A White House spokesperson said the violence in Iraq is limited to Baghdad.Any thought about that?

If that is so, what is White House' explanation for our soldiers getting killed in the rest of Iraq ?

I sincerely doubt that was what he said, because although there has been significant violence in Baghdad of late, it has never been limited to Baghdad, not in the least. In this information age, why would you say something that could be checked so quickly to be not accurate? And why would you not add a link?

As for the inane comment that insurgents control the rest of Iraq, it seems unreal that with the web, people could still remain ignorant of the simplest of facts. The insurgency is only in areas with Sunnis, and is mostly confined to 3 provinces. The rest of Iraq is relatively quiet.

Frankly, I think all the answers about Iraq are skewed.

The US military doesn't want to sound negative.

The White House doesn't want to send a negative message. Media reporters want to get the Pulitzer and will lie and alter information. And then, the terrorists, who want their information to sound like they are saints to the Muslim world.

And as the world turns we continue to buy into all the propaganda as if it were gospel and was truth itself from God.

Blogs, great news sources and letters home, the factual truth is only as good as the person who's reading or listening to it.... Just ask Dan Rather.

Yes.

The White House LIES

There are several provinces where life is peaceful. The media rarely talks about it because there's no 'blood' to be reported.

True, because the insurgents control the remainder of Iraq, and there is no need to fight.

That person's head was stuck in their Azz, I guess the troops being killed in Mosul, Basrah, Fallujah to name a few must be killing themselves.

Taking comments out of context to fuel ones own anger is not serving oneself very well or wisely

dave

When is comes to Bush and company: Lips moving = lies.

Why don't you run over there and check it out for us?