We were fighting the "werewolves" in Germany after the war. Japan was a different matter given their leadership and obedience of its people. Regardless, we are in Iraq because AQ has declared it the frontlines in their war against us. Iraq is part of the WOT. Who is blaming all of this on the MSM? The Dems have politicized the war. They seem to think that they will benefit by our defeat there. The steady drumbeat of bad news, i.e., the bombings, casualties. etc., without balancing it with the other side presents a distorted picture. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The MSM and Dems are using the same template.
Scotty McClellan isn't going to do it.
You could have Cicero or Clarence Darrow up there and you wouldn't convince the MSM to change their reporting. The WH press corps is overwhelming anti-Bush. Remember their frenzied coverage of the President's national guard records (including Rathergate) compared to their attempts to discredit the SBVFT. You are very naive to believe that a WH press spokesman is going to change the MSM coverage.
If they are that small, we should leave. We've been training Iraqis (who certainly know how to fight - look at the casualties they inflicted on Iran in the 80s) for two years. They speak the language. They are of the culture. They need to take it over. And we need to get the foreign contractors out and have the Iraqis themselves rebuild their country.
We will stand down as the Iraqis stand up. They are taking over. Iraqi military and police have suffered more casualties than we have. What the hell are you talking about? You are spewing the same nonsense as the Dems. It has only been three years. What's the rush? Why don't you have any patience? Our troops understand this and want us to stay the course.
We have fought several small countries in the last two decades, including a country armed to the teeth by Russia, and have had nowhere near these kinds of casualties.
Are you referring to Bosnia and Kosovo? We fought that war at 15,000 feet. However, we are still there. Why aren't you calling for their immediate removal? The casualties in Iraq are light compared to any real historical measure.
This isn't Russia, China or even Serbia.
If it were China or Russia, our casualty rate would be much higher, especially if we tried to invade and occupy them. We didn't invade Serbia (Kosovo aside) with ground troops nor did we change their government and occupy their country.
The person responsible for the 3000 deaths here is still on the loose reportedly somewhere in Pakistan. Many people have become understandably confused that "dead or alive" determination from the admin. appears to have fizzled.
We are still in Afghanistan pursuing bin laden. We are also suffering casualties there. 284 Americans have died and 711 wounded in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and AQ. Using your logic, should we leave Afghanistan immediately? How long should we stay there?
Even stranger that there is an unprecendented number speaking out now, even from those recently commanding troops in Iraq. I respect the opinion of people who do the fighting, and I know many. The military does not have a bias against Repub presidents.
Unprecedented numbers? Compared to when? What are the numbers? You are making this stuff up out of whole cloth.
My going wobbly is of no import. The POTUS needs to stand up and reassure the public - and not through poor, wimpy Scott McClellan!
Of course he has stood up many times. Unfortuately, people like you refuse to believe him. You would rather believe the MSM, the Dem party, and a handful of disgruntled flag officers. The public wouldn't need reassurance if their weren't a MSM and Dem party distorting what is going on in Iraq. The President is being threatened with impeachment because he has the temerity to intercept AQ contacts with people inside the US. He has been accused by the Dems of torturing prisoners as a matter of official policy. The Dems tried to kill the renewal of the Patriot Act. You have Dem senators like Durbin comparing the US military to Pol Pot, the Nazis, and the Soviets. The attack on Rumsfeld is just another attack on Bush. I guess you sign on to the "Bush lied" crap as well.
Bush gave his unflinching support to Rumsfeld today. That is the way to stand up to the MSM and bankrupt Dem party.
This is unprecedented, and if we pretend it isn't, people here will have a rude awakening.
The people who supported Bush 4 years ago, ~ 90% of the country, are still here and are just as patriotic now as they were then. They weren't supporting Bush at the behest of the MSM then, and their concern isn't based on the MSM now - but the administration, including Rumsfeld, was giving folks the impression that this would be relatively quick, and that's not how it turned out. People can only take "victory is just around the corner" for so long. Second terms should be the time for a change
I saw Bush 4 years ago, sure, decisive and focussed. I'm not seeing that now, and it isn't because of the Dems - who are powerless and completely irrelevant, or the MSM. Bush could call a conference and take the generals' questions directly, live on TV.
This nagging doubt of the populace on the Iraq war is going to negatively impact everything, including the elections, and can only be remedied by the leader. If the leader doesn't take charge of the story, the media will do it for him.
But, if you're okay with the POTUS' approval below 40%, then I guess you see no problem...
I loved the new South Park mock of the press conferences. It had Bush explaining to a wildly excited pack what the First amendment was the other night. Hysterical with their mrpresidentmrpresidentmrpresident and utterly idiotic questions.