I hope my comments here don't qualify as a "pissing contest." I Don't think T-Dave's do either.

In contrast to saying "all Democrats/liberals are bad" ( or vice versa, the consistent "all Republicans are evil" rhetoric of Whomod), my purpose in posting here is to say that anti-Bush naysayers are jumping to conclusions, and coloring the current Iraq situation, and many other Bush policies, far darker than they truly are.
I do feel some frustration that there are so many, even within the U.S., eager to tear down what my government is doing.

I think Whomod and others really believe these allegations, they aren't trying to deceive anyone, they truly believe the biased rhetoric that the liberal media relentlessly churns out. Again, allegations made so often to the point that people think it MUST be true, the allegations are made so often.

There is no balance, or attempt to explore the logic of policy from the opposing conservative/Republican perspective.
Unless you hear it live when a conservative is interviewed, unedited, the reporting is constantly filtered to support the liberal/Democrat perspective.
How different this war would be reported if Bill Clinton or Al Gore were in the White House, acting in the same way.
As I've said elsewhere, the media overwhelmingly endorsed Clinton's police actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, etc., as "humanitarian wars of liberation.", even when the U.S. acted unilaterally without the U.N.
In sharp contrast to how the same actions by G.W. Bush are portrayed.

I think what Bush and Blair did (unilaterally going to war against a non-compliant and unquestionably evil Iraq, when the U.N. would not enforce its own resolutions after 12 years) was a tremendously courageous thing.
And as I've said repeatedly, it was like taking out Hitler in 1936, rather than waiting till September 1939, when he became a real threat.

And it is frustrating to me that so much conjecture, hyperbole and conspiracy theory --an opinion that liberals are entitled to-- is projected as fact, and widely believed as fact by much of the public, because the allegations are repeated so uniquitously in the liberal-dominated media.

If Bush (and his cabinet) are guilty of manipulating things for self-serving reasons, then I'd want to see him punished (I've yet to see any credible proof that they have done so).
But what is alleged by liberals here and elsewhere has no conformity to the facts as I have viewed them over the last year.

I initially, at the beginning of each of these allegations against Bush, have believed them.
And after further reading, have been outraged that these allegations against Bush can be passed off as facts, and that these half-baked allegations can be endlessly repeated in the media, to the point that many think they must be true.

I'm not interested in pissing contests, I just want to set the record straight, and say that these allegations don't conform to what I've seen reported.

It's sheer hyperbole to say that we're "losing" in Iraq, or need "bailed out" by the U.N. But most of the public believes that, in the U.S. and elsewhere, because of the slanted bias of Bush-hating liberal reporting.

I appreciate your perspective, and quote from The Economist, T-Dave. And I think you are partly correct. In that the Iraq war did not go exactly as planned.
But show me a war in history that DIDN'T have unforseen complications.
Despite the higher cost, it doesn't seem that pro-Saddam/terrorist forces are slowing down the 2-year timeframe given for building an independent Iraq.

Again, the cost is higher than anticipated (we have roughly three times the intended pre-war occupation force in Iraq of 50,000, projected before the war).
But even so, we are still winning, and the propaganda that we're "losing" just makes it harder to do the job right and commit to a long-term occupation, to adequately complete the mission.
The threat of Democrats to with-hold funding is what's rushing Bush to get out of Iraq. Bush is committed to do the right thing, if Democrats would just let him do it, and not turn the public against him with false and misleading rhetoric that we're "losing the war," or "bogged down in another Vietnam".

We lost more soldiers in one day in Beirut in 1983 than have been lost in a massive 6-month war and occupation of Iraq so far. To report the situation in Iraq as anything other than an incredible victory is misleading and false.

I think Rob Kamphausen makes a good insight, that the U.S. is expected to be perfect.
And anything less than perfection, the slightest mistake, is reported as disaster and failure.

Again, I expect this condemnation and hyperbole of U.S. military operations in Iraq, from Arabs and the French and Germans, but find it traitorously self-serving and destructive from our own U.S. Senators.
If Democrats were acting responsibly, morale among both the military and among U.S. citizens would be much higher. Constructively push for improvements, yes, but to blindly condemn our presence in Iraq as a whole, from within our government in Washington, is a betrayal of our troops in the field, and can do nothing other than confuse the public and demoralize our troops on the ground.
When in point of fact, our military should be proud of what they've accomplished, and be highly praised for such a monumental achievement.

So yes, I think you're right to some degree, T-Dave. There have been setbacks and un-anticipated complications, some (like the post-war looting) that could have been forseen.
But I think U.S. presence in Iraq, far from a fiasco, has been under-reported for the remarkable success that it is.
For all its setbacks and added costs, it IS a success.