there were several things that i noticed about this article that i feel i should discuss. Their use of language almost seems that we are coming off to hard to the Iraqis and they make it seem as if the primisister is ducking and dogding the American infulence. they remarked about how Bush is trying to do his daddy's work. the picture they used makes me feel as if they are trying to show how the American soliders are trying to build up the fallen world around them. very interesting media manipulation.... the people who covered this story alomst sets the pros and the cons out so that you can deside whats you feel is right and wronge, also they seem to sway you each way and keep you interested about the situation. but by using the picture and the saying about bush that he is" cleaning up and doin his daddy's work" the times is trying to pull you more towards the bush's purpose.

Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush's Foreign Policy- This title explains much about the following article saying how "Conservatives complain that the United States is hunkered down in Iraq without enough troops or a strategy to crush the insurgency." This title shows that more and more opposition grows in congress. The author uses harsh language such as "Bush administration engages in fruitless diplomacy with European allies. They believe that a perception that the administration is weak" to show the true right points of view and peoples opposition to the war and Bush's actions.

Iraq Criticism Over Handling of Executions Widened By Bush

After clicking this link it will lead you to an article in the new york times published on January 17, 2007 By Jim Rutenberg.
Jim rutenberg portrays bush on a positive side by saying that his remarks "were the most extensive yet on the executions, and they pointed up the continued tensions between Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki as they try to forge a joint plan to calm the violence plaguing Iraq". jim rutenberg also quotes bush from many of his interviews from the past week and all of the quotes that he uses show a positive view of president bush and show support for him as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This article was placed in the new york times to show the situation in Bagdad and how soldiers feel about the war. It is said that "Each United States soldier in Ramadi, in western Iraq, must fill one sandbag before dinner, to be used as part of their defense against attacks." This to me sounds ironic, which i guess is the papers goal to show just how pointless and time consuming the war really is. Bush is pictured on the side as he makes a speech. "Mr. Bush is faced with low levels of public support for his new military push and a Democratic leadership in Congress that has said it will fight him over it, he also confronts the uncomfortable prospect of foot-dragging in Baghdad over the troop increases and the benchmarks he has set for the Iraqis." Why do you think they added this into this article??????

Daily News

Click above pic for link to article.

This editorial takes the position of someone who is anti-Bush's plan for the war in Iraq. The author uses sarcasm and negative language to express how he doesn't agree with what Bush is planning to do. The author uses profane language such as "backasswards," to especially appeal to the people who read the paper, less-intelligent and more impressionable. The people who read the editorial are being manipulated and swayed to agree with the author that Bush's plans are sometimes flawed. Even though the majority of the article ridicules most of Bush's actions, the author does admit Bush has made some good moves.

good bush

In this picture from CNN.com Bush looks in charge and shows that the navy backs his poilicies because they are seen directly behind him. There is also a sign saying Mission accomplished “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. … The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”

'no end in sight'

"Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more." The Iraq war has cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, with no end in sight. We see from this quote that Bush intended the war to be long and costly. This isn't fair for tax payers, because more then half are opposed to the war evidence being the democratic take over. The republicans had enough time to at least show some progress in Iraq but have not delivered.