I said it earlier, that Ted Koppel's reading of the war dead was unpatriotic because it took those deaths out of context and helped to undermine American public opinion.

This week, the LibLeft anti-war crowd lost the use of "recruiting and reenlistment goals not being met" argument to trumpet their cause. Now, they lose any credibility in parading the war death totals as a tool to undermine American resolve. It's a tough week for the anti-war, anti-America liberals.

The thoughtful, politically neutral folks over at Powerlineblog.com have offered the following:

"It is universally acknowledged that public support for the Iraq war is eroding. Some of the polls supporting this claim are faulty because they are based on obviously misleading internal data, but the basic point cannot be denied: many Americans, possibly even a majority, have turned against the war.

This should hardly be a surprise. On the contrary, how could it be otherwise? News reporting on the war consists almost entirely of itemizing casualties. Headlines say: "Two Marines killed by roadside bomb." Rarely do the accompanying stories--let alone the headlines that are all that most people read--explain where the Marines were going, or why; what strategic objective they and their comrades were pursuing, and how successful they were in achieving it; or how many terrorists were also killed. For Americans who do not seek out alternative news sources like this one, the war in Iraq is little but a succession of American casualties. The wonder is that so many Americans do, nevertheless, support it.

The sins of the news media in reporting on Iraq are mainly sins of omission. Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective, they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration's conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples' energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism. Partly this omission is due to laziness or incomprehension, but I think it is mostly attributable to the fact that if the media acknowledged that reforming the Arab world, in order to drain the terrorist swamp, has always been the principal purpose of the Iraq war, it would take the sting out of their "No large stockpiles of WMDs!" theme.

One wonders how past wars could have been fought if news reporting had consisted almost entirely of a recitation of casualties. The D-Day invasion was one of the greatest organizational feats ever achieved by human beings, and one of the most successful. But what if the only news Americans had gotten about the invasion was that 2,500 allied soldiers died that day, with no discussion of whether the invasion was a success or a failure, and no acknowledgement of the huge strategic stakes that were involved? Or what if such news coverage had continued, day by day, through the entire Battle of Normandy, with Americans having no idea whether the battle was being won or lost, but knowing only that 54,000 Allied troops had been killed by the Germans?

How about the Battle of Midway, one of the most one-sided and strategically significant battles of world history? What if there had been no "triumphalism"--that dreaded word--in the American media's reporting on the battle, and Americans had learned only that 307 Americans died--never mind that the Japanese lost more than ten times that many--without being told the decisive significance of the engagement?

Or take Iwo Jima, the iconic Marine Corps battle. If Americans knew only that nearly 7,000 Marines lost their lives there, with no context, no strategy, and only sporadic acknowledgement of the heroism that accompanied those thousands of deaths, would the American people have continued the virtually unanimous support for our country, our soldiers and our government that characterized World War II?

We are conducting an experiment never before seen, as far as I know, in the history of the human race. We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to state the obvious: being a soldier is a dangerous thing. This is why we honor our service members' courage. For a soldier, sailor or Marine, "courage" isn't an easily-abused abstraction--"it took a lot of courage to vote against the farm bill"--it's a requirement of the job.

Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.

The point? Being a soldier is not safe, and never will be. Driving in my car this afternoon, I heard a mainstream media reporter say that around 2,000 service men and women have died in Afghanistan and Iraq "on President Bush's watch." As though the job of the Commander in Chief were to make the jobs of our soldiers safe. They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime.

What is the President's responsibility? To expend our most precious resources only when necessary, in service of the national interest. We would all prefer that our soldiers never be required to fight. Everyone--most of all, every politician--much prefers peace to war. But when our enemies fly airplanes into our skyscrapers; attack the nerve center of our armed forces; bomb our embassies; scheme to blow up our commercial airliners; try to assassinate our former President; do their best to shoot down our military aircraft; murder our citizens; assassinate our diplomats overseas; and attack our naval vessels--well, then, the time has come to fight. And when the time comes to fight, our military personnel are ready. They don't ask to be preserved from all danger. They know their job is dangerous; they knew that when they signed up. They are prepared to face the risk, on our behalf. All they ask is to be allowed to win.

It is, I think, a reasonable request. It's the least that we--all Americans, including reporters and editors--can do."

http://powerlineblog.com/


I know, well documented and reasoned facts have never gotten in the way of the anti-war, Bush-hating, Blame-America-1'sters who often post here, but they've got no rope left on this one.

Just because you quote an entire article in your post doesn't mean that the logic in it is well-reasoned.

First you said this:
which shows that you agree with the Administration that American opinion is imagined to be something that is shaped by the power-brokers, and not something that is best off when it comes through allowing all the facts to be known.

Then you said this: whch shows that there's no room for discussion with you: if someone is Anti-War, they must be Anti-American, end of discussion, you'll just keep your fingers in your ears to not hear anything else they have to say.

Then you quoted an entire article which used the FOXNews \"What if...\" technique of saying, \"What if something that is roundly supported by most Americans (like the D-Day invasion) happened to be like the invasion and occupation of Iraq.\" It never went on to show any similarity between the two except that they both involved the military. Heck, that article even listed Iwo Jima and Midway in all its \"What if...\" questions that it never answered. Were you waving flags and playing Kate Smith albums while you pasted it in there?

And then, like George Bush would want it to, the article brought up to make sure the horrific events of 9/11, which had nothing to do with Iraq, could be invoked to make anyone feel like it was wrong to question the war if they bought into this line of argument.

I hope most people see that this is not an argument that supports its hypotheses with anything but circular logic.

Powerline? Hahahahahaha

Actually, if the US media was a bit less willing to bend over for the Bush Administration after 9/11, we probably wouldn't have gotten into this war in the first place. But once there, the media owes the public an obligation to tell the truth -- which it can hardly do when it gives even the biggest headlining stories fewer than two minute segments. If the media really delved into this war, its motivations, its catastrophic successes, public support for the Bush administration would likely be in single digits by now. People on the right should be grateful the media were such sheeps for so long. But now that people are waking up, you really shouldn't complain.

To compare what is happening in Iraq to WWII is a slap in the face to those veterans of that war. Our purpose was obvious then, our leader didn't lie about why we went, and most Americans supported the effort. To say that support was won only because of how the reporting was done is just asinine.

Just blaming the messengers to take the heat off the guilty.

What a waste.

How does one "undermine opinion"?

Just wondering if these words have any meaning at all?

This thread will be closed if there is any more name calling. Enough. :mad:

It seems just fine for Bush and hte republicans to "use" the deaths in the 9/11 attacks to generate an emotion, or early in the Iraq invasion the death of US soldiers to gain support, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it seems to be un-American to call the name of the dead. What's wrong with this picture? What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

I do forget though, that the republicans have the complete and total ownership of loyalty and love for this country, and they are not gonna share it!!! Only Republicans can wave a flag, only republicans can say God and America in the same sentence. All this being said, Democrats, the bastion on leftwing commies, can't say a thing that is not considered un-American and blasphemous, and the only way to make sure they don't slant the pure minds of true 'Mericans is to censor what they say.

I am sick and tired of the right wing and especially Bush expressing that his opinion is the only true opinion and that everyone who disagrees is un-'Merican and evil!!!

Even Jessica Lynch had to come back and tell the truth after DoD manaufactured her image to fit their goals. Seemed like they didn't mind using a soldier to bolster their ratings, even if they had to lie to do it.

I find it humorous that certain poster have their opinions deleted, while others can spew as much hatred as their keyboard will allow. I am sure I had something to add to this thread, but, as it was deleted Friday, I really can't recall what I said. Sorry!

On a related note, I saw photos of the pro-war rally in Texas. In the front of the photo were two young men. One wore a T-shirt with a flag that read something like "100% patriotic American" while the other carried a sign "No traitors in Texas". Aside from the fact that disagreeing with Bush, as has been stated ad nauseum, does not equal unpatriotic, let alone treason (unless you're Ann Coulter), my first thought was: what are they doing in Texas? These are young, apparently healthy, men; why aren't they in Iraq if the war is so righteous? Do they only favor wars if other people, like Casey Sheehan, die?

The Repuglican Party probably ordered them to show up. They were given special class/permission to do so.

Yes, they do. For more examples see MiMatt, PhillyFan, William/MIB. Yep, they're all for it as long as their ass is not on the line.

Ask why they dont sign up to help out a noble cause, its time to run behind mommy's skirt.

Yeah, even if you're too old or unfit, KBR will still take you. That just leaves too scared.

What is it with the argument that, if someone voices their support of the war and does not personally enlist in the armed forces, that he/she is being a hyocrite? Can't one state that they are supportive of the war effort without joining the volunteer army? If not, then anyone who supported the U.S. forces being used against the Serbians in Kosovo and who did not immediately join in on the fighting was also a hypocrite. Or anyone who felt that the U.S. should have done more in Rwanda and who didn't take the first flight to Africa was a hypocrite. The anti-war crowd (a diverse group which might include myself) has other, more logical arguments to make re: it's opposition; let's give the one about "non-enlisting hypocrits" a rest.

Are we forgetting why none of us--left and right--are in the army? We're queer, so we're not wanted.

Judemorrison, what is it with the argument that if someone is against the war, they are instantly unAmerican, Kool-Aid drinking, neo-Communists? Can't have it both ways, sailor. Either the argument you presented is correct, or the one I presented above is correct. You Rethuglicans never cease to amaze me. That finger of blame must grow tired at some point. Tell me, when will you all tire of blaming everyone else for mistakes committed and start acting like adults and accept responsiblity for your actions?

Hey Miller, I think you misread my post (or were so blinded by your zealotry that you couldn't understand what I was saying.) If you bother to go back you'll see that I never intimated that anti-war folk were anti-american or communists. What shite! And why do you assume that I'm a Republican?! Are you so close-minded that, if you get a whiff of criticism, you go on the attack mode? Read carefully before responding.

My reading skills are just fine, thank you. Please re-read my post. I was using the same, tired argument presented ad nausium by the Rethuglicans, in comparison to your post. I frankly don't care if you are Republican or Democrat. Pay particular attention to the line in my post which states either my argument is correct, or your argument is correct. The point of that sentence is that I will never be able to convince you of my beliefs about the war, nor will you ever be able to convince me of your views of this war.