When I telephoned a man named Ali Fadhil in Baghdad last week, I wondered who might answer. A C.I.A. operative? An American posing as an Iraqi? Someone paid by the Defense Department to support the war? Or simply an Iraqi with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq?I've noted before that the New York Times has sided with enemy, but this story has solidified that belief. In case you didn't know Ali Fadhil is a blogger for Iraq the Model. The above quote is the first paragraph of the article in which the Times interviews Ali, and it shows the incredible insulation and partisan bias at the Times. The idea that any Iraq that supports the United States must be a CIA or DOD agent, or better yet just "mixed" up, is totally absurd. Think about the beliefs that must under lie this reasoning. Namely, that no rational Iraqi would support the US goals unless of course we we're paying them off.
Chrenkoff puts this idea better I did:
an Iraqi can only seem "genuine" if he shares the liberal media elite's doubts about the liberation of Iraq. God forbid that anyone could possibly be happy that Saddam's gone and Iraq now has a chance for a better future - such people must obviously be frauds, or better still, frauds on American payroll.