List of cities in Iraq appreciating and celebrating 10 years of liberation by USA

[Mr. Shaman]

And every single one is totally sincere.

 

[U2Edge]

The Iraqis were responsible for removing SH, not us, although the Reagan administration armed him.

Neo-cons are simply idiotic.

Idiocy is thinking that arms supposedly provided by Reagan are still there, and functioning.

Or that WMDs as described by the Bushies existed on the day of invasion in 2003.

Its a good thing they didn't. Far better to invade and remove Saddam before he gets such stocks of weapons. It indeed saves lives and cost. Who in their right mind would advocate waiting until Saddam had WMD or large stocks of WMD before invading?

 

[U2Edge]

They set up checkpoints and killed anyone trying to leave the country when they invaded Kuwait. Thousands of women were kidnapped raped killed and brought back into Iraq to be sex slaves when the US came to liberate Kuwait. We should have had Saddams head then. We were justified to liberate Iraq but we should have soundly defeated the enemy set up a Kurdish Nation in the North and left.

Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait by giving him the infamous "green light"...

Saddam/Glaspie Transcript: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

Bush never said Saddam could invade Kuwait and then annex the country wiping it from the face of the earth. Plus, once US troops started deploying to Saudi Arabia and August and Saddam was told to leave, he had the opportunity to. Even when Saddam was given a deadline to leave in November of 1990 for January 15, 1991, he still did not leave.

Even if you believe the idea that there was some type of mis-communication, NOTHING, there was no mis-communication after that. Saddam didn't leave because he had always fully intended to invade Kuwait and annex the country regardless of what the United States did. He believed he could defeat the United States and the Coalition in battle if it came to war. He did not believe the United States would be willing to suffer high casualties which he believed he could inflict on the United States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Idiocy is thinking that arms supposedly provided by Reagan are still there, and functioning.

Or that WMDs as described by the Bushies existed on the day of invasion in 2003.

Its a good thing they didn't. Far better to invade and remove Saddam before he gets such stocks of weapons. It indeed saves lives and cost. Who in their right mind would advocate waiting until Saddam had WMD or large stocks of WMD before invading?

Because he did not have them, because he would not have them, because the pressure to topple him was inevitable. . . because it would have saved us from the incredible stupidities of the various Bush programs. Nothing good came from the neo-cons.

 

[U2Edge]

Or that WMDs as described by the Bushies existed on the day of invasion in 2003.

Its a good thing they didn't. Far better to invade and remove Saddam before he gets such stocks of weapons. It indeed saves lives and cost. Who in their right mind would advocate waiting until Saddam had WMD or large stocks of WMD before invading?

Because he did not have them, because he would not have them, because the pressure to topple him was inevitable. . . because it would have saved us from the incredible stupidities of the various Bush programs. Nothing good came from the neo-cons.

Well, history shows otherwise given Saddams first 24 years in power. After the 1991 Gulf War, the United States and the international community had a responsiblity to PREVENT Saddam from ever obtaining any such type of weapons again. The sanctions and weapons embargo to contain him fell apart. Sanctions were completely gone along the Syrian/Iraq border. Saddam was succeeding in selling Billions of dollars of oil on the Black Market by 2002. Russia and France, members of the security council, were actually violating sanctions. China openly violated the weapons embargo by improving Iraqi Air Defenses and providing fiber optic technology.

Invasion and removal of Saddam in 2003 was a necessity in order to PREVENT things from getting worse!

 

[Stephanie]

Or that WMDs as described by the Bushies existed on the day of invasion in 2003.

Its a good thing they didn't. Far better to invade and remove Saddam before he gets such stocks of weapons. It indeed saves lives and cost. Who in their right mind would advocate waiting until Saddam had WMD or large stocks of WMD before invading?

Because he did not have them, because he would not have them, because the pressure to topple him was inevitable. . . because it would have saved us from the incredible stupidities of the various Bush programs. Nothing good came from the neo-cons.

well you should of told Clinton that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqUfF3mgzV4]Iraq still a mess ten years after the war - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Its a good thing they didn't. Far better to invade and remove Saddam before he gets such stocks of weapons. It indeed saves lives and cost. Who in their right mind would advocate waiting until Saddam had WMD or large stocks of WMD before invading?

Because he did not have them, because he would not have them, because the pressure to topple him was inevitable. . . because it would have saved us from the incredible stupidities of the various Bush programs. Nothing good came from the neo-cons.

well you should of told Clinton that.

Doesn't wash at all.

 

[Stephanie]

Because he did not have them, because he would not have them, because the pressure to topple him was inevitable. . . because it would have saved us from the incredible stupidities of the various Bush programs. Nothing good came from the neo-cons.

well you should of told Clinton that.

Doesn't wash at all.

of course not

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Its a good thing they didn't. Far better to invade and remove Saddam before he gets such stocks of weapons. It indeed saves lives and cost. Who in their right mind would advocate waiting until Saddam had WMD or large stocks of WMD before invading?

Because he did not have them, because he would not have them, because the pressure to topple him was inevitable. . . because it would have saved us from the incredible stupidities of the various Bush programs. Nothing good came from the neo-cons.

well you should of told Clinton that.

That'd be "...should have...", Staph.

Bimbos!!!!!​

 

[U2Edge]

Because he did not have them, because he would not have them, because the pressure to topple him was inevitable. . . because it would have saved us from the incredible stupidities of the various Bush programs. Nothing good came from the neo-cons.

well you should of told Clinton that.

Doesn't wash at all.

Watch what Clinton has to say about the threat from Saddam:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc]President Clinton orders attack on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Nosmo King]

We were told the war would be a quick one. We were told we would be welcomed as liberators. We were told that the cost of the war would be financed through Iraqi oil receipts. We were told that Iraq would be an incubator for Middle Eastern democracy. We were told that the Iraqi military posed an imminent threat to our security. We were told that the Iraqis had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Ten years later, how did it all work out? Were we told anything that actually turned out to be true? Was it all worth it? 4,500+ American dead, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, trillions of dollars spent. Was it worth it? Were we told the truth?

 

[ArmyCowboy]

We should have let those Iraqi (fucks)people suffer under Saddam.

Rather than wasting our blood and treasure?

Damned right we should heave.

 

[healthmyths]

We were told the war would be a quick one. We were told we would be welcomed as liberators. We were told that the cost of the war would be financed through Iraqi oil receipts. We were told that Iraq would be an incubator for Middle Eastern democracy. We were told that the Iraqi military posed an imminent threat to our security. We were told that the Iraqis had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Ten years later, how did it all work out? Were we told anything that actually turned out to be true? Was it all worth it? 4,500+ American dead, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, trillions of dollars spent. Was it worth it? Were we told the truth?

AGAIN... the truth is it WAS over in less then 6 weeks! You realize the actual purpose of the Liberation of Iraq of 2003 lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003, and signaled the start of the conflict that later came to be known as the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States.
The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally-fought war which concluded with the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces.
The objective was achieved ..

so why did it cost 3,000 more lives and $600 billion ?

These COMMENTS are proven by Harvard studies to have contributed to the cost...
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
On a related note, the New York Times reports that the media aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as they used to:
Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic.
Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps one day we'll wake up to discover that America won the war in Iraq months earlier, but no one noticed because the reporters were all busy with other things.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

So when these comments were posted and published.. will any of you be honest enough to admit, the comments certainly did not make US troops happy
and DEFINITELY did as the Harvard study stated: "emboldenment".. do more killings of troops over 6 more years!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything " 40,800 Google results

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
39,600 Google results
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." 92,500 Google results

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners. 127,000 Google results
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," 94,300 Google results

So Iraq deaths and cost continued because the above remarks HELPED ONLY the terrorists and they were emboldened to prolong!

 

[Nosmo King]

We were told the war would be a quick one. We were told we would be welcomed as liberators. We were told that the cost of the war would be financed through Iraqi oil receipts. We were told that Iraq would be an incubator for Middle Eastern democracy. We were told that the Iraqi military posed an imminent threat to our security. We were told that the Iraqis had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Ten years later, how did it all work out? Were we told anything that actually turned out to be true? Was it all worth it? 4,500+ American dead, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, trillions of dollars spent. Was it worth it? Were we told the truth?

AGAIN... the truth is it WAS over in less then 6 weeks! You realize the actual purpose of the Liberation of Iraq of 2003 lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003, and signaled the start of the conflict that later came to be known as the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States.
The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally-fought war which concluded with the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces.
The objective was achieved ..

so why did it cost 3,000 more lives and $600 billion ?

These COMMENTS are proven by Harvard studies to have contributed to the cost...
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
On a related note, the New York Times reports that the media aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as they used to:
Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic.
Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps one day we'll wake up to discover that America won the war in Iraq months earlier, but no one noticed because the reporters were all busy with other things.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

So when these comments were posted and published.. will any of you be honest enough to admit, the comments certainly did not make US troops happy
and DEFINITELY did as the Harvard study stated: "emboldenment".. do more killings of troops over 6 more years!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything " 40,800 Google results

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
39,600 Google results
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." 92,500 Google results

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners. 127,000 Google results
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," 94,300 Google results

So Iraq deaths and cost continued because the above remarks HELPED ONLY the terrorists and they were emboldened to prolong!

A ham handed stab at putting the "Mission Accomplished" banner back up. We we not fooled ten years ago. Why should we accept your premise the war only lasted six weeks after the evidence of history?

 

[Jarhead]

We were told the war would be a quick one. We were told we would be welcomed as liberators. We were told that the cost of the war would be financed through Iraqi oil receipts. We were told that Iraq would be an incubator for Middle Eastern democracy. We were told that the Iraqi military posed an imminent threat to our security. We were told that the Iraqis had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Ten years later, how did it all work out? Were we told anything that actually turned out to be true? Was it all worth it? 4,500+ American dead, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, trillions of dollars spent. Was it worth it? Were we told the truth?

AGAIN... the truth is it WAS over in less then 6 weeks! You realize the actual purpose of the Liberation of Iraq of 2003 lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003, and signaled the start of the conflict that later came to be known as the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States.
The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally-fought war which concluded with the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces.
The objective was achieved ..

so why did it cost 3,000 more lives and $600 billion ?

These COMMENTS are proven by Harvard studies to have contributed to the cost...
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
On a related note, the New York Times reports that the media aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as they used to:
Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic.
Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps one day we'll wake up to discover that America won the war in Iraq months earlier, but no one noticed because the reporters were all busy with other things.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

So when these comments were posted and published.. will any of you be honest enough to admit, the comments certainly did not make US troops happy
and DEFINITELY did as the Harvard study stated: "emboldenment".. do more killings of troops over 6 more years!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything " 40,800 Google results

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
39,600 Google results
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." 92,500 Google results

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners. 127,000 Google results
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," 94,300 Google results

So Iraq deaths and cost continued because the above remarks HELPED ONLY the terrorists and they were emboldened to prolong!

A ham handed stab at putting the "Mission Accomplished" banner back up. We we not fooled ten years ago. Why should we accept your premise the war only lasted six weeks after the evidence of history?

Just an FYI....

Those outside the port?

The ones where that "Mission Accomplished" banner was raised in front of?

They had just successfully accomplished their mission. They were home after the completeion of their mision...with no loss of life or aircraft.

Sadly, memebers of congress and the media did not see it that way. It was not politically expedient.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We were told the war would be a quick one. We were told we would be welcomed as liberators. We were told that the cost of the war would be financed through Iraqi oil receipts. We were told that Iraq would be an incubator for Middle Eastern democracy. We were told that the Iraqi military posed an imminent threat to our security. We were told that the Iraqis had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Ten years later, how did it all work out? Were we told anything that actually turned out to be true? Was it all worth it? 4,500+ American dead, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, trillions of dollars spent. Was it worth it? Were we told the truth?

AGAIN... the truth is it WAS over in less then 6 weeks!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....​

May 1, 2011

Mission Accomplished​

"Today marks the eighth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech about the Iraq War, when American casualties stood at 139 killed and 542 wounded. Eight years, over 4,000 U.S. fatalities, and hundreds of thousands Iraqi fatalities later, the war carries on."

​

 

[Stephanie]

We were told the war would be a quick one. We were told we would be welcomed as liberators. We were told that the cost of the war would be financed through Iraqi oil receipts. We were told that Iraq would be an incubator for Middle Eastern democracy. We were told that the Iraqi military posed an imminent threat to our security. We were told that the Iraqis had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Ten years later, how did it all work out? Were we told anything that actually turned out to be true? Was it all worth it? 4,500+ American dead, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, trillions of dollars spent. Was it worth it? Were we told the truth?

AGAIN... the truth is it WAS over in less then 6 weeks! You realize the actual purpose of the Liberation of Iraq of 2003 lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003, and signaled the start of the conflict that later came to be known as the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States.
The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally-fought war which concluded with the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces.
The objective was achieved ..

so why did it cost 3,000 more lives and $600 billion ?

These COMMENTS are proven by Harvard studies to have contributed to the cost...
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
On a related note, the New York Times reports that the media aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as they used to:
Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic.
Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps one day we'll wake up to discover that America won the war in Iraq months earlier, but no one noticed because the reporters were all busy with other things.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

So when these comments were posted and published.. will any of you be honest enough to admit, the comments certainly did not make US troops happy
and DEFINITELY did as the Harvard study stated: "emboldenment".. do more killings of troops over 6 more years!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything " 40,800 Google results

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
39,600 Google results
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." 92,500 Google results

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners. 127,000 Google results
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," 94,300 Google results

So Iraq deaths and cost continued because the above remarks HELPED ONLY the terrorists and they were emboldened to prolong!

A ham handed stab at putting the "Mission Accomplished" banner back up. We we not fooled ten years ago. Why should we accept your premise the war only lasted six weeks after the evidence of history?

Then why should we believe Obama got Bin Laden? we never saw any evidence..they said it would be too sensitive to release them..sure didn't stop him from crowing about it

 

[ArmyCowboy]

AGAIN... the truth is it WAS over in less then 6 weeks! You realize the actual purpose of the Liberation of Iraq of 2003 lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003, and signaled the start of the conflict that later came to be known as the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States.
The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally-fought war which concluded with the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces.
The objective was achieved ..

so why did it cost 3,000 more lives and $600 billion ?

These COMMENTS are proven by Harvard studies to have contributed to the cost...
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
On a related note, the New York Times reports that the media aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as they used to:
Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic.
Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps one day we'll wake up to discover that America won the war in Iraq months earlier, but no one noticed because the reporters were all busy with other things.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

So when these comments were posted and published.. will any of you be honest enough to admit, the comments certainly did not make US troops happy
and DEFINITELY did as the Harvard study stated: "emboldenment".. do more killings of troops over 6 more years!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything " 40,800 Google results

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
39,600 Google results
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." 92,500 Google results

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners. 127,000 Google results
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," 94,300 Google results

So Iraq deaths and cost continued because the above remarks HELPED ONLY the terrorists and they were emboldened to prolong!

A ham handed stab at putting the "Mission Accomplished" banner back up. We we not fooled ten years ago. Why should we accept your premise the war only lasted six weeks after the evidence of history?

Then why should we believe Obama got Bin Laden? we never saw any evidence..they said it would be too sensitive to release them..sure didn't stop him from crowing about it

You honestly believe that were Bin Laden alive, Al Queda would be silent about it?

Wow, we have a smart one here.

 

[Nosmo King]

A ham handed stab at putting the "Mission Accomplished" banner back up. We we not fooled ten years ago. Why should we accept your premise the war only lasted six weeks after the evidence of history?

Then why should we believe Obama got Bin Laden? we never saw any evidence..they said it would be too sensitive to release them..sure didn't stop him from crowing about it

Let's walk through this so even you might have a shot at comprehending. Ten years ago we were told a bunch of stuff about Iraq, their military, their political culture and their capabilities. We invaded Iraq while the American people were fed all those tall tales. Now, with ten years time to reflect on those tales, I'm asking if the whole adventure was worth it in terms of lives and treasure.

Can you follow me so far? Let's hope there's nothing shiny distracting you.

Now you ask this idiotic question out of the clear blue sky about the death of Osama bin Laden!

Can you now understand why some people have sympathy for you while others, more acquainted to your unique style of...I guess we'll call it 'reasoning', merely wish you would crack a book and learn something?