While my story is based on the reports already out there publicly

While my story is based on the reports already out there publicly, CNN sites all sorts of “sources”.

Both articles say much the same thing, but what strikes me is the dramatically different tone.

On 9/11/07, General Petraeus predicted the troop level would be down to 130,000 by this summer. In

April of this year, the AP said the pause would leave over 100,000 troops in Iraq by the time President

UGG Sheepskin Cuff Boot leaves office. The reality is that 146,000 troops are still there, and the

Pentagon is urging the President to keep them there until he is out of office. Then, and only then,

they suggest that 7,500 troops could be pulled out of Iraq, and most of them would end up in

Afghanistan. These are the facts as I presented then this morning. Here is what CNN said:

The top UGG Sheepskin Cuff Boot general in Iraq is recommending nearly 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq because

of the improving situation there, a source close to the process has told CNN.

Nowhere is it mentioned that what they’re actually proposing is a several-month-long further delay of

already planned troop cuts. And what is the deal with “because of the improving situation there”

featuring so prominently in the opening paragraph? What sense does that make? The situation has

improved so much that a year later we still can’t reduce troops to the pre-surge level the General in

charge predicted a year ago when he said the surge had accomplished all its goals? Can someone explain

that to me?