Scott Norvell writes about the election in Afghansitan, you know, the one the media is not covering. Note this: "It was a regrettably typical comment from an American reporter in this part of the world. ’At least it’s news,’ he said of the Afghan election scuffle over the weekend. ’Otherwise, this is just a success story.’
God forbid it be a success story.
But that’s what it was here, no matter how hard the international media tried to spin it. There were no car bombs raining body parts all over the polling stations. There were no last-minute assassinations. There were no drive-by shootings. The best they could come up with for ’news’ was grumbling from hopelessly trailing opposition candidates about washable ink and threats of a boycott. The media’s disappointment was palpable." (Thanks to Instapundit).
Notice the LA Times editorial of Monday, October 11, which discusses the Afghan election, admitting that it was a success despite its flaws, but fails to mention George W. Bush, the sine qua non of that election, until the very last paragraph, which reads:
"The Bush administration pushed hard for the presidential elections so it could boast of a foreign policy victory. It needs to expend the same amount of energy increasing security in Afghanistan and ensuring that Saturday’s election was not the last."