Well there appears to be some indications that the Surge is working

[GarfieldJL]

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FinalBenchmarkReport.pdf

 

 

This is the actual report that has been given to members of Congress, it appears there are some areas that Iraq is struggling in and some where they've made satisfactory levels of progress. It's really about 50/50 and this is the interm report, the final report will be made in september. Assuming the Democrats don't manage to force an idiotic retreat from Iraq letting Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda win.

 

 

 

Also I'd like to thank news busters for pointing out the biased questions

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/14040

 

Furthermore, I'd like people to see how various media outlets are covering the situation trying to spin everything so it is anti-troop, anti-US, etc.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19723307

 

Not going to bother quoting MSNBC which is a known far left outlet.

 

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/report-on-iraq-shows-progress-only-mixed/n20070712100809990007

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government has made only mixed progress toward fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday in a report certain to inflame debate in Congress over growing calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

 

Okay first of all this is an interm report on the progress towards the goals for September, that's a few monthes from now.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/10/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Progress-Report.php

 

WASHINGTON: Struggling to defend its Iraq policy, the Bush administration in a 23-page classified report will point to limited progress being made by the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad, U.S. officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

 

The interim assessment, which will be presented on Capitol Hill on Thursday, finds the Iraqi government has failed to pass long-promised laws that Washington has called key to national cohesion and economic recovery, such as legislation that would fairly divide Iraq's oil resources.

 

 

Okay again same thing as what AOL did. Though I'm going to point out an inaccuracy, it is a 25 page report not a 23 page report, also if it was classified how did Fox News get their hands on the report and posted what was in it online for people to read.

 

 

In my honest opinion, I feel many in the News Media literally are actively rooting for the defeat of the US in Iraq.

[The Source]

You very well may have a point. If you look at the history of newsmedia, they have been known for "Wagging the Dog". I think several news outlets are so upset at Gore's loss in 2001, so they have descided to cripple the Republican party once and for all. Remember, not all newsmedia is Democratic, but most of the media outlets are.

 

Media polls are not a good indicator of how "The People" feel. What if Bush actually has a good 50/60% approval ratting, but Democratic voters race to the news websites to vote against Bush?

[GarfieldJL]

I think that's a given especially since supposedly Ron Paul won the Republican debates, which obviously is a load of garbage.

 

 

Furthermore, I'm accusing the media of being more than just having a left wing agenda, I'm accusing them of rooting for a US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[mimartin]

Furthermore, I'm accusing the media of being more than just having a left wing agenda, I'm accusing them of rooting for a US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

That is a bold statement and one that I totally disagree with. Just because someone is against this war does not mean they wish harm on our troops. Some people are against the war because they believe that it is being administered in a way that is needlessly destroying young American lives.

 

Personally I did not support the war. I felt we should have gone after bin Laden and al-Qaeda first. I just didn’t see how a two bit dictator from a third world nation was a treat to the US (still don’t). Now that we are there I do not see how we can cut and run. President Bush strategic has been nothing less than pathetic thus far. I hope the surge works, but if recent history is any indication I have my doubts. I AM NOT ROOTING AGAINST THE US; I’m just stating my observation.

 

For the sake of all involved I hope the deaths and disfiguring injuries stop. If we pull out my belief is that the Iraqi people will suffer even more than they are suffering today. I see no other option than staying and doing what ever is necessary to stabilize the security and government of Iraq. Like the President, I do not have a clue how that can be done.

[ET Warrior]

So you state yourself that it appears to be "About 50/50" and then go on to criticize a news outlet for saying "The Iraqi government has made only mixed progress"?

 

Am I confused about the distinction between a 50% success rate and referring to it as mixed progress? Or are you once again just striving to find any anti-American sentiment you can in anything that isn't Faux News?

[GarfieldJL]

That is a bold statement and one that I totally disagree with. Just because someone is against this war does not mean they wish harm on our troops. Some people are against the war because they believe that it is being administered in a way that is needlessly destroying young American lives.

 

I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that Time printed an article supporting a terrorist whom bombed Police Stations among other things that was released much to Time's dismay on 9/11 2001. This caused a huge backlash against Time, and in my opinionwas the only reason that other media agencies acted like they were pro US immediantly following 9/11. Also during World War 2, newsmen could be thrown in jail if they tried printing anything about our casualties or anything else that might demoralize the American people.

 

Personally I did not support the war. I felt we should have gone after bin Laden and al-Qaeda first. I just didn’t see how a two bit dictator from a third world nation was a treat to the US (still don’t). Now that we are there I do not see how we can cut and run. President Bush strategic has been nothing less than pathetic thus far. I hope the surge works, but if recent history is any indication I have my doubts. I AM NOT ROOTING AGAINST THE US; I’m just stating my observation.

 

I think Saddam chose the wrong time to start posturing and wrongly assumed President Bush wouldn't do anything. Seriously, it isn't in President Bush's nature to make an idle threat or to bluff. When he says he's going to do something he'll do it.

 

For the sake of all involved I hope the deaths and disfiguring injuries stop. If we pull out my belief is that the Iraqi people will suffer even more than they are suffering today. I see no other option than staying and doing what ever is necessary to stabilize the security and government of Iraq. Like the President, I do not have a clue how that can be done.

 

There are some signs though according to the report that the surge is working, however we may have to launch attacks into Iran to disrupt their training Taliban and Iraqi Insurgents. I agree with you that we can't pull out of Iraq and the consequences would be far worse than us staying. I honestly wish we could leave today, but unlike Vietnam we're fighting fanatics that will try to follow us home.

 

 

@ETWarrior, you can actually twist things while still stating the truth, the wording implies that there it was a failure however this was an interm report which was just to show there is progress being made which there is, but you wouldn't know it reading the AOL article. When I get Arrogance back from the person whom borrowed it from me I'll give a bunch of examples to show just how it happens.

[Samuel Dravis]

I don't see a significant bias in saying that they failed to meet their objectives on schedule. Unless you want something like Putin's '50% of news must be positive' crap, there's little to find fault with in factual reporting. At least it's useful to know, even if it's not particularly good news.

[GarfieldJL]

I don't see a significant bias in saying that they failed to meet their objectives on schedule. Unless you want something like Putin's '50% of news must be positive' crap, there's little to find fault with in factual reporting. At least it's useful to know, even if it's not particularly good news.

 

 

Samuel this is an interm report, you can't expect them to have every benchmark met already, the final report is supposed to be in September. They still have a lot of time before the final report. So the media is misrepresenting this report which is just supposed to show whether or not progress is being made not that they have everything done and ready....

[Samuel Dravis]

At this time, the sources who have read the interim report say that objectives have not been met yet, correct? Fine, they haven't been met. Disappointing but hardly unexpected. I don't think that news sources should simply shut up about it until September, though. I like knowing what's going on (or not going on, as the case may be).

 

When the full report is available in September, there will be another chance to evaluate it. To be honest, I doubt the report will be substantially different then but I'll keep an eye on it.

[mimartin]

I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that Time printed an article supporting a terrorist whom bombed Police Stations among other things that was released much to Time's dismay on 9/11 2001. This caused a huge backlash against Time, and in my opinion was the only reason that other media agencies acted like they were pro US immediantly following 9/11.

 

So one media source printed something you deemed supports terrorist and you lump all the media outlets (I’m guessing except FoxNews) into the statement they are rooting against the US in the war with Iraq? Could it be that the reason American news outlets acted pro American after 9/11 is that they are Americans?

 

Also sometimes news outlets print stories that go against their standard beliefs. They have a reporter look at something from a different perspective and give a report based on that information. By looking at both sides of an argument or a problem you get a better perspective of the root cause of the disagreement. That is something called being balanced in your reporting, giving both sides a chance to state their case.

 

 

Also during World War 2, newsmen could be thrown in jail if they tried printing anything about our casualties or anything else that might demoralize the American people.

 

Have you heard of Freedom of the Press? WW2 brought out some of the greatest attributes of being an American, but it also brought out some of the worst. The worst being something like this or putting American citizens into internment camps. The American people's Fathers, Mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters were fighting and dieing, the American people were paying tax dollars to support the war effort, the American people deserved to know the casualty reports just as they do today. I am against the press reporting about current or future operations that could but soldiers in harms way, but reporting the numbers and the names of American men and women that gave their life for their county is hardly what I’d call treasonous.

[Nancy Allen``]

I would agree with the notion that news networks would report on issues based on their political views (one would report in support of or in criticism of Iraq for example) and there would be some news sources, not CNN or Fox but something like a political publication or special interest group, that would be outright biased for one side or another. Take an Earth First enviromental newspaper that was made with recycled toilet paper (and depending on your views post consumer waste), they would scream the world is going to end and it's all our fault. They would demonise Bush, the government, the war, show solidity and sympathy for Al Qaeda and Palestine and speak of the evils of drug laws. Now that is an extremist portrayal to be sure, to which I say to look at such groups and see for yourselves, but the point is there is media bias, in some cases even media siding.

[GarfieldJL]

So one media source printed something you deemed supports terrorist and you lump all the media outlets (I’m guessing except FoxNews) into the statement they are rooting against the US in the war with Iraq? Could it be that the reason American news outlets acted pro American after 9/11 is that they are Americans?

 

Okay I am overgeneralizing a bit, but the fact is we're at war. A war that could take a long time, and trying to undercut the commander in chief in the middle of it because you don't agree isn't appropriate.

 

Also sometimes news outlets print stories that go against their standard beliefs. They have a reporter look at something from a different perspective and give a report based on that information. By looking at both sides of an argument or a problem you get a better perspective of the root cause of the disagreement. That is something called being balanced in your reporting, giving both sides a chance to state their case.

 

They do but then they word things to twist it in a poor light. For example they offer Clinton praise for signing a bill that he is keeping his promise to the American people. Yet when Bush signs a bill that he promised he'd support publicly they paint it like he's doing it for a special interest group or the Republican base.

 

 

Then there is just reporting deaths every single day, roadside bombs, etc. That isn't news, that is trying to demoralize the American people. I hate to sound cold, but it's a war and people die in war. Furthermore, this kind of reporting would have gotten the reporter thrown in Jail during WW 2, for aiding the enemy.

 

Have you heard of Freedom of the Press? WW2 brought out some of the greatest attributes of being an American, but it also brought out some of the worst. The worst being something like this or putting American citizens into internment camps. The American people's Fathers, Mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters were fighting and dieing, the American people were paying tax dollars to support the war effort, the American people deserved to know the casualty reports just as they do today. I am against the press reporting about current or future operations that could but soldiers in harms way, but reporting the numbers and the names of American men and women that gave their life for their county is hardly what I’d call treasonous.

 

We're at war, there are provisions in the Constitution that limits these rights during wartime. The President hasn't exerted them, but the provisions in the Constitution are there. Also thing is the Press has reported current and future operations here recently specifically ABC news. So that's why I'm so upset with the Press.

 

Also the American people do not need to know the casualty reports every single day, that goes beyond reporting the news and actively trying to discourage the American people.

[mimartin]

Then there is just reporting deaths every single day, roadside bombs, etc. That isn't news, that is trying to demoralize the American people. I hate to sound cold, but it's a war and people die in war.

 

I respectfully disagree. Paris Hilton or Britney Spears drinking in a bar is not news our troops are always news. People die in war and it does lessen American support for the war, but it is news. To me saying that it is not news is disrespecting what our troops are doing over there. I will say their deaths and injuries are not the only news the media should be portraying. I really wish the media would also show the good the troops are doing over there, but blood and guts is better for the ratings.

 

We're at war, there are provisions in the Constitution that limits these rights during wartime. The President hasn't exerted them, but the provisions in the Constitution are there.

 

Again, I disagree. I know there are provisions in the Constitution that limit our rights during war. I also know even if there were not this President would make it so.If this President wanted to remove those rights he would just issue a “Signing Statement” and remove the law protecting our rights.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

I just don’t see how casualty reports are hindering our war effort. If the truth hinders the American people’s conception of war then maybe we will be a little more reluctant next time to send little Johnny to his death. Maybe the American people will make sure our leaders do a little more planning before putting our men and women in harms way.

 

Also the American people do not need to know the casualty reports every single day, that goes beyond reporting the news and actively trying to discourage the American people.

 

Who should decide what the American people do and do not need to know? The American people, if we decide we do not want this on the news then it will not be on the news.

 

I want my news. I want it fair and complete. I don’t want it sugar coated just give it to me straight. If 50 American military men and women died today I want to know. It will not make me feel any less for them, just for the leaders that put them there (both Democratic and Republican).

 

People die in war. That is a fact. Hopefully the American people will think before they put someone in office that believes war is the first option and not the last.

[John Galt]

In general, I think the term "Surge" is pointless. They got some reinforcements, of course operations will be more effective. Maybe things will finally start to quieten down over there.

 

@Garfield- What's wrong with Ron Paul? I thought he fairly dominated the debate, but he only got 6 minutes of airtime, compared to Rudy McRomney's collective 30.

[GarfieldJL]

I respectfully disagree. Paris Hilton or Britney Spears drinking in a bar is not news our troops are always news. People die in war and it does lessen American support for the war, but it is news. To me saying that it is not news is disrespecting what our troops are doing over there. I will say their deaths and injuries are not the only news the media should be portraying. I really wish the media would also show the good the troops are doing over there, but blood and guts is better for the ratings.

 

Bill O'Reilly agreed with you about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, that was until Paris Hilton got the special release because she got stressed out. Then the special treatment of a celebrity was legitimate news.

 

Did you know in World War 2, the American Media wasn't allowed to print anything concerning American casualties because it was considering aiding the enemy? Seriously, one could argue that the press is aiding the enemy by reporting the deaths.

 

Again, I disagree. I know there are provisions in the Constitution that limit our rights during war. I also know even if there were not this President would make it so.If this President wanted to remove those rights he would just issue a “Signing Statement” and remove the law protecting our rights.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

I just don’t see how casualty reports are hindering our war effort. If the truth hinders the American people’s conception of war then maybe we will be a little more reluctant next time to send little Johnny to his death. Maybe the American people will make sure our leaders do a little more planning before putting our men and women in harms way.

 

Okay how bout this, we're talking about something where progress isn't instantaneous. However, we see deaths plastered over the news all the time all the while acting like nothing positive is happening. I know it can be argued it makes good ratings. However it can also be argued it's aiding the enemy.

 

As far as wartime powers being in the Constitution our Founding Fathers were the ones that put those powers in, because they recognized that things had to be kept secret in a war as well the fact that they realized the enemy could and would send people in to try to sow dissent throughout the country. Thing is right now it could be argued the media is doing it for Al Qaeda just to get ratings. Then there was ABC News reporting on an active CIA operation and completely blowing their covers.

 

Who should decide what the American people do and do not need to know? The American people, if we decide we do not want this on the news then it will not be on the news.

 

Considering we're at war at the moment, I'd argue that the military and the President should have the power to decide what is allowed to be reported concerning what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blabbing it on the public airwaves, boosts the morale of our enemy and disheartens the American people. That is why the media wasn't allowed to report a lot of things during World War 2.

 

I want my news. I want it fair and complete. I don’t want it sugar coated just give it to me straight. If 50 American military men and women died today I want to know. It will not make me feel any less for them, just for the leaders that put them there (both Democratic and Republican).

 

To be blunt, I've pretty much lost all respect for most of the Democrats in Washington DC as well as respect for a few Republicans. Trying to set up a time table for withdrawl and saying "It's a lost cause," is irresponsible to say the least. The number of casualties in D-Day wasn't reported until long afterward, the reason for this was that it would be announcing to the enemy our losses. The American people didn't need to know at the time, and it would provide information to the enemy. If the media had acted in World War 2 like they do today, more than a few of them would have come home in body bags, probably shot by our own troops at the command of they commanding officers for treason (for things like setting up lights for cameras during the middle of a nighttime landing, broadcasting while an operation is ongoing and compromising the positions of our forces, etc.)

 

People die in war. That is a fact. Hopefully the American people will think before they put someone in office that believes war is the first option and not the last.

 

In all honesty, I don't appreciate you labeling President Bush as a warmonger. Fact is, after 9/11 the only appropriate response was to go to war. Bush told the Taliban that they needed to turn over Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in their country, or suffer the Consequences. The Taliban basically thumbed their nose and thought he like Clinton wouldn't do anything cept lob a few missiles into Afghanistan. However, unlike Clinton Bush means what he says and so he didn't just lob missiles or have an airstrike, he invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The difficulty with finding Bin Laden is the terrain, and it would have been the height of idiocy to send a bunch of troops stumbling blindly through the mountains, searching caves. Some areas in mountains enable a small force to stand against an army 10 times their size or more because you can't flank them.

 

Then Saddam started acting up bragging about sending money to the families of people that did suicide bombings against Israel. Then he also gave a run around on the Weapons Inspectors. Bush demanded he prove he didn't have WMDs and that he fully cooperate with Weapons Inspectors and no tricks whatsoever. He sent us the same report that he sent the UN just after the first Gulf War that was proven false then. Bush then went to the UN and got another Security Council Resolution concerning Iraq. Again Saddam thumbed his nose, and then Bush went to the Security Council again. The Security Council this time refused to follow through, and so Bush spent monthes trying to get their support which caused the time period where there wouldn't be as many sand storms pass. There was also a lot of activity between the Iraqi/Syrian border during this time. Finally, Bush decided to go in without the United Nations with the countries willing to support the United States, which Saddam didn't expect Bush would have the guts to do it without UN support.

 

Bush made mistakes after we took down Saddam, which is why we're having problems in Iraq now, however he is right that if we leave Iraq the consequences would be far worse to the US and the Middle East than if we stay.

 

A President shouldn't want to go to war, that's true and to be honest I don't think people realize that President Bush didn't want to go to war either. However, a President also shouldn't take the military option off the table and if the situation warrents it they need to be willing to use that option. If Bush was really a war monger, then we would have conducted airstrikes on Iran and North Korea already. (Though we will probably have to do airstrikes on Iran, it looks like the military option won't be needed concerning North Korea at this time). I know President Bush's stance isn't popular, that many people are against the war, however the President is choosing to do what he feels is the best course of action to protect this country, which he swore an oath to protect when he took office.

 

At the time when Reagan was in office, his hardline stance wasn't popular, many thought he was crazy. If you look at the world today, can you honestly tell me we aren't better off now because of Reagan? While Russia may be having a lot of problems, there are several other countries that gained their freedom and are allies of the United States today, many of those countries are our strongest supporters in Iraq. Germany is now united again due to Ronald Reagan, whose hardline stance helped end the Cold War. What's going on now isn't something that can be judged accurately in the present, it's probably going to be something that can only be judged accurately 10-20 years down the road. It is my opinion that Bush will be vindicated years after he leaves office, and he like Reagan before him, will be proven right.

[mimartin]

People die in war. That is a fact. Hopefully the American people will think before they put someone in office that believes war is the first option and not the last.

 

In all honesty, I don't appreciate you labeling President Bush as a warmonger.

 

If you can show me where I’ve written that Mr. Bush is specify a warmonger I will apologize. You can’t because I didn’t. I did not even apply that with the above quote. Mr. Bush is not the only person responsible for the war in Iraq; I seem to remember at lot of other elected officials voting for war too.

 

I guess you could imply that I was labeling all our elected officials that voted for the War Resolution as warmongers. This did not have anything to do with our war on terror at the beginning of the war with Iraq. However, now it does since this war has inspired so many to join the ranks of the terrorist.

 

Then there was ABC News reporting on an active CIA operation and completely blowing their covers.

 

That is wrong and ABC News should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. ABC News is no more above the law than the White House itself. After all they prosecuted Lewis "Scooter" Libby for doing the same thing didn’t they?

 

To be blunt, I've pretty much lost all respect for most of the Democrats in Washington DC as well as respect for a few Republicans.

 

I’ve lost complete respect for most of the men and women in Washington, but not their office. That is why I want open reporting of the facts of the war. These people can not be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the American people or the American soldiers. We must watch them or they will only be accountable to “big business” and “special interest”. They must be held accountable by the American people.

 

Allowing them to black out news coverage and only allow positive news to escape Iraq is not the answer. Even more troops would be ridding around in under armored Hummers without news coverage that inspired the American public to contact their congress person and even send scrape metal to Iraq. One could also argue that not allowing this coverage could be considered aiding the enemy.

 

However, unlike Clinton Bush means what he says

 

I really believe Bush does mean what he says. The problem is sometimes the facts do not support what he says. Sometime he was right 6 months ago, but the conditions have changed and he still keeps to his earlier evaluation. Combat is fluid and must be allowed to change as the conditions change. Mr. Bush is so set in his ways and believes only he and his inter-circle knows what is the right course of action the he disregards the actual evidence staring the American people in the face. I know flip flopping is considered this great evil by the Republican base, but when the evidence no longer supports your theory it is time for a new theory.

 

 

Germany is now united again due to Ronald Reagan, whose hardline stance helped end the Cold War.

 

Let’s strike up the masons and starting carving Reagan’s face on Mount Rushmore, but before we get ahead of ourselves we better make room for a few others; including John F Kennedy (remember a little something called the Cuban Missile Crisis), Richard M. Nixon (can not believe I said that, but he did do a little something about our relationship with China), George H Bush (helped with China and kept the pressure on the Soviet Union by continuing Reagan’s policies). Does that leave room for the members of congress that approved the policies that help defeat the Soviet Union and what about the tax payer that footed the bill and we are forgetting all about the American Solider and scientist that produce the best weapons of mass destruction the world has ever seen. Oh, and do we completely forget about the contributions of Margaret Thatcher and England? What about our European Allies that were on the front line of the Cold War? NATO? How about Levi Strauss? Do you really believe the German people themselves and the people of Russia did not play a part in ending the Cold War?

 

No, Ronald Reagan was an import player in the end of the Cold War, but he was just one of many.

[Prime]

@ETWarrior, you can actually twist things while still stating the truth, the wording implies that there it was a failure however this was an interm report which was just to show there is progress being made which there is, but you wouldn't know it reading the AOL article.

No, the interm report is showing where the progress is satisfactory, and where it is not. The report itself says that for the 18 benchmarks mentioned, there are 6 that are labeled as having unsatisfactory progress (not completion), and several others that are in "funny states", and some that have satisfactory progress. Again, your government has stated that some benchmarks have satisfactory progress and some do not. One might say "mixed progress". What are you saying they are misrepresenting?

 

Here is the full AOL article:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government has made only mixed progress toward fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday in a report certain to inflame debate in Congress over growing calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

The report states that some goals have had satisfactory progress so far, and some have not. So the statement you scream bloody murder over is a perfectly reasonable claim if you read the report.

 

In an interim report required by Congress, the administration accused Syria of fostering a network that supplies as many as 50 to 80 suicide bombers per month for al-Qaida in Iraq. It also said Iran continues to fund extremist groups.

Report: "This Syria-based network is able to supply some 50 to 80 suicide bombers to AQI per month."

 

The report said that despite progress on some fronts by the government of Nouri al-Maliki, "the security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging," the "economic picture is uneven" and political reconciliation is lagging.

Both these quotes come from the report, and it talks about how reconciliation progress is not where it should be.

 

The report warned of "tough fighting" during the summer, as U.S. and Iraqi forces "seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions of longer-term stabilization."

AOL is just quoting the report here.

 

While Bush announced last winter he was ordering thousands of additional troops to the war zone, the full complement has only arrived in recent weeks, "The full surge in this respect has only just begun," the report said.

Again, they are just quoting the report...

 

So...what exactly are you all up in arms about? You are saying that the use of the term "mixed" to describe the progress of specified benchmarks instead of saying some progress is satisfactory and some is not is clear left-wing bias?

 

Am I confused about the distinction between a 50% success rate and referring to it as mixed progress? Or are you once again just striving to find any anti-American sentiment you can in anything that isn't Faux News?

It certainly comes across that way.

[GarfieldJL]

Prime, it's the wording of the article that can make it sound better or worse than it is while still telling the truth.

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government has made only mixed progress toward fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday

 

 

Okay then let me say it in a different way:

 

The Iraqi Government has made some progress towards fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday...

 

 

See the difference, it's basically the same thing but with a word being removed and some grammar difference, but it now sounds different doesn't it.

 

Also Retired Colonel Oliver North sums up the situation in his op-ed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289142,00.html

[Totenkopf]

There's a certain element of the half full/half empty argument. One can always report the "facts" in such a way as to slant the news. You could take the example of WW2, as has been done, and apply it there (remembering that NO comparison is EVER going to be perfect). Psychologically, PH and 911 are similiar in that approximately the same numbers of casualties are involved, as well as perceived damage. In 1941, a major part of America's military was damaged and in 2001 our economic infrastructure took a hit. In both cases you had a segment of the population that was willing to go to war as well as its more "isolationist" counterparts. There is no real need to turn the tv on everynight and hear that (yet) another 5-10 US servicemen perished in attacks by the enemy. The fact of the matter IS that many in the modern media are more concerned with their own agendas than anything else. How do you think America would react (properly prompted) today to defeats like those inflicted in the first 6-12 months of WW2? Or how about the Battle of the Bulge (80,000 KIA/WIA in only a few months), Iwo Jima (22,000 KIA/WIA) or Okinawa (over 50,000), all victories which came later in the war? Part of the problem with the #s game is that it doesn't address the question and only tends to sap the will of the people (need only look no further than Vietnam) in defeating an enemy.

 

The problem w/focusing on Bin Laden (or even Hitler, Aidid, etc..) is that you lose focus of the big picture. OBL did not pull off 911 by himself anymore than Hitler (or even Napolean) conquered Europe by himself. And, once you capture such a personality, another one rises up to replace him and you find yourself back at square one. Getting OBL, nevermind the rhetoric, is a very classic example of a futile pursuit. How many more countries do you want to invade to find him? Iran? Pakistan? Crapistan? Is getting OBL worth that much to you? If so, I suggest you write a BIG FAT CHECK to the Dept of Defense and volunteer to become part of the posse that has to hunt him down. Afterall, you don't naively really expect anyone in that region of the world to just hand him and his top people over to you, DO YOU?!?

 

Frankly, this asymetical war we face will be with us for sometime and will be done ...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that Time printed an article supporting a terrorist whom bombed Police Stations among other things that was released much to Time's dismay on 9/11 2001.

Didn't read that article. Link to it, please.

 

Also during World War 2, newsmen could be thrown in jail if they tried printing anything about our casualties or anything else that might demoralize the American people.

And in the People's Republic of China, the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie lacks its hilarious 10-minute segment with pirate lord Sao-Feng because the authorities believe it insults the Chinese people. And In Germany, it's forbidden and punished with jail-time to support Neo-Nazism. Censorship can be damned silly at times.

 

I think Saddam chose the wrong time to start posturing and wrongly assumed President Bush wouldn't do anything. Seriously, it isn't in President Bush's nature to make an idle threat or to bluff. When he says he's going to do something he'll do it.

He's a politician, Garfield. To assume he is in any way honest and dependable is naïve beyond measure.

 

I honestly wish we could leave today, but unlike Vietnam we're fighting fanatics that will try to follow us home.

So let's make it easy for them! Don't worry about finding money for your terrorist campaign in the USA, Mohammad, we'll come to you!

 

Face it, the reason there are madmen blowing themselves up in Iraq today is that the Coalition invaded. Not to mention, of course, that many Communists, especially a vast number of Soviets, would've loved to follow you home:p.

 

@ETWarrior, you can actually twist things while still stating the truth, the wording implies that there it was a failure however this was an interm report which was just to show there is progress being made which there is, but you wouldn't know it reading the AOL article.

Yesh. However, you yourself stated the report speaks of 'only mixed progress'. So yes, we'd know from reading the article.

 

Okay, I am overgeneralizing a bit, but the fact is we're at war. A war that could take a long time, and trying to undercut the commander in chief in the middle of it because you don't agree isn't appropriate.

First a war is started illegally through bullying, attempted silencing of dissenters, and lies about the target country, then it is discovered that serious atrocities have been carried out (white phosphorous, prisoner torture, detainment without fair trial) and then you want us to shut up and support the war? Paramoron Leader Hu Jintao would've been proud of you.

 

Then there is just reporting deaths every single day, roadside bombs, etc. That isn't news, that is trying to demoralize the American people. I hate to sound cold, but it's a war and people die in war.

Well, deaths are news, after all, and are thus reported. There are reports on automobile accidents every single day, too, which probably demoralizes those who seek to make the roads a safer place. Should the news stop that, too, then? After all, more people die annually in the US in traffic than from terrorist attacks.

 

We're at war, there are provisions in the Constitution that limits these rights during wartime. The President hasn't exerted them, but the provisions in the Constitution are there. Also thing is the Press has reported current and future operations here recently specifically ABC news. So that's why I'm so upset with the Press.

What makes wars so special? Body count? Tens of thousands of people die in murders each year in mainland USA, yet no one's crying for martial law and abolishment of freedoms in a War On Murder. I won't even bring up that terrorism allegedly threatens our freedom, 'cause this can't be a concern to you after your wholesale support of the temporary abolishment of Freedom of the Press.

 

So... what's so damned special about a war that means the rulebook has to be thrown out the window every time it draws near? And what war are we in, anyway? As far as I can tell, we're only occupying two countries (wait, strike 'we', I think Norway chickened out of Iraq a few years ago, damn us:o).

 

Also the American people do not need to know the casualty reports every single day, that goes beyond reporting the news and actively trying to discourage the American people.

I'm actually in agreement with you here. The media tends to 'milk' the severity of cases as much as they can to improve its ratings, and this is one of the cases in which it is a pain in the butt (see my thread on the fear-mongering about global warming for another example).

 

Did you know in World War 2, the American Media wasn't allowed to print anything concerning American casualties because it was considering aiding the enemy?

Er, yes. You've said it three times already in this very thread:rolleyes:.

 

Then there was ABC News reporting on an active CIA operation and completely blowing their covers.

Idiotic, but not 'anti-American'. The media loves to blow the cover of everything from police operations to Intel operations. It seems to get them ratings and one Hell of a kick.

 

To be blunt, I've pretty much lost all respect for most of the Democrats in Washington DC as well as respect for a few Republicans. Trying to set up a time table for withdrawal and saying "It's a lost cause," is irresponsible to say the least.

In your eyes. Please explain why.

 

The number of casualties in D-Day wasn't reported until long afterward, the reason for this was that it would be announcing to the enemy our losses. The American people didn't need to know at the time, and it would provide information to the enemy. If the media had acted in World War 2 like they do today, more than a few of them would have come home in body bags, probably shot by our own troops at the command of they commanding officers for treason (for things like setting up lights for cameras during the middle of a nighttime landing, broadcasting while an operation is ongoing and compromising the positions of our forces, etc.)

 

In all honesty, I don't appreciate you labeling President Bush as a warmonger.

A warmonger is, pejoratively, someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war.

--Wikipedia.

If Gee Dubya does not fit those criteria, few do.

 

Fact is, after 9/11 the only appropriate response was to go to war.

Against the perpetrators, yes. If John Doe commits a murder, it doesn't give me reason to put his neighbor to death. Only when said brother-in-law kills someone can I put him in the chair. Revenge for 9/11-scale atrocities work the same way - you have to target the perpetrator, not his alleged buddies.

 

Bush told the Taliban that they needed to turn over Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in their country, or suffer the Consequences.

So they did. And then the US went to war.

Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid its impending retaliation.

President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as insincere.

On 7 October 2001, before the onset of military operations, the

Taliban made an open offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court. This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.

It was not until 14 October 2001, seven days after war had broken out, that

the Taliban openly offered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if they were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.

Several people over several countries worked to hand over ibn Ladin. Bush turned down every proposal and then invaded, for then to invade Iraq before he was even finished with the War on Terror and ibn Ladin. Pathetic.

 

The difficulty with finding Bin Laden is the terrain, and it would have been the height of idiocy to send a bunch of troops stumbling blindly through the mountains, searching caves.

Or perhaps accept the Taliban's offer of ibn Ladin's head on a silver plate (see link above). Problem solved.

 

A President shouldn't want to go to war, that's true and to be honest I don't think people realize that President Bush didn't want to go to war either.

One Downing Street Memo says more than a thousand words (Google it for a Wiki article and other unbiased sources). Also see the many threads in the Senate Chambers where support for the invasion of Iraq has been shot down multiple times as bullocks. This post in particular. Also, you may be interested in the view point of the leader of the Weapons Inspectors.

 

However, a President also shouldn't take the military option off the table and if the situation warrents it they need to be willing to use that option.

Let me re-phrase that so that it serves as instructions for a certain administration: However, a President also shouldn't take the diplomacy option off the table, and if the situation warrants it he needs to be willing to use that option for as long as possible.

 

If Bush was really a war monger, then we would have conducted airstrikes on Iran and North Korea already.

So by your definition, Clinton was a war monger for bombing Iraq? The country was bombarded non-stop from the end of the first Gulf war.

 

(Though we will probably have to do airstrikes on Iran, it looks like the military option won't be needed concerning North Korea at this time).

First you support an invasion of Iraq because you think, with no evidence whatsoever that he has WMDs, and then you oppose an invasion of North Korea even though it is known, as opposed to speculated, that they are very close to getting their hands on nukes. You're confusing me.

 

I know President Bush's stance isn't popular, that many people are against the war [...]

To be more specific, almost half the American people wants to see him impeached, which still is less than those who want to see Cheney impeached.

 

Re the long paragraph on the hardliner stance: The hardliner stance works in some cases and not in others. Nobody says anything but.

[GarfieldJL]

So you mean to tell me that Bush going to war after we were attacked on 9/11 was war mongering. Are you going to say us entering WW 2 is warmongering next?

 

 

Bush made it perfectly clear that they turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences, no negotiations, no trying him in Afghanistan by Bin Laden's supporters, no discussions turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences. Also those "moderate Taliban elements" to my knowledge weren't even in charge. President Bush made it perfectly clear, this wasn't up for a discussion, and that either the Taliban hand Bin Laden over or we were going to go in after him. You saying that he was doing a disproportionate response by going in after Bin Laden cause the Taliban were acting like this was a trade negotiation?

 

It makes me sick that people blame the President and blame the United States for everything.

 

Oh btw, your polling place also says 56% of Democrats don't care if violence spills over into other countries when we pull out of Iraq.

 

 

Then there is the Scooter Libby situation, all Bush did was remove the Jail Time because the Judge was going to ship him to prison while the appeals process was going. President Clinton which Dems hold in such high esteem pardoned terrorists to get campaign money for his wife.

 

Top that off, telephone surveys are horribly inaccurate polls, and relatively easy to those types of polls to say whatever you want.

 

Btw, there is absolutely no grounds to impeach Bush, there may be something on Cheney that I don't know (and sincerely doubt there is) about but not Bush. Bush's refusal to pull out of Iraq is due to his belief he'd Jeopardize the stability of the region and compromise our national security and you can't impeach him for exercising his powers under Article II of the United States Constitution. It could be argued the timetable stuff won't even stand up in court, because congress is overstepping their authority infringing on the powers of the Executive Branch.

 

Lastly, I'm aware President Bush is a politician, however unlike many politicians in the House and Senate currently, he is taking an unpopular stance due to his belief that taking the popular stance would be the wrong thing for us to do (for our country's security, for the Middle East, and for the World), you may disagree with him, but to say it's cause he doesn't care about the troops is a bunch of garbage!

 

Getting back to the media, I could easily (and quite successfully) argue that the media are announcing our losses to the enemy by talking about it all the time on the evening news! Also the media is sapping the will of the American people in a way that if it was during World War II, they'd be shot for treason! You can try to spin it however you wish, but the fact remains the media is supporting the terrorists for ratings.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So you mean to tell me that Bush going to war after we were attacked on 9/11 was war mongering.

Are you saying invading Iraq was anything but? He insulted whoever disagreed with his stance on war, fabricated evidence, and went over the head of the UN - all to get his precious Operation Iraqi Wrecking. For no good reason, as I have demonstrated.

 

[The term warmonger] is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war.

--Warmonger article, Wikipedia

Dubya fits the bill. He encouraged the invasion of Afghanistan even though it was not necessary. He invaded Iraq for selfish monetary reasons. If he's not a warmonger, there are very few of them in the world today.

 

Bush made it perfectly clear that they turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences, no negotiations, no trying him in Afghanistan by Bin Laden's supporters, no discussions turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences. Also those "moderate Taliban elements" to my knowledge weren't even in charge.

Nor were they the only ones offering to turn over Usama. The deputy prime minister of the Taliban (and as such the most powerful person) himself stated that he was willing to turn over ibn Ladin once evidence was provided he was guilty, and that the US stopped bombing Afghanistan. These are of course valid demands - you can't turn over alleged criminals before there is evidence they in fact are criminals, and the bombing of Afghanistan was in preparation of a war that would not be necessary if ibn Ladin was turned over.

 

President Bush made it perfectly clear, this wasn't up for a discussion [...]

Which was very irresponsible of him, seeing that discussion could very well have produced one Usama ibn Ladin. But oh no - macho of him and the USA was at stake, so he chose instead to invade Afghanistan, kill thousands of people, and let Usama get away. He then ditched the War on Terror altogether by shifting his focus to Iraq and stating that he didn't really care much about Usama at all - strange words from a man who supposedly was so out to get him and avenge Pearl Harbou-- er, I mean 9/11.

 

[...] and that either the Taliban hand Bin Laden over or we were going to go in after him. You saying that he was doing a disproportionate response by going in after Bin Laden cause the Taliban were acting like this was a trade negotiation?

The Talibans offered several times to hand over ibn Ladin and Bush refused each time. Those are the cold, hard facts. The demands of the Taliban were reasonable, and the US refused them.

 

Interestingly, the Germans are currently working on the case of one Donald Rumsfeld for, primarily, his torturing of detainees. Are you in favor of him being sent away to Germany for trial? I have a funny feeling that you'll at the very least want evidence shown first - just like the Talibans did.

 

You want to see reasons and evidence before Bush is impeached.

You'll probably want to see reasons and evidence before you support sending Rumsfeld off to Europe for trial.

But when the Talibans ask for reasons and evidence, you go to war against them. No, screw that, you started bombing them before they had a chance to even do that.

 

Why, I ask, does it seem to me that the rules the US push never, ever apply to the US itself? It's things like this that almost make me understand the anti-Americans of the world.

 

It makes me sick that people blame the President and blame the United States for everything.

Where have I 'blamed the United States for everything'? Your attempt at portraying me as anti-American for attacking a known war criminal is what's worthy of nausea.

 

Oh btw, your polling place also says 56% of Democrats don't care if violence spills over into other countries when we pull out of Iraq.

Red herring. This says absolutely nothing about Bush or Iraq.

 

Then there is the Scooter Libby situation

Since when was this thread about Scooter:confused:?

 

Top that off, telephone surveys are horribly inaccurate polls, and relatively easy to those types of polls to say whatever you want.

It still says about 50% of Americans want Bush impeached, which, judging by how poorly he's been handling things, is no surprise to me.

 

Btw, there is absolutely no grounds to impeach Bush

I've listed the reasons for impeachment elsewhere on this forum. I believe it was for you, actually.

 

Bush's refusal to pull out of Iraq is due to his belief he'd Jeopardize the stability of the region and compromise our national security [...]

He ****ed up the stability of the region when he invaded. And as for US national security, I fail to see how Iraq is even relevant to it, except, of course, that it and the use of torture on detainees is probably the #1 recruitment tool of the terrorists.

 

Lastly, I'm aware President Bush is a politician, however unlike many politicians in the House and Senate currently, he is taking an unpopular stance due to his belief that taking the popular stance would be the wrong thing for us to do (for our country's security, for the Middle East, and for the World),

Which countries of the world, precisely? In my view, only a few countries, at most, would suffer from US withdrawal. You make the resistance in Iraq sound like an army out to conquer the world.

 

[...] you may disagree with him, but to say it's cause he doesn't care about the troops is a bunch of garbage!

I never wrote in this thread that he didn't care about the troops, but when I think about it - does he? Sending thousands of troops to death by invading two nations unnecessarily is an odd way of me to care about them, especially for a draft-dodger. Not to mention the lack of discussion on what they would be doing after the invasion itself (I'd certainly have a plan ready if someone I cared about went into danger). Not to mention that he's repeatedly tried to cut soldiers' benefits.

 

Let's turn this around: How, pray tell, does this draft-dodging warmonger care about his precious troops?

 

Getting back to the media, I could easily (and quite successfully) argue that the media are announcing our losses to the enemy by talking about it all the time on the evening news! Also the media is sapping the will of the American people in a way that if it was during World War II, they'd be shot for treason!

You keep putting yourself very close to a Godwin's Law call by repeatedly bringing up World War and how people there were imprisoned if they dared speak up against the war. Are you doing it to support the jailing of journalists should be started again, or are you saying that just because they jailed media people then for 'sapping peoples' will', they should again do so now?

 

You can try to spin it however you wish, but the fact remains the media is supporting the terrorists for ratings.

Harsh wording. Are they supporting road accidents by reporting on them, too? Should FAUX News reporters be imprisoned for 'sapping our will' to fight the War on Global Warming (ha-hah, I branded it a war, now everyone needs to shut up!)? Am I supporting racists if I report on crimes committed by people who happen to have non-European ancestry? I'm not saying that the media does not need to be reeled in, nor am I defending the media's excessive coverage of troop operations when it causes lives to be lost needlessly, but your comments are way over-the-top.

 

Frankly, this asymetical war we face will be with us for sometime and will be done ...

And the SDK?

[Nancy Allen``]

And America thinks they have it bad. Criticising Christianity or Bush ishn't punishable by death the way it is in the Middle East.

[GarfieldJL]

Are you saying invading Iraq was anything but? He insulted whoever disagreed with his stance on war, fabricated evidence, and went over the head of the UN - all to get his precious Operation Iraqi Wrecking. For no good reason, as I have demonstrated.

 

In case you haven't heard, Saddam was bribing members of the security council, members like France, Russia, and China. Remember the Oil for Food Scam?

 

[The term warmonger] is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war.

--Warmonger article, Wikipedia

Dubya fits the bill. He encouraged the invasion of Afghanistan even though it was not necessary. He invaded Iraq for selfish monetary reasons. If he's not a warmonger, there are very few of them in the world today.

 

Yeah right, Bush isn't a warmonger, we were attacked on 9/11, and the Taliban weren't handing over Bin Laden they were trying to turn this into a negotiation.

 

Nor were they the only ones offering to turn over Usama. The deputy prime minister of the Taliban (and as such the most powerful person) himself stated that he was willing to turn over ibn Ladin once evidence was provided he was guilty, and that the US stopped bombing Afghanistan. These are of course valid demands - you can't turn over alleged criminals before there is evidence they in fact are criminals, and the bombing of Afghanistan was in preparation of a war that would not be necessary if ibn Ladin was turned over.

 

Let me spell it out to you, no matter what we showed them, they would have ruled that Bin Laden wasn't guilty. Furthermore, Bush made it perfectly clear this wasn't up for negotiation. We were attacked on 9/11, and unlike Bill Clinton, Bush wasn't going to lob a few missiles into a village, whine to the UN and call it a day.

 

Interestingly, You want to see reasons and evidence before Bush is impeached.

You'll probably want to see reasons and evidence before you support sending Rumsfeld off to Europe for trial.

But when the Talibans ask for reasons and evidence, you go to war against them. No, screw that, you started bombing them before they had a chance to even do that.

 

Okay, so what are you going to blame Bush for next, the Holocaust? What you're proposing is the US not to do anything after 9/11. We're fighting fanatics, we don't allow people to drill holes in people's hands, break their fingers, etc.

 

Btw, the reasons to impeach Bush are faulty at best, more like a witch hunt. I'm glad we didn't have the press like we do now during WW 2, or Hitler would have won the war.

 

 

Furthermore let me spell out how the media is supporting the terrorists. The terrorists believe it or not watch our news they watch us reporting the troops getting killed day to day, the lack of support for the war, about how congress wants out on and on and on. This emboldens them leading them to attempt more and more attacks, the more spectacular and bloody the better to dishearten the American people even more.

 

Also wikipedia even states that your article as far as grounds for impeachment's neutrality is in dispute. One of which is reducing Libby's sentence, which is a power spelled out in the United States Constitution! The Dems never made any fuss over Clinton pardoning terrorists for his wife to get campaign money. Quite frankly the article is a bunch of garbage, because practically everything mentioned is authorized in the Constitution while we're at war!

[John Galt]

practically everything mentioned is authorized in the Constitution while we're at war!

 

Source?

 

"Practically everything" still leaves "something" that violates the constitution. I'd call that grounds for impeachment, or at least a good slap on the wrist.