that hasn’t started stall already, and why would this paper essentially use the same headline two days in a row?

We’re still within the 72 hour deadline that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki set for Basra’s militants, which means that the real attack (…why does the NYTimes insist on the harsher term “assault”?) hasn’t begun yet. But the NYTimes can write whatever it like in whatever manner it pleases—that’s just one of the many joys of being shamelessly propagandist."

While NYT, ABS, seeBS, NBS, and the Clinton News Network are trying to lose the war on Islamofacism here at home, our troops are winning on all fronts, and even the bad guys know it!  The internet is our tool to learn the truth from folks who are THERE!  Our left wing networks are not the only ones spouting bull;

"For example, the radically Sunni television stations Al-Sharqiya and al-Baghdadiya reported, according to a Sadrist spokesman using a pseudonym that an entire unit of the National Police had surrendered to the Mahdi Army in the Husseiniya-Rashdiya-Boobelsham area (northeastern Baghdad). I happen to have a very reliable and very knowledgeable source living smack in the middle of that area who tells me this report, which he had seen on TV, was absolutely bogus and not a single bullet had been fired in these shantytown-like areas up until Friday night Baghdad time when I spoke to him last."

In fact, I could not say it better than Mr. Kazimi says it here;

"So there you have it: the media is saying one thing, and my sources are giving me a very different portrait of events. I choose to believe my sources. You folks can do whatever you like."