As usual, Whomod, that concluding set of remarks is a skewed and emotionally charged bit of anti-Bush propaganda, that exploits the emotional issue of dead American soldiers, while missing the big picture, that wars are not fought without casualties.
And that the casualties are incredibly light, as compared to past wars.

In Vietnam, 50 men a day were dying.

Again, the entire list of casualties in the Iraq war (about 250, 110 during the war, 140 post-war) still doesn't equal the number of marines who died in one explosion in Beirut in 1983.

These are men and women who willingly gave their lives in Iraq, because they believe that what we're doing there is tremendously important, for both America, and Iraq, and for world peace and stability.
And so do virtually all of their families.
The few that don't support the war are given very disproportionate coverage by the Democrat/liberal-biased press.

Your comments also ignore the big picture, that this is a massive undertaking, and that Bush said from the outset would take many years, as will the larger war on Islamic terror.
Which is very difficult, when liberal/Democrats leap on every minor setback saying "the sky is falling" and attempt to turn public support away from a mission that requires long-term commitment.

~

Here is an interview with Republican Senator John McCain, from yesterday's PBS News Hour broadcast. As I've said frequently, McCain is the man I would have preferred in the White House over Bush.
John McCain interview:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/mccain_11-06_a.html

McCain is constructively critical of military operations in Iraq, and actually urges for more troops. He supports the war, but urges for serious changes in the way the war is being conducted.
A far cry from the Democrats' hyperbolically screaming about "quagmire" and "miserable failure" in Iraq, that attempts to undermine the war effort and turn the country against the President. McCain supports President Bush, while urgently pressing for a shift in course, militarily, in areas that our objectives are not being met.

What annoys me so much about the Democrats is that for the President to do what needs to be done, no matter which direction he goes, he is blindly and bitterly condemned.
If Bush enlarges troop presence, it is criticized as "quagmire" and "another Vietnam".

If he shrinks troop presence or keeps levels virtually the same, then Democrats and the liberal press say Bush isn't doing enough, and biasedly seek out anyone in the Bush administration and the military who will condemn the war.

There is no objective among Democrats, other than trashing the President and undermining American interests (again, "useful Idiots", as the Islamic enemy themselves call blind opposition to Bush )

And although I think it's obvious when I make these comments about Democrats, that I don't mean ALL Democrats, but a large and vocal percentage of Democrats, while saner voices like Senator Joseph Lieberman (who largely supports the necessity and objectives in Iraq, as Republicans like John McCain do) are marginalized by louder Democrat voices like Howard Dean, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and John Edwards, that I hear echoed by many Democrats I meet personally. I mean specifically the vitriolically Bush-bashing "Bush-is-an-idiot" crowd of the democrat party.
I feel that's been obvious in my comments all along, but for those who need it said, there it is.

And that really infuriates me. Democrats' hell-bent determination to destroy the will of the American people to do what is right and necessary in Iraq, whether that price is 140 or 1,000, or even 10,000 or more American lives.

It costs what it costs.
For the long-term interests of the United States, Iraq, and the world, it has to be done.

So unless Democrats have something constructive to say toward that goal (instead of just mindlessly condemning every U.S. action, and casualty, every minor defeat in the greater war), they should just shut up, unless they can voice a valid and constructive alternative.
Instead of Democrats' just whining about the inevitable but unfortunate cost of freedom.

~

Regarding your ongoing posting of liberal/Democrat articles that perpetuate the myth of cronyism and graft in reconstruction contracts in Iraq...
"Paying For the Peace" (reconstruction contract bids in Iraq)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/iraq_11-04.html

...where it is pointed out that there is more scrutiny given to contracts in Iraq, and FAR more auditing from multiple independent sources, than there was in the 1991 reconstruction in Kuwait.