Once the death toll reached the thousands the media did not have to "concentrate" on it anymore. Because with each additional U.S. casualty the number of Americans with a family, friend or relative affected by war casualties increases exponentially. I would also add that nobody in the media -- even those who have been strong supporters of the U.S. military effort for years -- will ever be able to make the case that a "viable nation" is actually being built as long as you have a viable insurgency at work in Iraq.
I can't really follow your convoluted arguments. And if MNJohnnie didn't address your so-call specific points, it's probably because he can't either.
I don't know what "arguments" you are talking about. My initial post on this thread contained five definitive statements -- none of which has been addressed in any subsequent posts.
Lastly, Bush may not like nation building for nation building's sake, but nation building as part of winning the war on terror is not really nation building at all -- it's a sound military strategy.
The only problem with this argument is that there was no "war on terror" when this administration's initial plans for invading Iraq were made.
Fine. I'll address them.
Why did the successful war in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with a democracy lose the majority support of the American public?
I can attribute this to a number of factors: 1. The fixation on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq through the current and prior administrations.
IOW, the public has bought the Big Lie. "No WMDs found" has been successfully conflated with "No WMDs existed". This is patently untrue. Instead of asking why the US hasn't found stockpiles, the question should be "Where are the stockpiles we and the UN knew to exist?"
2. The childish, utopian "promoting the spread of democracy" crap the emanates from the mouth of every person inside the Beltway who makes a public statement in support of the war.
IOW, you don't believe establishment of democracy is an effective method of dealing with aggressive nations.
3. The blatant conflict of interest and pernicious actions of one Richard Perle, who had the unusual distinction of resigning twice in disgrace back in 2004 -- once as head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board when he became a political liability for George W. Bush's re-election campaign, and then as a member of the board itself when his lobbying efforts in the Pentagon on behalf of Communist China were made public.
98% of the American public has no clue who Richard Pearle is. Just because he is a Paleocon bete noire does not mean anyone else cares.
4. The delusional notion that democracy without an underlying culture that acknowledges and respects personal liberty is possible, or even desirable.
IOW, the wogs can't understand what we enlightened people can. As if Japan had a history of respect for personal liberty, and we are delusional to think they could ever develop one. Or Turkey, or India, or the other scads of nations who have become democracies without an underlying Western culture.
How condescending.
5. The violent, pathological response of Muslims all over the world to something as trivial and inconsequential as a newspaper cartoon . . . even as the secular Islamic national leader who had most clearly demonstrated his willingness and capability to deal with Islamic extremism in his country sits in an Iraqi prison and goes through a circus of a "trial" for his crimes.
So violent pathological secular dictators who have sworn to destroy us are good, but violent pathological religious Muslims who have sworn to destroy us are bad? And we should therefore stop supporting the fighting of said violent pathological religious Muslims, and abandon an infant democracy to them?
Except for your first point, none of your "reasons" for the alleged decline of support has anything to do with the general public. They all have to do with why paleocons didn't support it in the first place.