Media Not Covering 'Enormous Successes' In Iraq!

[molson_golden2002]

Cheney maybe evil but he knows his blaming the media tactic works on his useful idiot supporters. This story is great because Cheney is the one who is angry, not the America public who see the surge as anything from a mistake to outright murder. He says its the media that is "undermining" US troops, whatever that means. I suppose the media is also causing the massive corruption in Iraqi government, too. And the media is making the Iraqi government be infiltarted by militais that torture people to death. And when our 'undermined' soldiers die defending this corrupt Iraqi government partially run by militas it will be the media's fault, too. The media is losing Iraq. And btw, don't ask about HIS gay daughter, its none of our business what gays do, forget the 2004 election, it was a long time ago.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7012402066.html

 

 

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the administration has achieved "enormous successes" in Iraq but complained that critics and the media "are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure" that they are undermining U.S. troops in a war zone, striking a far more combative tone than President Bush did in his State of the Union address the night before.

 

In a television interview that turned increasingly contentious as it wore on, Cheney rejected the gloomy portrayal of Iraq that has become commonly accepted even among Bush supporters. "There's problems" in Iraq, he said, but it is not a "terrible situation." And congressional opposition "won't stop us" from sending 21,500 more troops, he said, it will only "validate the terrorists' strategy."

 

The defiant tenor contrasted sharply with Bush's speech Tuesday night, when the president congratulated Democrats on their election victory, offered to work with them on a variety of domestic policies, and told skeptics of his latest Iraq plan that he respects their arguments even as he asked them to give him one more chance to win the war. Bush acknowledged deep troubles in Iraq and made little effort to paint it a success. In a recent interview, Bush said his old policy was heading for "slow failure."

 

Cheney, on the other hand, rejected the idea that there has been any failure and gave voice to the aggravation many in the White House feel as Democrats step up their attacks on the administration. As leading Democrats lace their rhetoric with words such as "blunder" and "reckless," the White House has tried to calibrate how hard to push back. On a day when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution denouncing Bush's troop increase, Cheney decided not to hold back.

 

"The pressure is from some quarters to get out of Iraq," he told CNN. "If we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task, that we don't have the stomach for the fight."

 

Cheney said the administration would disregard the nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase and suggested it undermines soldiers in a war zone. "It won't stop us," he said. "And it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops."

 

Cheney has been criticized in the past for presenting what some called an overly rosy view of the situation in Iraq, most notably in 2005 when he said the insurgency was in its "last throes." The view he expressed yesterday seemed no less positive, and he sparred repeatedly with "Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer, telling him "you're wrong" and suggesting he was embracing defeat.

 

When Blitzer asked whether the administration's credibility had been hurt by "the blunders and the failures" in Iraq, Cheney interjected: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

 

In fact, Cheney said, the operation in Iraq has achieved its original mission. "What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said. "The world is much safer today because of it. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed. His sons are dead. His government is gone."

 

"If he were still there today," Cheney added, "we'd have a terrible situation."

 

"But there is," Blitzer said.

 

"No, there is not," Cheney retorted. "There is not. There's problems -- ongoing problems -- but we have in fact accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been here for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off." He added: "Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes and we will continue to have enormous successes."

[RkFast]

Cheney maybe evil but he knows his blaming the media tactic works on his useful idiot supporters. This story is great because Cheney is the one who is angry, not the America public who see the surge as anything from a mistake to outright murder. He says its the media that is "undermining" US troops, whatever that means. I suppose the media is also causing the massive corruption in Iraqi government, too. And the media is making the Iraqi government be infiltarted by militais that torture people to death. And when our 'undermined' soldiers die defending this corrupt Iraqi government partially run by militas it will be the media's fault, too. The media is losing Iraq. And btw, don't ask about HIS gay daughter, its none of our business what gays do, forget the 2004 election, it was a long time ago.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7012402066.html

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the administration has achieved "enormous successes" in Iraq but complained that critics and the media "are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure" that they are undermining U.S. troops in a war zone, striking a far more combative tone than President Bush did in his State of the Union address the night before.

 

In a television interview that turned increasingly contentious as it wore on, Cheney rejected the gloomy portrayal of Iraq that has become commonly accepted even among Bush supporters. "There's problems" in Iraq, he said, but it is not a "terrible situation." And congressional opposition "won't stop us" from sending 21,500 more troops, he said, it will only "validate the terrorists' strategy."

 

The defiant tenor contrasted sharply with Bush's speech Tuesday night, when the president congratulated Democrats on their election victory, offered to work with them on a variety of domestic policies, and told skeptics of his latest Iraq plan that he respects their arguments even as he asked them to give him one more chance to win the war. Bush acknowledged deep troubles in Iraq and made little effort to paint it a success. In a recent interview, Bush said his old policy was heading for "slow failure."

 

Cheney, on the other hand, rejected the idea that there has been any failure and gave voice to the aggravation many in the White House feel as Democrats step up their attacks on the administration. As leading Democrats lace their rhetoric with words such as "blunder" and "reckless," the White House has tried to calibrate how hard to push back. On a day when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution denouncing Bush's troop increase, Cheney decided not to hold back.

 

"The pressure is from some quarters to get out of Iraq," he told CNN. "If we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task, that we don't have the stomach for the fight."

 

Cheney said the administration would disregard the nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase and suggested it undermines soldiers in a war zone. "It won't stop us," he said. "And it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops."

 

Cheney has been criticized in the past for presenting what some called an overly rosy view of the situation in Iraq, most notably in 2005 when he said the insurgency was in its "last throes." The view he expressed yesterday seemed no less positive, and he sparred repeatedly with "Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer, telling him "you're wrong" and suggesting he was embracing defeat.

 

When Blitzer asked whether the administration's credibility had been hurt by "the blunders and the failures" in Iraq, Cheney interjected: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

 

In fact, Cheney said, the operation in Iraq has achieved its original mission. "What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said. "The world is much safer today because of it. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed. His sons are dead. His government is gone."

 

"If he were still there today," Cheney added, "we'd have a terrible situation."

 

"But there is," Blitzer said.

 

"No, there is not," Cheney retorted. "There is not. There's problems -- ongoing problems -- but we have in fact accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been here for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off." He added: "Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes and we will continue to have enormous successes."

 

How DARE the VICE PRESIDENT of the United States maintain a positive opinion of the war?

 

Up next? Shock....SHOCK!!! from drunk-boy that Dick Jauron thinks he's going to win the Super Bowl next year!

 

And how DARE Cheney NOT answer a loaded question about his family without so much as a protest!!??!! of course, when Jim Webb took offense to the same tactic, that was A-OK!!!!!!

 

Drink MORE, MG....MORE.

[SilverNRed]

Cheney maybe evil but he knows his blaming the media tactic works on his useful idiot supporters. This story is great because Cheney is the one who is angry, not the America public who see the surge as anything from a mistake to outright murder.

"Outright murder"? What?

 

No offense, but I tend to think Dick Cheney is more well-informed than the "America public." The American public is responsible for the popularity of CSI: Miami, Paris Hilton, "Brangelina", Survivor, Fear Factor, the new Sabres jerseys, etc. Oh, and the average American still gets his/her news from retards like Dan Rather and Brian Williams (the latter had an on-air orgasm at the sight of Nancy Pelosi surrounding herself with children earlier this month).

 

Bottom line:

1. The media doesn't cover any of the progress made in Iraq. Ever. You mean to tell me they can't find any good news from there in the last three years? And what about all the troops that come back and think the media is painting a completely different picture than what they saw?

 

2. Coverage of Iraq has reached the point where it's as embarassing as the coverage of Katrina. The Associated Press is never going to find Jamil Hussein, their single source for some completely bogus stories. Now we have to wonder how many other stories are completely made up or just rumors reported as fact.

 

Cheney is probably right. The media knows what they think the story is and just look to report things that work within that mindset.

[molson_golden2002]

How DARE the VICE PRESIDENT of the United States maintain a positive opinion of the war?

 

Up next? Shock....SHOCK!!! from drunk-boy that Dick Jauron thinks he's going to win the Super Bowl next year!

 

And how DARE Cheney NOT answer a loaded question about his family without so much as a protest!!??!! of course, when Jim Webb took offense to the same tactic, that was A-OK!!!!!!

 

Drink MORE, MG....MORE.

Shouldn't he have arealistic opinion of Iraq? Seeing a positive in that mess is sheer delusion. And Cheney's daughter was fair game when this administration ran a gay bashing campaign in 2004 and really probably won the presidency with it.

[KD in CA]

How DARE the VICE PRESIDENT of the United States maintain a positive opinion of the war?

 

Up next? Shock....SHOCK!!! from drunk-boy that Dick Jauron thinks he's going to win the Super Bowl next year!

 

And how DARE Cheney NOT answer a loaded question about his family without so much as a protest!!??!! of course, when Jim Webb took offense to the same tactic, that was A-OK!!!!!!

 

Drink MORE, MG....MORE.

 

Cheney could tie the noose around his own neck and hang himself in the public square after confessing how wrong he has been about everything he's ever done in life and it would still not be enough for retards like molson.

[molson_golden2002]

"Outright murder"? What?

 

No offense, but I tend to think Dick Cheney is more well-informed than the "America public." The American public is responsible for the popularity of CSI: Miami, Paris Hilton, "Brangelina", Survivor, Fear Factor, the new Sabres jerseys, etc. Oh, and the average American still gets his/her news from retards like Dan Rather and Brian Williams (the latter had an on-air orgasm at the sight of Nancy Pelosi surrounding herself with children earlier this month).

 

Bottom line:

1. The media doesn't cover any of the progress made in Iraq. Ever. You mean to tell me they can't find any good news from there in the last three years? And what about all the troops that come back and think the media is painting a completely different picture than what they saw?

 

2. Coverage of Iraq has reached the point where it's as embarassing as the coverage of Katrina. The Associated Press is never going to find Jamil Hussein, their single source for some completely bogus stories. Now we have to wonder how many other stories are completely made up or just rumors reported as fact.

 

Cheney is probably right. The media knows what they think the story is and just look to report things that work within that mindset.

 

I wrote it is some people's opinion the surge is murder. People do see it that way. People like me.

 

1) No offense back, but the only "progress" Cheney was able to mention, the elections in Iraq, were very well covered by the media. How long could they go on about that? As to the troops coming back, there are so many thousands of them you can find a couple to say anything, and more are saying its a mess than saying its not. How many ran as anti-war Democrats in last election? Several. None that I know ran as pro-war Republicans.

 

2) I'll bet coverage of Iraq to a war supporter is embarassing. But actually believing that THE MEDIA is distoring the picture on purpose, or because they are idiots is bordering on lunacy. THE MEDIA is there, they are getting killed in Iraq, too. And they are far from the only ones saying the place is a complete disaster. Government agencies, people Bush put in charge, soldiers, officers, diplomats all say the same thing. Is the CIA not getting the full picture? The State Department? How about Republican Senators? Why isn't Fox news reporting the "Progress?" Hell, even Ollie North says the Surge is a joke because Iraq is too broken to fix that way.

 

Cheney is only doing what he has always done, working in his own personal interest.l

[molson_golden2002]

Cheney could tie the noose around his own neck and hang himself in the public square after confessing how wrong he has been about everything he's ever done in life and it would still not be enough for retards like molson.

Oh dear, another ignorant drive by troll with no opinion about anything

[PastaJoe]

Cheney could tie the noose around his own neck and hang himself in the public square after confessing how wrong he has been about everything he's ever done in life and it would still not be enough for retards like molson.

 

Is this an option? It would be a nice start.

[SilverNRed]

I wrote it is some people's opinion the surge is murder. People do see it that way. People like me.

OK, again, what?

 

1) No offense back, but the only "progress" Cheney was able to mention, the elections in Iraq, were very well covered by the media. How long could they go on about that? As to the troops coming back, there are so many thousands of them you can find a couple to say anything, and more are saying its a mess than saying its not. How many ran as anti-war Democrats in last election? Several. None that I know ran as pro-war Republicans.

So? That's how Congress works. Just do or say whatever sounds good at the time because there's an election coming up. I'd never expect any Senator or Congressman to advocate something for this country that is necessary but unpopular. Which is pretty much why I never expect them to accomplish anything good. It's self-preservation. D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people.

 

It's pretty much why the Democrats were for the war until it started taking too long and costing too many lives and lost popularity and now they're against it. Just sway with the masses and call it leadership.

 

Also, the "progress" would be the provinces that are handed over to complete Iraqi control, such as Najaf and Maysan in the last couple months. Not to mention Iraq's growing economy or the large regions where violence really isn't a problem.

2) I'll bet coverage of Iraq to a war supporter is embarassing. But actually believing that THE MEDIA is distoring the picture on purpose, or because they are idiots is bordering on lunacy. THE MEDIA is there, they are getting killed in Iraq, too. And they are far from the only ones saying the place is a complete disaster. Government agencies, people Bush put in charge, soldiers, officers, diplomats all say the same thing. Is the CIA not getting the full picture? The State Department? How about Republican Senators? Why isn't Fox news reporting the "Progress?" Hell, even Ollie North says the Surge is a joke because Iraq is too broken to fix that way.

1. The media is composed almost entirely of idiots.

 

2. To say they are doing it "on purpose" is a little more murky. I think they only look for evidence of what they believe (like you).

 

The idea that the media is presenting a balanced, view full of the situation in Iraq is laughable.

Cheney is only doing what he has always done, working in his own personal interest.

Why is the surge in Cheney's personal interest?

 

Cheney is one of the only people not running for re-election. It's more plausible he's one of the only people not working for self-preservation. The man obviously couldn't give a !@#$ what people think of him. Not to mention that he's set for life and has health problems. If he only cared about himself, he'd have retired long ago and be enjoying the good life. In your screwed up mind, is it even possible that he's doing what he thinks is right?

[molson_golden2002]

OK, again, what?

 

1) So? That's how Congress works. Just do or say whatever sounds good at the time because there's an election coming up. I'd never expect any Senator or Congressman to advocate something for this country that is necessary but unpopular. Which is pretty much why I never expect them to accomplish anything good. It's self-preservation. D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people. It's pretty much why the Democrats were for the war until it started taking too long and costing too many lives and lost popularity and now they're against it. Just sway with the masses and call it leadership.

 

2) Also, the "progress" would be the provinces that are handed over to complete Iraqi control, such as Najaf and Maysan in the last couple months. Not to mention Iraq's growing economy or the large regions where violence really isn't a problem.

The media is composed almost entirely of idiots. To say they are doing it "on purpose" is a little more murky. I think they only look for evidence of what they believe (like you).

 

The idea that the media is presenting a balanced, view full of the situation in Iraq is laughable.

Why is the surge in Cheney's personal interest?

 

Cheney is one of the only people not running for re-election. It's more plausible he's one of the only people not working for self-preservation. The man obviously couldn't give a !@#$ what people think of him. Not to mention that he's set for life and has health problems. If he only cared about himself, he'd have retired long ago and be enjoying the good life. In your screwed up mind, is it even possible that he's doing what he thinks is right?

1) Yes, Because the people--unlike you--see that Iraq is a disaster and something needs to be done. I guess you would argue that the media has brainwashed the public or something and that only people like you see the truth as professed by "last throes" Cheney. I guess Rummy was just a victim of the media, so sad.

 

2) Great, some sparcely populated areas of homogenous inhabitants are getting along fine while the biggest city in the country needs a surge of troops to try and restore some semblamce of order. If there was "Enormous Progress" what's the point of the Surge? And could this "growing economy" be like South Vietnam's, fueled by American tax payers dollars? Those billions and billions of dollars have to have some effect, aside from funding the insurgents and shiite death squads.

 

3) The media really isn't reporting anything different than the CIA, state department or the Baker Iraq Study Group is. The place is a disaster and that's the story. But I guess they are all idiots, too. Sure are a lot of idiots out there

 

4) Cheney most definently has a personal motive, that being to pass this quagmire on to the next Administartion and washing his hands of the affair. Everything he is doing has that goal, from villifying the media, to claiming "last throes" and "Enormous Progress." Delay the inevitable just long enough. Murder

[bobblehead]

That was not one of Wolf Blitzer's better moments, but the Republican Party's past reputation for speaking with "one voice" is suffering greatly these days.

[KD in CA]

Oh dear, another ignorant drive by troll with no opinion about anything

 

I have an opinion about hysterical leftists who spam message boards with cut and paste nonsense yet offer nothing intelligent or insightful of their own. Want to hear it?

[Alaska Darin]

Shouldn't he have arealistic opinion of Iraq? Seeing a positive in that mess is sheer delusion. And Cheney's daughter was fair game when this administration ran a gay bashing campaign in 2004 and really probably won the presidency with it.

Your opinion, of course, is based on all the time you've spent on the ground over there.

[Alaska Darin]

1) Yes, Because the people--unlike you--see that Iraq is a disaster and something needs to be done. I guess you would argue that the media has brainwashed the public or something and that only people like you see the truth as professed by "last throes" Cheney. I guess Rummy was just a victim of the media, so sad.

 

2) Great, some sparcely populated areas of homogenous inhabitants are getting along fine while the biggest city in the country needs a surge of troops to try and restore some semblamce of order. If there was "Enormous Progress" what's the point of the Surge? And could this "growing economy" be like South Vietnam's, fueled by American tax payers dollars? Those billions and billions of dollars have to have some effect, aside from funding the insurgents and shiite death squads.

 

3) The media really isn't reporting anything different than the CIA, state department or the Baker Iraq Study Group is. The place is a disaster and that's the story. But I guess they are all idiots, too. Sure are a lot of idiots out there

 

4) Cheney most definently has a personal motive, that being to pass this quagmire on to the next Administartion and washing his hands of the affair. Everything he is doing has that goal, from villifying the media, to claiming "last throes" and "Enormous Progress." Delay the inevitable just long enough. Murder

What will be the long term ramifications of leaving Iraq in the next six months/year/18months without a stable government in place, oh regurgitator of retardia?

 

PS. When I ask "long term", the period covers a minimum of a decade.

[molson_golden2002]

What will be the long term ramifications of leaving Iraq in the next six months/year/18months without a stable government in place, oh regurgitator of retardia?

 

PS. When I ask "long term", the period covers a minimum of a decade.

Probably the same thing if we stayed a decade. We stayed in Haiti for 22 years 'nation building', its still a sh!thole. And Iraq is ten times worse

[SilverNRed]

1) Yes, Because the people--unlike you--see that Iraq is a disaster and something needs to be done.

"Something" needs to be done! SOMETHING! I can't believe we didn't think of that before. We should do "Something"!

What an incredible plan! Alert the Pentagon!

 

While we're at it, we should do "something" to fix Buffalo's economy and "something else" to cure cancer.

Sure are a lot of idiots out there

I know. Oh God how I know......

 

4) Cheney most definently has a personal motive, that being to pass this quagmire on to the next Administartion and washing his hands of the affair. Everything he is doing has that goal, from villifying the media, to claiming "last throes" and "Enormous Progress." Delay the inevitable just long enough. Murder

Yeah, that "definently" makes sense. Cheney wants to keep Iraq in really bad shape for the next administration because that will make him look better.

 

I like how you give Cheney motives that wouldn't make sense to anyone in the world.

[Alaska Darin]

Probably the same thing if we stayed a decade. We stayed in Haiti for 22 years 'nation building', its still a sh!thole. And Iraq is ten times worse

Thanks for putting in all the effort.

 

The answer to the question goes far beyond nation building, though I'm not surprised that's all you could come up with.

[molson_golden2002]

Your opinion, of course, is based on all the time you've spent on the ground over there.

No Dar Dar, its based on the assesments of other who have been on the ground over there, from CIA officials, SWtate Department officials, James Baker, reporters, military officers, etc.

[RkFast]

Forget about what one thinks of the war.

 

To insinuate that one of the key leaders of a Country, in a time of war or ANY time, should be EXPECTED to do anything LESS than put the best foot forward, and do everything in his or her power to motivate the Country towards the goals of that Country's leadership is the most mindless, comical, ridiculous thing Ive ever heard.

 

A leader who does anything LESS that go full bore towards accomplishing his or her objectives is derelict in her or her duties.

[molson_golden2002]

Thanks for putting in all the effort.

 

The answer to the question goes far beyond nation building, though I'm not surprised that's all you could come up with.

Do tell us Dar Dar, do what beyond nation building?