Iraq Vets vs "Liberal" Media

[Dr Dave]

You would never know it to read the New York Times, but the Iraq Veterans Against The War held a conference over the weekend. The Washington Post did provide coverage; it even made the front page of the B section. Read it here.

The Post was careful to give coverage to anti- anti-war demonstrators, as well. After all, something like one in five Americans still support the war in Iraq. (Sometimes I walk up Biltmore Avenue towards downtown and wonder who they are.)

[Scott Dolan]

Actually, I saw some CNN polls over the weekend that show the number of supporters is up much higher than it had been. I would assume that's mostly because the media has been selling this "well, the surge does seem to be working" horseshit to the general public.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Actually, I saw some CNN polls over the weekend that show the number of supporters is up much higher than it had been. I would assume that's mostly because the media has been selling this "well, the surge does seem to be working" horseshit to the general public.

I think that's the case, Scott. Usually left out of the "surge is working" stories is the millions we've distributed in bribes to Sunni warlords, our arming of Sunni militias, the ceasefire with Shi'a militias, and how we're going to sustain such military action over time.

[Gary Sisco]

More than that, what's missing is any goal by which "working" could be measured or even defined.

*What* is working? What's the goal? How do we know? Working to do what?

Americans use this word "working" or "what works" as if its understood.

It's not.

[Scott Dolan]

Or the complete inaction from the Iraqi "government", which was the whole fucking reason for the surge.

But yes, the bribes. My haven't they been swept neatly under the carpet?

[Gary Sisco]

Hell, twice, now, someone's walked off with *billions* in cash.

It's amazing really, what people will find to get worked up about and what not to even notice or remember.

[Noj]

On Yahoo this morning there was some headline about "hope in Iraq" with a link just below it for "suicide bomber kills 43."

[Gary Sisco]

It do get absurd.

The really idiot thing to me is the focus on Baghdad, as if in this kind of war there's anything strategic about the capital city. There isn't.

Sounds great on tv. Might even be very relatively true. Nevertheless, in Iraq itself, as opposed to Harry TelevisionViewer's living room, both politically and militarily irrelevant.

[Root Doctor]

McClatchy had a great headline yesterday:

Cheney cites 'phenomenal' Iraqi security progress as bombing kills 40

It's nice to see the VP getting the respect he deserves.

[Gary Sisco]

I thought it hilarious that the admin front group "Vets For Freedom" managed to pull a whole couple of hundred people to Washington for a demonstration.

Man, that's impressive. All the resources of God's ex-wife and all they can manage is hundreds.

[Gentle Giant]

Who'll be the last person to die for this mistake?

Who was the last person to die for the last mistake?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Hell, twice, now, someone's walked off with *billions* in cash.

It's amazing really, what people will find to get worked up about and what not to even notice or remember.

What the hell. It's only your money kiddo.:

Wouldn't you rather hear how good the security is in Iraq after the surge?
Wouldn't you rather hear how great the economy will be....................soon?
Wouldn't you rather know what should offend you, if you weren't actually offended?
What's wrong with you?
And on it goes......................

[rollhead]

"With 1968," General William Westmoreland said, speaking before the National Press Club in Washington, "a new phase is starting .. we have reached an important point where the end begins to come into view." In a televised news conference, he used the phrase "light at the end of the tunnel" to describe improved U.S. fortunes, repeating almost word- for-word a prognostication made by French General Henri Navarre in May of 1953.

[Gary Sisco]

Don't worry, Pat. The gubmint's going to "give" us each a few hundred of our own dollars pretty soon. They just sent out a 42 million dollar (borrowed, plus interest, that we'll have to pay back) mailing telling us so.

If people are smart, they'll use the money for the coming tax *increases* that can't help but follow.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

The major problem is that newspapers and cable news are concentrating on the primaries and the economy. Most Iraq news doesn't even show up on the front page, it's relegated to page A18 in most rags.

Out of sight, out of mind.

[Scott Dolan]

Yep, that's exactly what has happened.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by rollhead

repeating almost word- for-word a prognostication made by French General Henri Navarre in May of 1953.

That was before what Johnson referred to as "din bin foo".

[Dr Dave]

Terri Gross interviewed Charles Sennot (former foreign correspondent for the Boston Globe) about Iraq today, and Sennot pointed out that David Petraeus has learned at least one thing from Viet Nam: He has never used the phrase "light at the end of the tunnel" and has carefully avoided making predictions about what is going to happen in Iraq. You can hear the interview here.

[LennyH]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Out of sight, out of mind.

A recent poll showed that only 28% (IIRC) of americans realize that almost 4,000 american soldiers have died in Iraq. Sad.

[Gary Sisco]

The LA Times now just has a "military deaths" section at its obit section. Only very rarely is anyone military's name listed, as was the case to begin with.

It's too easy to focus entirely on the dead, though, as it gives a false picture of the violence if the focus isn't wider. (And there are fates worse than death.) The KIA number is always the smallest percentage of casualty figures, as many more get wounded than killed, especially American casualties, many of whom are not KIA solely because of the helicopter making it possible to get treated very quickly, in most cases. There are more than 70,000 wounded and maimed, and hundreds of thousands of walking wounded with real psychological damage. (Plus many more Iraqi dead and wounded -- hundreds of thousands -- not to mention homeless.)

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by LennyH

A recent poll showed that only 28% (IIRC) of americans realize that almost 4,000 american soldiers have died in Iraq. Sad.

Bet the percentage is less for how many realize (even approximately) the far greater number of how many innocent Iraqis have been killed.

[Gary Sisco]

This is a measure, whatever else can be said, of how the people are done with this war and have been for a goodly while now. Pols who misread this will feel pain accordingly.

[Root Doctor]

At least John McCain's keeping us informed about the mighty Iran/Al-Qaeda link.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Bet the percentage is less for how many realize (even approximately) the far greater number of how many innocent Iraqis have been killed.

I would say that has more to do with the wildly varying numbers. Do you go by the numbers from Iraq Body Count, or the Lancet phone-in survey? Or somewhere in between?

[Brian Olewnick]

I'd imagine in between, probably tending more toward the 85,000 of Iraq Body Count than the 600,000+ of Lancet. But arguing numbers over something like this is horrible. I don't think it's the (necessarily) unverified total but more that it's rarely mentioned at all in the mainstream media, certainly only a tiny fraction of the amount of times the US death total is. It'd be rather refreshing if, say, at the end of a newscast, one heard solemnly intoned, "This brings to 3,913 the number of American servicemen killed in Iraq and [insert number here] innocent Iraqis killed by US armed forces."

[LennyH]

It's pretty sad but I don't know that there will ever me a more accurate count than iraqbodycount.com.

At first thought, it would seem that iraqbodycount would have at least some duplication that might make you think their count is high. But it's also important to consider that some deaths might not be reported anywhere.

The phone survey number is absurd. About as unscientific as you can get.

[LennyH]

Yeah, Brian, it's hard to imagine how the american deaths could be more ignored. It's really sad. The News Hour does their honor roll, which shows pictures and a bio for each soldier that dies. I haven't see any other source that goes that far.

And if less than a 3rd of Americans realize that almost 4,000 americans have died, I wonder how clueless they are to the number of Iraqi deaths. Most people honestly don't give a shit.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by LennyH

The phone survey number is absurd. About as unscientific as you can get.

Head on over to the O and try arguing that point.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Head on over to the O and try arguing that point.

There it is.

[LennyH]

I just ran across an article in The Atlantic called "Body Counting".

It says that the WHO has since done a much larger study than the Lancet study (which, in addition to using questionable methods, was almost too small to be significant) and they used more rigorous interview methods. The UN did a larger study as well. Both found that Lancet's 601K number was about 4 times too high.