Reuters headline today:
"Bombs kill 19 in Iraq after lull in violence"
What lull? And why are the following paragraphs not a headline story in its own right?
The violence reminded Iraqi politicians of the security crisis they will face after forming a new government, a process that has yet to kick off more than two months after elections that Washington had hoped would ease sectarian strife.
In unusually strong language, U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad warned Iraqi leaders that Washington would not tolerate sectarianism or militias in the new government and its security forces.
"The ministers of interior, defence, national intelligence, the national security adviser have to be people who are non- sectarian, broadly acceptable, non-militia-related that will work for all Iraqis," he told a news conference.
"The United States is investing billions of dollars into these forces, military and police forces of Iraq. American taxpayers expect their money to be spent properly. We are not going to invest the resources of the American people into forces run by people who are sectarian..."
Why is there not a story headlined:
"American viceroy in Iraq fails to realise that America no longer calls the shots"
or perhaps the headline should be:
"Ambassador of defeated invading nation thinks he can still bluff Iraqis"
Why is their not such a story with such a headline? Because its not news of course. Silly me, I forgot … |
