As I see in the news now, Bush is being heavily criticized for the war
in Iraq, as if it were something new. What is the true reason that
sparked all this criticism? What happened? We were all seeing the
people that were getting killed and no body said anything...Did those
politicians get all pissed off all of the sudden? Or are the Democrats
playing politics like Bush says?

What sparked all of this criticism all of the sudden? 

Thanks,

Mohammed,

Perhaps it was the reporting about the 2000th US military death in Iraq.

It has been noted that in reporting about the Iraq offensive, the
government has taken steps to avoid any pictures of bodybags or
remains being shipped home or arriving in the States or scenes of
officials' honoring the dead.

All of a sudden?  I think not.  There had been vocal criticism before
the invasion even began.

Probably the Press giving more coverage.

Regardless of overt censorship, the Press does go in for self censorship, 
- partly to protect its position, 
- partly due to ownership 
- partly because the press is generally a lot more informed than the
general public, and can put things in perspective (for example the use
of Phosphor in Faluha sounds disgusting, but it is an effective way of
clearing out fox holes, and slightly less dangerous than flamethrowers
as used in WWI and WWII)

Once things start 'getting out' then the Press is in a difficult
position, if it does not report it then it looks stupid

There is another aspect, most people with any common sense or sense of
history have long realized that Iraq was another Yugoslavia (with
added Vietnam flavouring)
- after a bit people with less common sense ... start seeing the obvious

Although 2000 deaths is significant, it pales in comparrison with
about any other war.  The troop deaths over 2 years has been
surprisingly low.  Unfortunately the mediat has put so much emphasis
on every death that it seems like all that happens is death in Iraq. 
It is very rare that I hear of the good things happening in Iraq, but
it is obvious that good things are happening as well as the bad.

Frde, you mention how Iraq is "another Yugoslavia (with added Vietnam
flavouring)".  The major difference is that about 80% of Iraqis
welcome the change in government.  The people fighting against the
US/Iraqi forces now and all along have been a very small minority of
Iraqis and many foreign fighters who are happy to take any shot at
Americans that they can.  And the major motivation of the insurgents
seems to be to cause dissention in the US, and they have been very
successful with the help of the media and politicians constantly
bashing Bush's actions in Iraq.

I have no doubt that mistakes have been made.  But I'm 100% certain
that many fewer people would be dead now if Americans didn't allow the
insurgents rule the way they think.

All of the above plus...

People have a tendency to kick you when you are down, the media is no
different. There has been mounting opposition for a while over ten
thousand dead and maimed, cost of war, lack of progress ect. ect.
however, IMO what kickstarted the media in bashing Bush was that the
GOP lost the elections in VA and NJ. To make matters worse VA has
voted republican for the last 9 out of 10 elections, this last time VA
elected Mark Warner a Democrat that INCREASED taxes turned the deficit
into a surplus and improved the standing of the state. The candidate
there Tim McCain promised to 'stay the course' and well pretty much
compared the track record of the Democrats in VA against that of the
Republicans in Washington, even though Mr. Bush came to the aid of the
republican candidate in VA he still lost. The republicans lost in a
republican state.... clearly the tide is turning, patriotism and
religion go a long way but apparently Virginia and New Jersey are
saying "if you can't govern well enough to keep us out of debt in a
growing economy, and can't win a war against a third world country,
maybe we need somebody else". The media has cought up with that and
well are for now running with it.

Soon the US will pull out of Iraq and that will give the president a
tremendous boost when he declares 'again' mission accomplished.
However, after we do that anarchy will set in and Iraq will be the new
'killing fields' and that will prove to be tremendously unpopular.
Folks will realize that we (the president) made a mistake by going in
under false pretenses, and made that mistake worse by pulling out
prematurely.

Elí


"He was a great patriot, a humanitarian, and a loyal friend;
provided, of course, he really is dead." --Voltaire

ooops that was wrong... very wrong... VA voted Democrat, Republican,
Republican,  Democrat three times prior and Republican three times
before that.

How am I to know what I'm gonna say if I haven't heard it yet?

Hmm...a number of coincident events, probably. The 2000th death of a
US soldier was possibly one of them. As others have pointed out, this
number is remarkably low when compared to other wars. However, I
suspect that what irks the press the most is that most of these deaths
took place after the President declared 'major operations' in Iraq to
be over...in 2003.

Then there is the 'I told you so' factor. A number of commentators
predicted that the US would face a prolonged and determined insurgency
in Iraq - which is precisely what happened. There is a growing sense
that the administration ignored warnings from military experts, and
decided to press ahead with an ill-conceived and poorly executed plan.

Also, I suspect that the recent indictment of a senior White House
official is causing some panic in the administration. True, Mr.
Libby's charges are really not that serious - but the trial (if it
goes ahead) could see both Karl Rove and Dick Cheney facing
uncomfortable questions under oath. And since they are not technically
on trial, they cannot plead the fifth amendment (I think). Although
the trial centers around the leak of a CIA agent, we need to remember
that the leak was allegedly in retaliation for Mr. Wilsons criticism
of the administration's use (or misuse) of intelligence leading up to
the war. If so, that could have serious implications for the
administration, up to and including impeachment of both the President
and the Vice-President.

@jack_of_few_trades-ga 

While I'me certain that 80% of Iraqis were quite keen to see the back
of Saddam, I've a strong suspicion that there is virtually no
consensus on who should be the next government.

The place is already turning into a tribal battleground and looks as
if it will split into three regimes all of which are getting rather
adept at guerilla warfare. It has also had a rather unpleasant effect
on the region.