Dramatic turn for the better in Iraq yet..........

[Murffieus]

media coverage has dropped off sharply! According to IBD this morning, media coverage of the "good news" is non existant. Earlier in the year Iraq was getting 15% of the media coverage-----now only 7%-----and that 7% is mainly centered around whatever "bad news" there still is.

Those in the mainstream media just can't allow themselves to give GWB any credit----sad that the people who are charged with informing America on what's going on manage the news in such a manner----they aren't any more fair on their reporting of the news than various dictators around the world who want their populace to only hear what he wants them to hear!

[muarmy81]

Murf,
As somebody who spent two tours in iraq, its safe to say that anytime anything good happened it was never reported.  (Now or in the past) Now that there is less and less violence and chaos we just get less and less coverage not more on why it's getting turned around.  For me, this is nothing new. 

[Murffieus]

But doesn't the concept of "news" include both good and bad news? I want to hear the bad but I also want to hear the good.

[mviale]

I agree Murf for 1.5 Trillion dollars in costs due to the war - we should have some good news. 

[mu03eng]

Mviale, that number is purely a "media" number.  If you look into what they count towards that 1.5 Trillion, they include spending that would have happened anyway, such as fuel costs the military would have used on training missions and the like.  Also, a little bit of a twist on this, of the 1.5 Trillion dollars at least 60% is paid to US industries.  I'm not sure what the exact percentage would be, but given the rules that military supplies, equipment, etc. must be US based that is money going directly into the US economy.

[tower912]

US industries like Blackwater, and former US industries like Halliburton, perhaps?     I only hope the good news lasts.

[mu03eng]

US industries like Blackwater, and former US industries like Halliburton, perhaps?     I only hope the good news lasts.

I agree there are definitely some bad apples there, but also companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup Grumman,  McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in rural Oklahoma, Johnson Controls, Oshkosh Truck Company, etc.

Don't get me wrong I don't think this is a good number or justifies the war, but I think its irresponsible to just throw the number out there without context.  The 1.5 Trillion isn't what its portrayed as, it is what we would have spent anyway plus Iraq/Afghanistan and a lot of it stays within our shores.  Again not a justification, but a little reality.

[Murffieus]

Mviale------GWB is a rational person-----not the madman he would have to be to spend 1.5 trillion or whatever it is on the twin wars against islamo/facism without having good reasons for doing so. You have to give the elected leadership the benefit of the doubt as he has more information on what is going on than you, I, the NYT, or moveon.org.So unless he's a traitor he's acting on that information as in the best LONG TERM interests of the country!

He's thinking long term----to confront it now----not to make the mistake Chamberlin did with Hitler at Munich (see Chicos post above)-----trouble with you lefties is that you are short term thinkers-----can't think beyond the pain at the moment.

BTW-----NBC evening news finally had a segment on tonight about the substantial improvement in Iraq------build a stable democracy there and we have a major victoryagainst islamo/facism!

[ChicosBailBonds]

I agree Murf for 1.5 Trillion dollars in costs due to the war - we should have some good news. 

A number concocted by a 100% Democrat committee....I'm SHOCKED I tell yah....SHOCKED.


The number is far far far far far less than $1 trillion, let alone $1.5 trillion.  Nevertheless, since the war on poverty hasn't been won yet, why are have we dumped more than $20 trillion into it in the last 5 decades...I guess we should stop.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

US industries like Blackwater, and former US industries like Halliburton, perhaps?     I only hope the good news lasts.

I just wish the President and the Pentagon hadn't given Halliburton no bid contracts. 

Case in point   

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

[Pakuni]

I agree Murf for 1.5 Trillion dollars in costs due to the war - we should have some good news. 

A number concocted by a 100% Democrat committee....I'm SHOCKED I tell yah....SHOCKED.


The number is far far far far far less than $1 trillion, let alone $1.5 trillion.  Nevertheless, since the war on poverty hasn't been won yet, why are have we dumped more than $20 trillion into it in the last 5 decades...I guess we should stop.   

Do you see a metaphoric "war" to help American citizens out of poverty as the moral equivalent to a real war initiated purportedly to protect Americans from a non-existent threat but since rationalized as a means to create a free nation?

Or, better yet, do you believe helping American citizens in need is a less worthy use of our tax dollars than helping some Iraqis by killing other Iraqis?

What's your source on that $20 trillion figure?

Because, according to the Heritage Foundation - hardly a liberal think-tank - that figure was $7 trillion in 1998. Are you suggesting we've spent $13 trillion on anti-povery efforts in the last nine years alone? Seems kind of unlikely given that the total federal budget is less than $3 trillion a year. Are we spending more than a third of our annual budget on the war on poverty these days?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm

The Cato Institute - another conservative group - put the figure at $9 billion just three years ago. Again, your numbers and their numbers don't come close to jibing.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2807

It would seem that your $20 million figure is malarkey, but if you have a source I'd be happy to read it.

FYI ... according to the non-partisan CBO, the Iraq War will cost about $1.9 trillion through 2017.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-10-23-wacosts_N.htm

Personally, I'd rather spend $10-12 trillion helping Americans over 50 years than $2 trillion helping some Iraqis (the ones we're not killing, at least) over 14 years. A better use of our resources, if you ask me.
Plus, not one young American solider has been killed during the war on poverty. That's got to count for something, doesn't it?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Non-existent threat....oh really...I guess when a dictator that has declared war on this country is also in pursuit of a Nuclear weapon, has already invaded an ally once, has routinely funded suicide bombing against another ally...well, I take that as a threat.

Just me...oh, and the US, UK, Australia, Japan, Poland, Spain, etc, etc, etc, etc

If they could have only listened to you.

Now, do I think we shouldn't spend money on poverty...of course not.  I think we should....just as I think we should do what is necessary to make sure maniacal nutjobs in pursuit of nuclear and other very very dangerous weapons aren't allowed to.

I'm sure in 1939 they thought Hitler was a "non-existant threat" too....how did that work out?  Afterall, they had a nice piece of paper saying they had peace.   


As for my "figures" on the war on poverty...that's precisely the point, these politicians and think tanks throw out numbers all over the damn place.  You cite links of $9 billion...from Cato (billion or did you mean trillion) and $7 trillion from Heritage...well on earth could they be that far apart?  Even if you meant $7 trillion to $9 Trillion...that's still $2 trillion different.  I have seen estimates ranging from $4.5 trillion to $9 trillion to $17 trillion to over $20 trillion....it amazes me accountants can be that far apart....but does it really surprise anyone?  Not really.

Which is exactly why the $1.6 trillion war number is equally specious in my opinion.

[Pakuni]

Non-existent threat....oh really...I guess when a dictator that has declared war on this country is also in pursuit of a Nuclear weapon, has already invaded an ally once, has routinely funded suicide bombing against another ally...well, I take that as a threat.

OK, I guess when dealing with you and the former SJS, I'll just have to be sure I'm exceptionally clear, even if it requires exceptional wordiness.
When I say "a real war initiated purportedly to protect Americans from a non-existent threat" I'm speaking, of course, of the stated reason for starting the war: to protect Americans from Saddam's WMD program.
As it turns out, what little of a WMD program Iraq possessed in 2003 was of no threat to Americans, hence a "non-existent" threat. Get it now?

And again, what's with this ally stuff? When did it become U.S. foreign policy to invade nations hostile to our allies? If that were the case, when do we invade:

The rest of the Middle East ... hostile toward Israel.
China ... hostile toward Taiwan
North Korea ... hostile toward Japan and South Korea
India ... hostile toward Pakistan
Pakistan ... hostile toward India
Kurdistan ... hostile toward Turkey

Looks like our military will be awfully busy for the next couple of centuries.

Though I admit, the "invaded one of our allies" rationale is quite creative. Didn't we already go to war over that? Didn't we already expel Iraq from our ally? Is it really your suggestion that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. in 2003 because it invaded Kuwait in 1990?
In that event, we better also gear up for an invasion of Argentina. They once invaded one of our allies.

And seriously, you felt the U.S. was threatened by Iraq's financial support to families of suicide bombers in Israel? Heck, even Israel wasn't going to battle over that, but you believe it was a threat to the U.S. worthy of war?
In that event, we better go to war with Saudi Arabia. Their people are threatening us!

Just me...oh, and the US, UK, Australia, Japan, Poland, Spain, etc, etc, etc, etc

Yes, and you were all mistaken. Hence my point in the other thread about needing to make sure we know what we're doing before starting another war. The fact that other nations bought into the error doesn't make it any less erroneous.

Now, do I think we shouldn't spend money on poverty...of course not.  I think we should....just as I think we should do what is necessary to make sure maniacal nutjobs in pursuit of nuclear and other very very dangerous weapons aren't allowed to.

No one is arguing otherwise. The question is whether an ill-conceived, pre-emptive invasion the best way to prevent this. I would suggest it is by far the last resort, not an option to embrace.

As for my "figures" on the war on poverty...that's precisely the point, these politicians and think tanks throw out numbers all over the damn place.  You cite links of $9 billion...from Cato (billion or did you mean trillion) and $7 trillion from Heritage...well on earth could they be that far apart?  Even if you meant $7 trillion to $9 Trillion...that's still $2 trillion different.  I have seen estimates ranging from $4.5 trillion to $9 trillion to $17 trillion to over $20 trillion....it amazes me accountants can be that far apart....but does it really surprise anyone?  Not really.

Which is exactly why the $1.6 trillion war number is equally specious in my opinion.

You need to re-read my post.
It clearly says the Heritage number is from 1998 and the Cato number is from 2004. Given the six-year spread, inflation, etc. the two numbers seem to be fairly in line, or at least within a reasonable margin of error.
What seems out of line is a $20 trillion figure.
I think the more accurate figure better puts into perspective how much this war is costing us.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's right, and that included the thread to reconstitute that program.  Saddam admitted he wanted to create a nuclear weapon....I take him at his word.  You don't, fine.

Your examples are really great by the way, now did India, Pakistan, Kurdistan, Turkey, Taiwan, China, etc declare war on the US like Iraq did?  Let me know.

Did I personally feel threatened by Iraq's financial support of terrorists bombings in Israel...no.  But as an ally, we're supposed to help our friends...that's how it works.

In the meantime, how about the original point of this thread....that news media sure is reporting a lot of the good of late isn't?  Crickets chirping.     Not surprising at all.  The surge has worked very well and not a peep from these folks.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You need to re-read my post.
It clearly says the Heritage number is from 1998 and the Cato number is from 2004. Given the six-year spread, inflation, etc. the two numbers seem to be fairly in line, or at least within a reasonable margin of error.
What seems out of line is a $20 trillion figure.
I think the more accurate figure better puts into perspective how much this war is costing us.

Actually you need to....you said $9 billion and the article clearly says $9 trillion.

[Pakuni]

That's right, and that included the thread to reconstitute that program.  Saddam admitted he wanted to create a nuclear weapon....I take him at his word.  You don't, fine.

I don't doubt Saddam wanted a nuclear weapon. But I do doubt - and the evidence to date supports my doubt - that he was anywhere near acquiring one or having the capability to create one.
In fact, the U.S.-created and backed Iraq Survey Group found that Iraq's nuclear program ended in 1991 and there had been no concerted efforts to restart it between then and the current war.

Key Findings
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and signifi cance of the pre-1991
Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively
decayed after that date.
• Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest
concerted efforts to restart the program.
• Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up
to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

Foreign Pursuits
ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought
uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous
production of such material—activities that
we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to
reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer2_c.pdf

Your examples are really great by the way, now did India, Pakistan, Kurdistan, Turkey, Taiwan, China, etc declare war on the US like Iraq did?  Let me know.

1. When did Iraq - post the first Gulf War - declare war on the United States? Source, please. Or does that first Gulr War declaration still count, in which case ... When do we bomb Japan?
2. If Lichtenstein declares war on the U.S. tomorrow, shall we invade?

Did I personally feel threatened by Iraq's financial support of terrorists bombings in Israel...no.  But as an ally, we're supposed to help our friends...that's how it works.

Hogwash. It is not our responsibility to go to war on Israel's behalf, especially over something like that. Nor, mind you, have we ever chosen to go to war on Israel's behalf when it was attacked by a foreign power.
You can't possibly believe that was a legitimate reasoning for the war. If you do, then there's a whole host of Middle Eastern nations we must invade ... because that's how it works.

In the meantime, how about the original point of this thread....that news media sure is reporting a lot of the good of late isn't?  Crickets chirping.     Not surprising at all.  The surge has worked very well and not a peep from these folks.

How do you know things are better if you didn't read it in the media?
Kind of contradicts your point, doesn't it?

[mviale]

sad commentary - is that the American people dont care.  Our troops and Iraqis are dying for a misguided war. The public cares more about barry bonds lying than scooter libby lying.

[muarmy81]

What else is sad is the lack of execution by our elected leaders.  Yesterday Harry Reid slammed the Iraq war stating that no progress has been made and that congress may work over the weekend to try and pass another withdrawl bill.  He goes on to state that the Iraqi Government is not coming together to meet Iraq's goals.  They're too busy struggling for individual power and not focusing on improving the economic and political climate over there.  Boy that sounds familiar...   When was the last time our government came together and compromised on behalf of the people that elect them...worthless.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...ow_article= 1 

on a side note NBC did report a positive story recently on the improvements in Iraq, so there are some media outlets trying to show both sides of the coin, you just have to dig to find them.  And yes, most Americans seem more interested in Bonds and A-Rod's small country payroll than whats going on in the middle east.

NBC story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619
click on the video marked "Baghdad weddings and other good signs.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I haven't read it in the media Pakuni, I read it on the military blogs...which I don't consider media