Letters to the Editor
-
V-Day!
I'm going to Times Square tonight. I hope I can find a cute chick to kiss. I promise to post a photo.
Thank you pro-war pundits!
-
Iraq poll
Ah, but Brooks et al., use the HUALTV pundit class poll.
HUALTV = Head up ass, love the view.
-
Maybe their audience has shrunk.
You know, like - to the size of their own internal dialogue. and they wish REALLY hard, that the war DIDN'T matter. To them.
-
Maybe their audience has shrunk.
You know, like - to the size of their own internal dialogue. and they wish REALLY hard, that the war DIDN'T matter. To them.
-
Three cheers for the LLLLO's
Or the Lazy, Lying Lapdogs of the Larcenous Oligopoly.
-
propagandists
GG:
... But here we see self-interested propagandists like Peter Beinart and David Brooks not merely dismissing public opinion as irrelevant, but just brazenly distorting it, ...
You are describing American history, Glenn. The press has always given us war; after all, that has always sold newspapers. The MSM sees our 'national interest' (and their own) as continual war or oppression of 'the other' around the world. Your words here today just highlight that truth.
The MSM's job is not to deliver the facts or the truth; and it never has been.
-
or should that be LLLL's
the Lazy Lapdogs of the Larcenous Liars?
-
So is it over or not over?
EB writes:
[quote]Second, Kurtz contacted Klein but never pressed him on a single fact. Instead, Kurtz simply relayed Klein's quote: "I made a mistake, I corrected it and it's over."[/quote]
As far as 99% of the media is concerned, this is a non-story and to the extent it was it is over. Moving right along ...
I'm afraid this is the price we pay for a free press.
-
Sorry, can't "master the medium"
And I can't read, either.
-
Code Words
not merely dismissing public opinion as irrelevant, but just brazenly distorting it, all in order to align public opinion with their own desires
Isn't that what the Establishment means when it says it is doing all these terrible things in the name of "National Interests", i.e. the agenda of the elites?
-
Go America! Rah!
So victory has been redefined again? If nobody cares about The War, America wins! Chickenhawks unite!
-
This is strategy?
Why is it that no pundit ever states the obvious...sure, probably violence has gone down with the addition of tens of thousands of additional troops (and who knows about mercenaries.) I'll bet if we had 250,000 troops there, violence would "go down" even more. And with 500,000 troops, probably even more. What about a million? If we had 2 million troops there I'll be we could really "accomplish" our "mission" in record time. Now, tell me again what all the high powered high priced talent in Washington is doing for their money and medals and lucrative post-service book deals? The solution is "more troops." That's what every war advocate from pundit to President is basically saying.
-
Our "free" press has never been truly objective
Noam Chomski long ago said that our press would be the envy of any totalitarian regime because, unlike Pravda, it could plausibly pretend to be free and objective. Guys like Kurtz and Klein may well be doing us a favour by making the true nature of our press plain as day.
-
They *could* have a point, but not for reasons based in the American public's concerns
How much of a role the ongoing occupation of Iraq plays in the 2008 election isn't just decided by the public's own concerns.
If the Democrats avoid it as an issue, perhaps because they're listening once more to Beinart / Brooks / Klein types, or perhaps they personally believe Teh SURGE(TM)!! narrative, then it is not a 2008 issue.
And there is also a possible extent to which the American public gets the message that nothing you, the American people, try to do on Iraq seems to matter. You completely overthrow the Republican Congress which has mostly been running things for 12 years, and nothing happens. Your concerns about Iraq are treated as filthy and bothersome by a Democratic Party leadership concerned with some as yet unknown "other", more important items.
So, yes, if a number of the candidates for office give a big public damn about what ordinary Americans care about, then, yes, Iraq will be a huge issue in the 2008 elections.
But if no one is willing to do so -- or maybe even if they simply aren't believed any more, which seems also possible to me -- then Iraq may not seem to be a prominent electoral issue.
Of course, all this analysis by the experts is also based on a simple extrapolation that the current trends in some areas of Iraq will continue forever. And that may partly depend on the actions of Moqtada al-Sadr's own factions, which may themselves either revert their ceasefire or through factional frustrations break apart into an even bigger mess than imagined.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1211/p01s06-wome.html
-
Take that, America Haters
Looks like we've won the war. All that is left is for Fearless Leader to hop aboard an aircraft carrier wearing a pseudo-military uniform and declaring Mission Accomplished!
America, fuck yeah!
Comin' again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!
America, fuck yeah!
Freedom is the only way, yeah!
Terrorists, your game is through, 'cause now you have to answer to
America, fuck yeah!
So lick my butt and suck on my balls!
America, fuck yeah!
What you gonna do when we come for you now!
-
Yeah Chris Skinard
Yeah you the Katz' azz.
You sound like my mother.
-
The data seems less obvious than this
Question 3: 25% of those polled said Iraq (defined as Iraq+war)was the most important issue facing the country. That's clearly the highest (2x the economy), but not consensus by any means. Also, it's down substantially from late last year.
Question 78: Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?
54% should have stayed out, 41% right thing.
A majority, but not an overwhelming majority.
Question 80: I don't think you're accurately summarizing the data. First of all, the question is about "large numbers of US troops," so it's not clear what the withdrawal answers mean (get them all out, get some out, etc.). Also, 51% do say that we should withdraw within one year or "now," but 45% are willing to stay at least one more year, so there's no clear support for "get out now." The 8% you cite is for the "as long as it takes," but there's also 6% for "longer than 5 years" and 7% for 2-5 years.
Bottom line, Iraq's important to the electorate, but the expectations, and the importance, at least from this poll, seem to be less overwhelming than you're implying.