dgriego
...you sure will not here of it from anyone who wants the war to fail in order to prove that Bush is an idiot.
Nobody wants the war to fail in order to prove that Bush is an idiot. NOBODY. That's just one of those right-wing talking points trotted out to piss people off. Clearly it works. Bush is quite capable of proving that he's an idiot that all by himself, with no help from the media or his detractors.
I am VERY opposed to Bush, I think history will prove him one of the worst if not THE worst president the US has ever had, and the Iraq war the blunder of all blunders. It could take generations to undo the damage he's done to this country in so many ways I can't even begin to list them all. But I fervently wish things were going better, I fervently hope that we can actually win this war if that's what it takes to get us out of Iraq and our troops home safely, and if that makes Bush look good, so be it.
Unfortunately, I don't see winning in the cards, partly because I don't know how to define win. Could someone please explain exactly what victory in Iraq would entail and how we might accomplish it? Our presence there is fueling the violence, so as long as we stay, violence is likely to continue. They hate us and don't want us there, and they will continue to fight us until we leave.
We've been unable to stabilize the country and train the Iraqis to take over in our absence in the 5 years we've been over there. If we leave there will be chaos, but there's chaos NOW. I honestly don't know the answer, but long term occupation of a hostile country serves nobody and will only get more American service people wounded and killed along with countless innocent Iraqi civilians, and continue the catastrophic drain on our economy.
driego
But our troops are not a bunch of crazed monsters raping and pillaging and tossing puppies off cliffs. Those are the minority and they are dealt with and those exist everywhere in life, I am sure that most of you have met a few or at least heard of them.
Of course, I don't think 4IC or anyone else implied otherwise, that was not the point she was trying to make. They are normal people who have been put into a very difficult situation, mentally, physically, and emotionally, and some of them snap. Nobody is trying to paint them all with the same brush, but we need to get them OUT of there. Some have had two, three, or more tours in Iraq and it's caused an incredible strain on our military personnel and their families. We can't just keep sending the same people back to Iraq over and over and over again, or they will break.
And I think you're completely wrong about the media being afraid to speak of the good things happening in Iraq. If anything, it's the exact opposite - the media has been under intense pressure by the Bush Administration to paint a rosy picture of the war. Remember how they tried to stop newspapers from printing pictures of flag draped caskets? Don't want to upset the public with the harsh reality of war.
Remember how Judith Miller and others were basically mouthpieces for the Administration's push for war? In September 2002 she wrote a front page story for the New York Times quoting unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts", and then Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld appeared on TV and used her story as a partial basis for going to war. Basically they fed her propaganda, she printed it without question, and then they used her (their) story to further their argument for invading Iraq.
Did you read about how Katie Couric and other journalists came out recently about the corporate pressure they were under to go easy on Bush officials when conducting interviews?
Have you heard about Scott McClellan's book where he acknowledges that the media were the Administration's lapdogs, totally complicit in selling the war to the public? About how the Administration's "political propaganda campaign" was actively "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war"?
Want more?
And
through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary
focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than
aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it.
... [T]he media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth
and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. [Page
125]
And:
If
anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the
White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision
facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go
to war in Iraq. ... In this case, the "liberal media" didn't
live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better
served. [Pages 156-157]