8.29.2005

People With Tie to Iraq War Back It

A recent poll shows the story that the majority of the mainstream media is not telling. People who know someone fighting the war in Iraq are more likely to support the war. Hmmmm. You mean Cindy Sheehan doesn't really speak for military families? She's actually does not represent a majority of families? Wow. The way she's become the darling of the mainstream media, you would never know.

"He talked about all the good things that are going on," said Chittum, a school superintendent and a political independent who supports the war effort. "Schools are opening up. The people are friendly, wanting our help. You get a whole different spin from what you get on television."

The poll reveals that those who know someone serving in Iraq were more likely to approve of the Bush administration's conduct of the war -- 44 percent, compared to 37 percent overall. That is, more people believe what their husbands, brothers and sons tell them than believe the "quagmire" spin on the evening news. More people are also reading alternative sources, like Michael Yon's excellent reporting of the play-by-play of the war we get nowhere else.

With re-enlistment rates higher than they've been, it appears to me that those most closely entrenched in this war continue to stand behind the president and believe in the cause. I wish we would trust their judgment in the way we count on them to fight for and defend our right to speak freely for or against the war, or any other issue.

It's been said that there are two sides (at least) to every story. If those who give Cindy Sheehan the media attention she has received in the last few weeks gave even a fraction of that time to families who've lost loved ones and remain steadfast in their support of the war and the president, I believe that the general population might not be as agitated.

I don't really expect everyone to chant the "fair and balanced" mantra. I just would love a telling of both sides, simply and truthfully.

23 Comments:

At 8/29/2005 11:48:00 AM, Blogger mlwhitt said...

Great writeup Lores.

Unfortunely we will see Arabs and Jews hugging and kissing in the streets before we will ever get any true fair and balanced coverage from the majority of the media.

I still for the life of me can't understand why Casey's own letters to his mother of his support of Bush and the war haven't recieved any coverage on the networks at all. Oh wait, because that goes against their agenda of putting the Left and their spokepeople on a pedestal.

People complain about how reality tv is staged and that the producers film what the reality stars do and say out of context to get higher ratings. But then they will turn on CNN and believe whatever they are fed as being unbiased truth.

Frankly there really is no such thing as fair and balanced though. Even with Fox (and I believe that they actually do try to be fair) ratings still are the name of the game.

I get so tired of hearing about Bush wagging the dog, when that's all the Media does. They wag the dog to hide the fact that they are too scared to trust that the American people might actually want to hear the truth.

And where is the ACLU in all of this? Imagine if instead of soliders it was liberal citizens that had their names being used without their permission to support something that they didn't believe. Yet I don't hear the ACLU taking up for the soliders and their families when Sheehan and bunch put up crosses with fallen soliders names on them to support their cause.

I am sick of Cindy Sheehan. I am at the point that I don't even care that she lost a son, because I bet you Casey wouldn't even claim her as his mother at this point. There are hundreds of other parents that have lost their sons and daughters, with the vast majority believing in what they died for. Isn't it about time they got equal coverage that they too deserve? Not if you ask CNN it isn't.

 
At 8/29/2005 12:04:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

I read that there were about 1,000 candlelight vigils the other night in support of Cindy Sheehan's protest. Each one of these vigils had about 100 or less people. That means less than 100,000 people nationwide are so strongly opposed to the war as to stay up and allow themselves to be counted.

The figures are non existent of how many Americans support the war, but it is generally known, despite what the Network news people say, that the majority support the war.

Between them are the people that either have no opinion or don't voice it. They are the majority.

Overall I think America supports the war, but wishes it were over and the troops at home.

 
At 8/29/2005 01:39:00 PM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I agree Mark. The majority of Americans don't want to lose; they don't want to turn this into another Vietnam. But I do have some doubts as to whether or not the majority of Americans have the constitution to weather the bad news and see this through. That's why I find it important to provide alternative news sources to counterbalance the mainstream ones. Most of the rich, Jewish clients I have here in Los Angeles are older folk, and they are lifelong Democrats. They are pretty well clueless as to the new media and still trust old media, tuning into your CNN and opening up the morning paper, ala LA and NY Times.

 
At 8/29/2005 02:32:00 PM, Blogger Doug said...

Half of those with relatives in Iraq support the war; half don't. That's what that poll says. Where did "vast majority" come from?

Mark, figures are not only not non-existent, they are legion. We have poll after poll showing deteriorating support for the war. Not all of it is because of Sheehan; many people are able to see what's happening in front of their faces.

That families with people in Iraq in harm's way would want to believe, in larger numbers, that their loved ones aren't there for no good and true reason at all is absolutely to be expected.

However, I see no evidence that "most Americans" (is the Silent Majority back?) are for the war in this poll, or any of the others I've seen recently. Up until recently, yes, that was the case -- regardless of my opinion. One must separate opinion from fact.

Nantucket: sounds like your "rich, Jewish" (?) clients actually read newspapers, rather than depend solely on 24-hour newschannels, which, as mlwhitt points out, are concerned pretty much with infotainment, whether left or right.

Anyway, if reality turns against your ideology, you might want to rethink your ideology -- or at least the specific position you were holding.

How many more lives -- American and Iraqi and any kind (we're all equal in God's eyes, no?) -- is this worth? 10,000? 50,000? As prolife folks, what's your acceptable body count, and what will all that death accomplish?

 
At 8/29/2005 02:42:00 PM, Blogger Doug said...

"Those who had a relative or friend there were almost evenly split, 49 percent right decision, 47 percent mistake."

Margin of error?

"The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Ergo: a 50-50 split, for all intents an purposes. As the article said, as opposed to "people with tie to Iraq war back it," which implies a "vast majority," if not, strictly speaking, 100%.

Interestingly, and more relevantly, I think:

"Among the strongest supporters of President Bush's handling of the war were Republicans and evangelicals, men and especially suburban men. Those most likely to feel the Iraq war was the right decision were whites, especially younger whites, those with some college or a college degree, Southerners, suburbanites, Protestants and Republicans."

 
At 8/29/2005 06:59:00 PM, Blogger William said...

I have always been quite upset at the more than obvious bias of the liberal media. I suppose whenever there's an agenda that needs to be pushed, we can always count on them. I actually think it's great that Cindy has gotten the publicity that she has with her seemingly ineffective protests (sarcasm). I find it amazing, however, that CNN takes the protests elevating them to the level to which they have become. Honestly, who cares? It appears that CNN does; therefore, they find it necessary to compel their viewers to care.

Regarding the war, I ask this question: "When are we ever going to agree that our military should be utilized?" Every soldier knows what he or she is committing to when the papers are signed. We do not have a draft, so the soldiers who are involved have chosen to be involved while understanding the risks. Nevertheless, these soldiers get paid to do a job. I say we allow them to complete their objectives, and then they should be allowed to return home - after their job is complete.

I must say that I am sickened to hear anti-war protests and discussions because it shows our blatant lack of appreciation for the men and women who sacrifice themselves 24 hrs a day for our sake. My grandfather flew into Normandy in WWII; then years later he returned to a glorious celebration. How unfortunate is it going to be for our men and women who may not even receive a "Thank You card"?

Final thought: I am in full support of the war as a black male who's not even a republican. I guess I should never expect interviewed by CNN. I suppose they'll come up with another exciting story such as Terry Shavo or Cindy Sheehan to fill in the time slot (sarcasm).

 
At 8/29/2005 07:48:00 PM, Blogger shelbymiddleton said...

bam! what a haunting and wise perspective, William. And a great point as well about letting the soldiers complete the job they signed up for.

 
At 8/29/2005 08:20:00 PM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Nantucket: sounds like your "rich, Jewish" (?) clients actually read newspapers, rather than depend solely on 24-hour newschannels, which, as mlwhitt points out, are concerned pretty much with infotainment, whether left or right.

Doug, you make quite a few assumptions without even knowing me. I follow the LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, and although I'm not a fan of news tv, I go back and forth between CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. I also love Meet the Press and 60 Minutes. But old media is largely left of center. Understand?

And because so many follow these news outlets, which "if it bleeds, it leads" (and also "liberal slant", is it any wonder morale for the war is in the negative? Why don't you actually listen to what most of the soldiers themselves are saying? They paint a very different picture. And it is very condescending to think that these brave men and women are helpless pawns or don't know any better. Unlike you, many believe in the goodness of what they are accomplishing over there. And there is much to be proud of.

More things went wrong in the Revolutionary War and in WWII than went right. Its people like you who Osama referred to when he called America a "paper tiger" that has no stomach for war and can't suffer losses.

Tell me....what would the long-term price have been had we not engaged in this aggressive war on terrorism? How many hundreds of thousands have already suffered because we waited this long, looking for pacifist solutions?

I believe the status quo would ultimately have cost us lives in the millions, and not just U.S. lives.

 
At 8/29/2005 09:13:00 PM, Blogger void said...

Here's therest of the story.

Great post, thanx!

 
At 8/29/2005 10:59:00 PM, Blogger Jamie Dawn said...

Well, crud! I posted a comment and it didn't go through.
I'm not going to re-write it.
Let me just say that even if Doug is correct about the 50-50 thing, I'd LOVE to see the media give 50% of their time devoted to those who support the war and President Bush and the other 50% devoted to those who oppose it. Can you even imagine seeing a newscast like that? It would be grrreat!

 
At 8/30/2005 03:05:00 AM, Blogger Mark said...

I neglected to mention. Less than 100,000 people are openly against the war, and there are 250 million plus people in the United states, that means less than 1 out of 250,000 are openly against the war. Even allowing for the possibliluty that there are lots more who are against it than what is on the surface, there is still a wide disparity. Polls can be manipulated to prove whatever the poll takers want to convey.

 
At 8/30/2005 03:46:00 AM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

Lores, your point is taken that there is higher support for the war and Bush's handling of it among people who know someone there, according to this poll. But do you honestly think that the numbers presented are indicative of a ringing endorsement? 49%-47% in support of the war, and only 44% approving of Bush's handling of it? I'm not a big fan of citing popularity polls as an indication of what's right and wrong, but since you brought it up you should make a honest assessment of what these numbers mean. When you compare them to the general population, it's still bad versus worse.

 
At 8/30/2005 03:59:00 AM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

you make quite a few assumptions without even knowing me...

Tell me....what would the long-term price have been had we not engaged in this aggressive war on terrorism?

-Wordsmith


As one of your heroes would say, there you go again. Blur the line between Iraq and the GWOT. And assume that everybody opposed to the action in Iraq is opposed to the war on terrorism. Apparently it's easier for you to take the position of "You either support Bush's way or you're with the terrorists" than to reasonably debate the argument that maybe, just maybe, there are more effective ways to skin a cat.

 
At 8/30/2005 04:35:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

Doug and Jaymeister, good question. Where did "vast majority" come from? Not me, my friends. That came from Doug.

Here's what I said:
She's actually does not represent a majority of families? Wow. The way she's become the darling of the mainstream media, you would never know.

My point is the same as Jaime's. You'd never realize that she doesn't represent all military families based on the air time she and anti-war actitivist get as compared with the virtual silence on the other side of the spectrum of military families.

 
At 8/30/2005 05:03:00 AM, Blogger Jamie Dawn said...

This is just part of a long back and forth between Doug and I at his site: cyberpols.blogspot.com
This came under the post called: Bush says Sheehan Weakens America. This is just one of my comments that I think fits very well in this discussion here:

"...Analyze the heck out of it, but look at what needs to be done now. What's the best course of action?
We have an opporunity to break the back of terror by defeating this hornet's nest that is being fueled by Syria and Iran, and they have the chance (should we weaken) for a great victory against us which would only serve to breed more terrorists. I see no good scenario for pulling out of Iraq too soon. I see the possiblility for some incredibly good things to happen should we stay, see them though to a stable end.
How many soldiers are worth that? Your question is a provocative one and should be asked of every war or conflict we've ever engaged in. I don't think any general has answered that going in to a war, because it's the objective that one always looks at.
I cannot give you a number.
I would pose the question to the soldiers themselves. See what they have to say about it. Their number would satisfy me.
Ask them if they want to complete their mission in Iraq.
Ask them if they think they even have a valid mission.
Ask them how long they are willing to stay there to complete their mission.
Ask them if they are willing to continue risking their lives for it. Their answers will satisfy me.
Not the answers of a handful of fringe soldiers that you may be able to find links to and some anti-war quotes from. I mean the majority of soldiers.
I'd like to see a completely unbiased, honest report of what the majority of our soldiers really want and think.
I'd be inclined to side with them since they are taking the heat, the brunt of this war, as well as their families."

 
At 8/30/2005 06:13:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

Jaime: Excellent. Well said! Nothing to add.

 
At 8/30/2005 07:26:00 AM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

As one of your heroes would say, there you go again. Blur the line between Iraq and the GWOT.

It is part of the greater war. Or do you not consider Saddam's regime a state that openly sponsored terrorism?

And we had every justifiable reason to enforce those UN Resolutions against a dictator who has always been a threat to civilization and whose sons looked to be cut of the same cloth.


And assume that everybody opposed to the action in Iraq is opposed to the war on terrorism. No. You have me mixed up with someone else apparently.

There are legitimate arguments against the need for having gone into Iraq. But those arguments that are sound, get lost in the rantings against President Bush, to the point that liberals cannot separate their hatred of President Bush and where they think he's led this country, from the need for the U.S. to succeed now that we are there.

How can anyone not hope that Iraq will succeed? Other than the fact that it will consequently probably make President Bush look as if he were right?

Apparently it's easier for you to take the position of "You either support Bush's way or you're with the terrorists" than to reasonably debate the argument that maybe, just maybe, there are more effective ways to skin a cat.


It's like you're arguing with someone else. Sure, any other assumptions you want to heap onto me? I guess you're not reading exactly what I've written here, or are reading more into my post than what is there. I know all us Republicans look alike to you, but can't you just pretend to be able to distinguish me as a unique and special Republican? ;)

There is a responsible way to dissent and disagree and one that I find gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Dick Durbin and Jane Fonda are examples of the irresponsible way.

 
At 8/30/2005 04:13:00 PM, Blogger Doug said...

Nantucket:

I made assumptions about you at all. Just asked a question and made an observation.

I fail to see the point of going into Iraq. Many others are beginning to see that, finally. As for liberal media bias, this President has gotten a free ride for so long, I guess increasing questions is deemed "liberal."

So, I fail to see the point of THIS war. I am not a pacifist. Neither was Orwell -- and he went and got shot through the throat in Spain to fight fascism. He was a democratic socialist, and anti-totalitarian, to the end. If you're for this cause, why haven't you joined up? Go volunteer.

I also don't see the logic of "oh, don't worry about the reasons for being in Iraq -- 1900 of ours have died, so to leave dishonors them, and to even demonstrate against the war dishonors them." I would say they were dishonored by being sent by a bunch of rich suits into a war of choice that was unnecessary.

I'd love to see some factual basis, given the total lack of WMDs and links to terrorists in Baathist secular hobbled Iraq, of your counterfactual worry of millions of American deaths.

Pakistan has WMDs, including nuclear weapons. Huge swaths of its military and ISI are sympathetic to al-Qaida. Their madrasas are spreading Islamist (not Islamic) ideology. Their top nuclear scientist has given away nuclear secrets to all comers. Given the logic of invading Iraq, why haven't we invaded Pakistan? Cogitate upon that.

As for Jamie's post, are you suggesting a private referendum among active-duty armed forces in Iraq? I'm all for it. I'm also all for a mandatory draft and following the obvious Constitutional mandate for the Congress to declare war. You are all strict constructionists, right?

For those who still believe that Iraq supported al-Qaida, please post actual data. I'm reality-based; I don't take things on faith or notions of loyalty.

 
At 8/30/2005 04:19:00 PM, Blogger Doug said...

One thing, Lores: your post title was: "People With Tie to Iraq War Back It."

Now, that's not true, and that's where I started with my critique.

As for getting the "other side," you guys must watch Fox, no? It's nonstop support of the "other side."

I think we are now finally getting some balance.

By the way, Camp Casey invited "the other side" for dinner over the weekend. Not sure what happened, but I would say that is a good idea and indicative of the spirit in that camp (pun intended).

I think the fairest statement is that this country is split down the middle not only on Iraq but also on a number of other fundamental issues. Thus, we should all be trying to talk to each other -- as we are now doing.

 
At 8/30/2005 04:53:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

Doug, i guess i should have put the title in quotes. It was the title of the article.

One cable news channel does not make up for the imbalance in the mainstream media.

 
At 8/30/2005 05:05:00 PM, Blogger Doug said...

So, that was the title, which is clearly factually wrong and clearly favors a certain political view of the war, but we have a liberal bias in the media?

Virtually the entire MSM got behind Bush in 2002/early 2003. On the other hand, millions of people around the country, and even more around the world, came out in force on 2/15/03 to demonstrate against the war.

I fail to see the liberal bias, although believing there is one is useful, I guess, in some fashion.

The media, as it becomes more corporatized, is concerned with profit. Period. It is amoral, and unconcerned with politics beyond next quarter's profits. I've worked in a few largish corporations -- I've been at the Director level. I'm not, as some may think, some kind of stereotypical ivory-tower whatever. I've been in meetings where corporate strategy, branding, etc., has been discussed, quite openly. I've worked for companies who design online courses on various aspects of business, such as pricing (the McKinsey model). I've seen some stuff from the inside, is what I'm saying. It's the main reason I'm in business for myself now.

Believe you me -- no corporation cares about anything beyond next quarter's bottom line, and ensuring increasing profits for as long as possible, "externalizing" all costs onto others as much as possible.

I highly recommend renting and watching The Corporation, an excellent documentary on this dominant institution. No, they're not a bunch of commies.

 
At 8/30/2005 11:11:00 PM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8/30/2005 11:25:00 PM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I fail to see the point of going into Iraq. Many others are beginning to see that, finally.

article written before the war, mentioning the reasons for going to war.

Those "many others" you claim are beginning to see it are those who listen to your run-of-the-mill tragedy news. If it bleeds it leads, and yes *gasp*....LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS.

You guys who are in denial over it just can't see it because liberal news sounds reasonable to you.

Daniel Okrent of the New York Times said it.

Your liberal media darling, Walter Cronkite, admitted it.

My main gripe with bias is only in what should be straight news reporting deluding itself into the belief that it is reporting in a non-partisan manner.

Liberal bias is only part of the problem. The problem is twofold. The other problem is in reporting tragedies over good stories. In war, this is rather dangerous, don't you think? Our morale goes down; the enemy's goes up.

Leaders in Vietnam said they lost on the battlefield; but held onto hope, listening to the way OUR media covered the war and made the anti-war protests so vocal and in the forefront.

As for liberal media bias, this President has gotten a free ride for so long, I guess increasing questions is deemed "liberal."

No. Imbalanced and distorted news reporting is.

How exactly is this President getting "a free ride"?

So, I fail to see the point of THIS war.

Yeah, I've begun to notice that about you.

If you're for this cause, why haven't you joined up? Go volunteer.

I actually have been in contact with recruiters. The problem is, I'm over-age. It doesn't sit well with me that brave men and women are out there on our behalf while the rest of us sit comfortably at home.

But your line of reasoning is bogus. We all do our part, for the war effort. Not even the soldiers in direct harms way are all out there as combat troops. Many have a support role. That goes for the rest of us at home who send packages and help morale by believing in their mission.

I believe firefighters do a noble service. I believe police officers fighting crime do a good service. These men are in harm's way. Does that mean I'm a coward because it's their job and not mine to fight fires and fight crime? Do I need to apply to be a firefighter to believe that fires are worth fighting and risking your life for, for the good of others? We're not jack-of-all-trades my friend. Society works because we all have roles to fulfill.



I also don't see the logic of "oh, don't worry about the reasons for being in Iraq -- 1900 of ours have died, so to leave dishonors them, and to even demonstrate against the war dishonors them."

I think it's perfectly valid to question and reason over how and why we got into Iraq.

But what I don't get is the type of dissent that will only aid and comfort the enemy, demoralize our own troops who are highly motivated by all accounts. What hurts them is when they hear about people who don't believe in what they are doing over there is ultimately a good thing.

I would say they were dishonored by being sent by a bunch of rich suits into a war of choice that was unnecessary.

Have you actually talked to very many soldiers? Because I've yet to run into one who has returned from Iraq who feels as you do. And the soldiers I've listened to in the news and the military blogs I follow all indicate other than what you think and feel. Some of these guys are Democrats who feel alienated by their party over this war issue. Most of these guys don't feel like they are losing this war and don't understand the kind of news coverage you follow.

I'd love to see some factual basis, given the total lack of WMDs and links to terrorists in Baathist secular hobbled Iraq,


Hindsight is 20/20. I have a host of quotes by our leadership and leaders around the world who, before the war, believed in the threat that Saddam posed and the existence of weapons stockpiles.

I know you guys also like to cite the 9/11 Commission Report, Charles Duelfer, and David Kay, failing to pay attention to the parts in their reports that don't agree with their political conclusions.



Given the logic of invading Iraq, why haven't we invaded Pakistan?

On what grounds?! The government is an ally. Alliances are formed and broken, so if things change, they change.

We never signed a peace treaty with Iraq. We were under a cease-fire agreement with Saddam. And for 12 years, he was in clear violation of those cease-fire agreements. We had every legal and moral authority to remove him from power. You seem to think that we went in like a bully because we could, and that rather than diplomacy, why don't we just invade all these other countries as well. Well, we did try diplomacy with Iraq for 12 years. His time was up.


For those who still believe that Iraq supported al-Qaida, please post actual data. I'm reality-based; I don't take things on faith or notions of loyalty.


President Bush is often misquoted on what he actually said. But here ya go, bub.

There are many research studies you can find on media bias, if you really wanted to find them. And they are not studies all conducted by right-wing noise machines.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home