quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:

their point.

some analysts say the war effort is going horribly. some say wonderfully. the reporters, and the channels in general, have agendas. they're telling news stories.
I saw on today's PBS news that Iraq was producing 44 million kilowats of electricity before the war. It is currently producing 45 million kilowats.

Looking at the "devastating" cost of the Iraq war (as liberals hype it) the number of dead has finally surpassed 300 (about 180 during the postwar occupation, and about 90 of that 180 are from accidents and are not combat deaths.

It occurs to me that there have probably been more murders and deaths in two or three major U.S. cities over the same period, than there have been in Iraq.
Again, hardly "another Vietnam", as liberals slanderously allege.

~

I appreciate what both JQ and Rob have said here, that the war in various ways is going BOTH better and worse than is being reported, and all factually based reports need to be presented, to determine what is and isn't working, and what needs to be done or corrected going forward.

I think the war is clearly costing far more financially than was initially anticipated, and as General Anthony Zinni said a few nights ago on PBS News, it was planned at the Pentagon (not by the Bush Administration) and the Pentagon should take the blame for not adequately planning, and in his words "heads should roll" for that, people should be exposed and fired for missing the cost analysis by tens of billions. And that the Bush administration has not done enough to make the planners publicly accountable for their errors.

But at the same time, the Iraq reconstruction is not a "miserable failure", great progress is being made. And despite the stated cost errors, we should be committed to doing the job right. It costs what it costs, and the alternative cost of pulling out would be far greater.