See, now I cant agree with you there. The media is doing its job. The media isnt responsible for all the mistakes in this war, and if GW was truly a leader, then the media couldnt touch him. The media isnt tying anything. The american people are doing that (if we are to assume you are correct that our hands are somewhat tied) -
No, the media is not simply doing their job, they are advancing an agenda. They are advancing a world view. The media has the ability to sway public opinion and censor what the public sees.
You say that if GW was truly a leader the media couldn't touch him... that's utter nonsense.
How many days did the Abu Ghraib story dominate the headlines? 32 successive NY Times FRONT PAGE articles. Did that story about making Iraqi prisoners uncomfortable really warrant that kind of coverage?
The NY Times proclivity for releasing classified information is so well known that prior to the invasion, the Bush administration wisely leaked "classified" information knowing full well that Arkin would publish the troop movements in the NY Times to mislead the Iraqi army.
The war in Iraq was poorly prosecuted, plain and simple.
This is a throw away line, without expanding on it, it is meaningly.
What was poorly executed and why? Was the military operation poorly executed? Was the peace keeping element? Where were the errors made, why were they made, and how do we avoid the same problems.
Ultimately, my research indicates that this operation has been plagued by the lack of reliable intelligence in the region. We had no human intelligence within Iraq due to the cuts in the 90s. And electronic surveillance is not of much value when dealing with low tech communications and closed societies.
It's really clever for a handful of people to say, years after the fact, "you screwed up." If we knew then what we know now, things would obviously be different.
Unfortunately, liberals don't learn from that. We KNOW what happened in Vietnam, yet liberals are intent upon repeating that failure and loss of prestige in the world.
Many things contributed to the loss of public support. Things like that stupid aircraft carrier landing and subsequent 'mission accomplished' speech. The media isnt at fault for that.
And why was that "stupid" or did you hear that in the media? Of course you know, Bush was responsible for the banner. And that the banner didn't mean we were finished in Iraq, but congratulating the returning crewmen on having completed THEIR missions.
Interestingly, I remember the day this happened, Liberals were complaining that this was unfair and that it gave Bush an unfair advantage going into the elections.
The media isnt at fault for the low troop count when we invaded, that was GW and Rummy's idea os a 'leaner meaner' military. The Media isnt responsible for the multitude of other mistakes that were made.
The media and left is responsible for the "kinder, gentler" military that we need. For the ridiculously hindering rules of engagement that cost American lives. For ridiculous scrutiny of the decisions made by soldiers in combat, from the safety of a D.C. office.
And they are responsible for the prolonged NEGATIVE coverage of events, ignoring the positive. They are responsible for calling Iraq a "quagmire" after the third week of the war.
Reality is, GW didnt expect to still be in Iraq. He fully expected the Iraqi people to behave like the europeans in WWII. We roll in, the people are thrilled, feel saved, and the US is a hero. This was naive and shortsided.
And you're knowledge of history is miserable. Post-WW2 Europe was no cake walk either. I'd explain this to you, AGAIN, but apparently, you've ignored the last half dozen threads that have specifically addressed the years following WW2 and the violence that took place there.
But, it is true, NO ONE expected Iraq to be in the situation it currently is in right now. Why? Not because the administration or military were stupid. Not because they'd didn't think about it. But because they had crappy intelligence.
The state of the Iraqi infrastructure was much worse than we thought. When we were hearing reports of "no power" in Iraqi cities after the war, the press failed to note how often that power was out PRIOR to the war as well.
Should we have gone to war? I dont know. I dont think we should have gone for the reasons stated at the time.
Hindsight makes everything so much easier.
I was never against the war per se, I jsut feel its been handled poorly, and still is. Unfortunately, the people dont appear willing to give the war a second chance, and GW doesnt appear ready to commit what is necessary to win.
And how would you like Bush to commit "what is necessary" if he has to battle the perception in the media and a Democrat Congress that is incrementally preparing to cut funding to the military and starve the operation?
Because that's what you don't understand. Even if you think the Bush administration made mistakes, the other side are COMPLETELY wrong. And when you support the Democrats to protest Bush, you are tacetly emboldening and enabling global terror.
There are no easy answers. There are no simple solutions. We're operating a new world. We don't have the luxury of a cold war, bipolar balance of power with rational actors on either side. People need to stop thinking in terms of those conventions regarding the war against Islamic Terror.
And they also need to watch the rest of the world. China, Russia, and any number of other nations will eager exploit our divisions and distractions in order to weaken our status in the world and elevate themselves.
Iran doesnt even fear us right now. They know how thin we are stretched, and they know there is no public support for yet another war. SO, while we now flounder in Iraq, Iran is building, and building and building a war machine that will be much harder to defeat in the future.
NO! Iran, and anyone with any understanding of military power, knows full well that we could decimate that military with nothing more than air power.
What Iran knows is that the U.S. public has no thresh hold for blood. They know that is we sustain even the most modest losses, we will cut and run. They know that the public lacks the will to act unilaterally. And they know they have willing allies in the media and Democrat party.
If we cut and run from Iraq, we will cement our image as a paper tiger. Our word will cease to have any value, and our threat will fail to intimidate. This perception of weakness will be exploited by every other nation in the world.
If we lose in Iraq, it's not just Iraq that will be less safe, the entire world will be.
This is what liberals just don't acknowledge.
And this is what too many shortsighted, unmotivated, and ill-informed American's don't seem to understand.
