On the contrary. The media was ambivalent about the Iraq invasion, and somewhat supportive of our involvement in Afghanistan. Embedded reporters were popular and had glowing reports to deliver while we were engaged with Saddam's "forces."
It wasn't until after the President failed to explain the situation with WMD adequately, and then engaged in the present policy of confining our engagement to Iraq and Afghanistan while the Saudis, Pakistanis, Iranians, and other Islamic countries support our enemies around the world -- that the press really got its anti-American legs.
If President Roosevelt had waited much longer to open a land front in Europe, or if we had failed to utilize stragegic bombing during WWII, the press might have taken a different tact. Americans like winners, and the situation in Iraq is less than "victorious." The casualty rates are tremendous, and it's basically for an ill-defined objective that few Americans can still understand.
This is why the Democrats and the press corps are finding so many ways to undermine the President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH80g_Mkin0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emudvillegazette%2Ecom%2F
I wouldn’t call it a failure.
But then, I’m not sure you’ve seen a smiling Iraqi face-to-face yet.
Actually, this is exactly my point. In my view the left voiced whatever support they did after 9/11 with their fingers crossed. They were just waiting for the opportune set of circumstances to revert to form. You are correct that Bush gave them too many openings to criticize, but no matter what he did he was going to be criticized eventually. Think of Hillary’s body language during the speech Bush gave at the National Cathedral right after 9/11. The media, in my view, is full of the same types of people.
Regarding Iraq, WMD, and Afghanistan, I agree that it was a mistake making WMD such a prominent issue. If Bush had stated at that time that Hussein had the capacity to make WMD, if though we couldn’t be sure if he already had stockpiles, Bush would have avoided the biggest opening he gave the Democrats. I personally don’t think he needed the WMD argument to get public approval to go after Iraq. This is NOT going to be a short war, irrespective of what happens in Iraq. This is a global war to protect ourselves and our way of life against a cult-like ideology. If we’d have stopped in Afghanistan all of the same players that are spilling across the border into Iraq would have gone to Afghanistan instead, and Bush would be criticized for not winning the peace in Afghanistan quicker.
The fact that many Americans ‘don’t understand’ the WOT is a sad statement about our current culture. Most Americans know how to ‘dial in’ American Idol, and they have long enough attention spans to know who Trump fires, or who gets ‘voted off the island’. Americans can’t afford to have ADD when it comes to our national security.
Like any good salesman, the media (and Democrats) can spin it either way they want, irregardless of the facts.
Look at Richard Nixon. The guy was a saint compared to LBJ, and probably JFK as well. But not even republicans today will say nice things about Nixon. They find any way they can to forget they ever had anything to do with him.
Nixon was destroyed by the media. They could have destroyed LBJ, but they chose not to.
Bin Laden and his ilk are empowered because they're fighting the US. They will fight in Iraq, or Saudi, or Manhattan. But they're going to fight us, and Bush has opted to engage them, rather than ignore them like Clinton's policy was, which was demonstrated to be ineffective on 9/11.
That we choose to engage them in Iraq is a good strategy. That we equip and train Iraqis to fight the war for us is good strategy. That we are in Iraq, right on the borders of Syria and Iran is good strategy.
We should be in no hurry to leave. As soon as we do, the target will again become American cities.
We "occupied" Germany and Japan years after we defeated them as nations. There was a considerable resistance movement in Germany after the war. We still have bases in Germany, and I know we still base aircraft carriers permanently in Japan. We're still in Korea. That the political argument is that we should leave Iraq in the near future is just stupid.
Leaving Iraq is just not smart. As soon as the Democrats publicly recognize that fact and end the politics over the issue, the killing in Iraq will no longer profit Al Qaeda, and they'll calm down there, and find other theaters, such as Africa.
The Democrats politics, and the media coverage, *enables* Al Qaeda to profit from violence. The Democrats and media can chose to stop rewarding Al Qaeda violence any time they want.