quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

Ha !
So true...


-

I've already used that one before.
From what I've observed here, the very point of these images, as you've posted them, is mindless repetition.


quote:
Originally posted by whomod:

By the way Dave, here's a transcript from the 9th of Sept. (mistakenly posted as 10/09/03)

Congress grills Bush administration over Iraq

[ The interview is partially printed out by Whomod above, I chose not to reprint again at length what can be accessed at the link above. ]
First of all, the interview excerpts you posted (from Australian television, ABC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, easily confused with another well-known ABC in the United States ) don't prove anything.

Republican Senator John McCain and ultra-liberal Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy just ask questions that they --and we ALL-- already know the answers to, and basically just grill the undersecretary, posturing in front of the TV cameras for dramatic effect.

McCain HAS to know, when asking "when the first foreign troops will be in Iraq?" to relieve U.S. troops, that the ink is not even dry on a U.N. agreement yet, nothing has been signed, it's still being negotiated.

McCain doesn't condemn invasion of Iraq altogether (and neither do many of the more respectable Democrats, such as Kerry, Biden and Lieberman).
McCain (and others) merely questions some of the particulars of how the war is being fought.

Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, has said he wants us to cut and run, and get out of Iraq. And Dean and Gephardt have made similar statements. Which I think are dangerous things to say. Dangerous to military morale, dangerous to our necessary resolve. Democrat hyperbole of U.S. operations in Iraq, such as "another Vietnam" and "Miserable failure" are sweeping propaganda that slanderously impacts popular opinion without facts to back them up. And negatively affect the morale of our military. These statements by Democrats are aid to the enemy.

The Iraqis who support us (60% in the most recent poll I saw) WANT us to stay long enough to establish order, for at least another year. You have to really dig to find THAT truth reported. Most Iraqis are afraid we'll leave too soon, and that Saddam Fedayeen will rise up immediately after we leave, and re-establish a police state.
Wall Street Journal: "What do Iraqis really think. We asked them."
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003991

Which is the truth, and not reported by those who want to make the situation in Iraq look worse than it is.

The U.S. conquered a nation about the size of Texas, with a population of roughly 24 million people, in less than three weeks.
I don't think it can be emphasized enough: that is an unbelievable victory.
There are some minor problems, but in the entire six months, including the war itself, less than 300 American soldiers have died. That is STILL an amazing victory.

But to watch the liberal reporting, you'd think we were losing the war, instead of taking some very minor losses, and having them overdramatized by those who hate Bush and oppose the Iraq war, no matter what the evidence.

But whenever the truth is said in an interview (as Cheney did today) strong statements about how well the war is going, despite minor problems, are later re-spun and soundbyted by liberals in the press to sound half-hearted, self-consciously defensive, and unconvincing.

When I see Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and others of the Bush Administration interviewed live, unsoundbyted, their arguments make sense.
After they've had their comments edited by a cynical media, the impact of their arguments are purposefully blunted. I saw Cheney's morning interview on Meet the Press, similarly blunted on NBC News tonight.




quote:
Originally posted by Whomod:

Y'know, you can't always paint the non-rosy news as being "liberal" attacks, sir. I guess John McCain and Chuck Hagel are also part of this liberal conspiracy of yours.
There's a difference between reasonable dissent on some finer points, and the treasonous demoralizing anti-American vitriol of liberal Democrats.

Hagel has some questions, McCain has some questions. Contrary to how you spin it, when I've seen Hagel interviewed (mostly on PBS News) he mostly supports the war. McCain as well generally supports the action in Iraq and (as a veteran himself) pushes on finer points to work for the safety of our troops on the ground.

I don't see McCain and Hagel opposing war in Iraq altogether, and saying to cut our losses and leave, as some of the more vitriolically liberal Democrats are doing. Or statements like "another Vietnam", or "miserable failure".

You seem to feel that if McCain and Hagel have any questions or constructive criticism whatsoever of Iraq policy, that they're siding with Democrats, condemning the invasion of Iraq entirely, and condemning the Bush Administration.

I've yet to see any news come out of Iraq, no matter who reports it, that's "rosy". (And I love the implied statement in that comment of yours, that if it's good news that reflects well on the war in Iraq, and doesn't make the Bush administration look bad, that it is "rosy", and in the implied context of that word, a distorted unrealistic view.)

There are always unexpected surprises in a war that might or might not have been anticipated. The U.S. military is adjusting to attacks on U.S. forces, and fine tuning how to defend against them. But 12 to 15 attacks a day (mostly unsuccessful) on an occupation force of 148,000 American soldiers, that have resulted in about 150 deaths in 4 months, is not "losing the war".
It's a reasonable expectation of loss, in a military operation of this size. (Again, less than 300 dead Americans, including the war, which doesn't even equal a week's worth of Vietnam dead. So much for "another Vietnam".)

And the U.S. is only seeking U.N./international assistance to further legitimize our nation-building in Iraq, as not being a U.S. "colonization".
And also seeking U.N assistance to offset the cost of the war, because Democrats are screaming about how much it costs the U.S.
( Again, Vice President Cheney emphasized today that, as large as the cost in Iraq is, it's a tiny fraction of what 9/11/2001 cost us.
The Wall Street Journal agrees:

Wall Street Journal: "What $87 Billion Buys.
Compare it to the price of another 9/11. "
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003995 )

Although a large sum, the U.S. could afford the cost of Iraq by itself, if not for the Democrats' pressure for the U.S. to pursue foreign assistance (and the threat of cutting off military funding to Iraq if Bush doesn't pursue international aid in Iraq).
Which again, gives the impression that the U.S. is weak and buckling, overwhelmed militarily in Iraq, that it suddenly changes policy and pursues U.N. assistance.
Which is utter nonsense, that the U.N. would be "bailing us out".

It's anticipated that (best case scenario) U.N. assistance MIGHT provide up to 20,000 troops.
And probably a lot LESS than 20,000.
Which is hardly any relief at all, to a U.S. occupation force of 148,000. The notion that the U.N. or anyone else is "bailing us out" is another liberal concoction, and absurd. It is a fabrication, to slander Bush and make him appear weak.

The request for U.N. assistance still means that the United States will still provide virtually ALL of the financial and military needs of Iraq. It's only to symbolically show that it's an internationally endorsed effort, and not an American colonization, and appease Democrats in the Senate and Congress who have insisted on requesting international assistance.
But the U.S. could handle Iraq's reconstruction on its own, and will have more power to do the job right, the less concessions and aid we have to take from the U.N.



quote:
From article posted by Whomod above:

Noting estimates by Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, that reconstruction would cost tens of billions of dollars, McCain said "That was not anticipated before we went in." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/09/politics/main572278.shtml

Again, we did not anticipate a geurilla war in Iraq following the war. NO ONE in the military (not just the Bush administration) seemed to anticipate this.

The initial plan was for an occupation force of 50,000 soldiers.
The current occupation force is 148,000, due to meeting the defense needs caused by remnants of Saddam Fedayeen.

And that cost no doubt includes not only soldiers on the ground, but tanks, planes, artillery, and repair of sabotage as well.