Posted on 04/05/2007 9:58:34 AM PDT by outofstyle
This week, the White House sent around a memo titled: “Senator Harry Reid, Then & Now.” It quoted Reid back in November saying: "We're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds" for Iraq. It then quoted Reid a few days ago saying he would co-sponsor a bill to cut off exactly such funding.
The White House’s evident goal here was to highlight Reid’s inconsistency and perhaps even suggest he has broken a solemn promise. But that misses the more salient point: Why has Reid, now Senate majority leader, shifted positions on this key issue?
The likely answer can be found in a press release by Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat and a co-sponsor of the same bill. “Congress,” he said, “has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people …” Other opponents of the mission in Iraq have been echoing this talking point as well.
We like to think of our politicians as leaders but most are followers: They do what they think the voters want them to do (that’s the smoothest path to political power), and they divine the will of those voters by reading polls.
Back in November, even after the Democrats bested Republicans in the elections, it was assumed that most Americans would be furious over any attempt to de-fund troops engaged in combat. But recent polls, taken by such organizations as Pew, CNN and the Washington Post suggest that a substantial number of voters no longer see it that way: Confidence in the possibility of salvaging a successful outcome in Iraq is running low; support for Congress legislating a specific date when American troops will come home is running high.
Should politicians come to believe there is less political risk in voting to cut off funds to soldiers on the battlefield than in supporting a war effort led by a low-polling president, many – from both parties – will cast their votes on Capitol Hill to reflect that calculation.
Few will dwell on the likely consequences of such a decision. Among them: The United States – not just President Bush -- will be seen as having been defeated. That will mean more radicalized Muslims, more volunteers for the War on the Free World. Victorious general have no trouble attracting recruits.
Iraq will undoubtedly suffer much more carnage. Those who eventually take power will not be America’s friends. Terrorist groups will make Iraq a base. What will the U.S. do to stop them?
The tactics used to defeat the U.S. in Iraq will be employed in Afghanistan as well. How many bombs will explode in how many markets, schools and police stations before the polls show most Americans ready to leave that corner of the world as well?
And then? The liberal Egyptian writer Tarek Heggy predicts that if the U.S. abandons Iraq to those now dispatching suicide bombers, by 2015 “Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan & Pakistan (at least) will be in the hands of radical Islamists with at least two nuclear powers among these countries.”
Unimaginable? Sure – just as President Clinton could not imagine that the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 would, within less than a decade, acquire the skills to turn both buildings into rubble; just as President Bush, when he unveiled that “Mission Accomplished” banner four years ago, could not imagine that the Iraq war was only just beginning.
When the U.S. went into Iraq, it was said that failure was not an option. The consequences would be too dire. Today more and more people believe failure is the only option. The consequences be damned.
If we have met our match on the mean streets of Baghdad, there is no reason to delay the inevitable. But there is now a new U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus. He is pursuing a new and different strategy. It is not just a “surge.”
Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a frequent critic of the Bush administration, recently returned from Iraq. He calls the situation there “grim” but concludes there is a “basis for hope” – indications that Petraeus and his troops may be learning to fight and win a 21st century war.
Because defeat in Iraq would, McCaffrey writes, “imperil U.S. interests for a decade or more,” he urges support “for this one last effort to succeed,” adding that it will take only till the end of summer to determine whether that is possible.
Members of Congress should consider his argument – whatever the polls show.
I agree with that. But who do the authors "hit" in the article?
We like to think of our politicians as leaders but most are followers: They do what they think the voters want them to do (that’s the smoothest path to political power), and they divine the will of those voters by reading polls.
Reading polls that are stacked to favor a predetermined outcome. A journalist quipped: "When we want your opinion we'll give it to you." I wish I could remember the name of the journalist that said that.
Quite true. Polls ask biased questions and/or give possible answer choices that are biased as well.
For example, I used to be a regular Zogby Poll participant, and a question might be:
Do you approve of Bush?
Answer choices being basically various degrees of yes/no.
Well, as a conservative, I marked Bush with low scores for reason that he was too pc in Iraq or he was too liberal on domestic policies.
But a liberal would give Bush the same low scores as I did, but for opposite reasons. That Bush was too conservative on this and that.
So, the results of the Zogby Poll (and this is not to dump on Zogby, all the big polls do similar), was that a majority of polled give Bush low marks.
The impression given by the Media was that Bush’s say, war in Iraq, was unpopular with a majority of Americans and thus we should retreat, surrender, pay reparations, or something.
The actuality was that a lot of Bush disapprovers were, disapproving of Bush for not being aggressive enough. Whether in Iraq, investigating Dem scandals (of which one needed only toss a rock into the crowd to hit a scandal), etc.
So, we live our lives based upon lies. Up is down. Night is day. Black is white.
The basic problem with U.S. society is not its form of government. It is not the train, it is the locos in the locomotive.
Do you approve how the main stream media is handling the global warming issue?
Person A responds: Disapprove (they didn't ask why but it's because the MSM aren't pushing Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, hard enough.)
Person B responds: Disapprove (they didn't ask why but it's because the MSM aren't pushing the documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, hard enough.)
The more compact and clear the example the more people will grasp how polling can be so easily manipulated. Which is, in the long run intended to manipulate people and control their actions. Do you sort your recyclables? Many people do. That's manipulation and control. And it has both a monetary cost and lost opportunity cost. With little benefit besides creating an industry that the market economy didn't vote for.
Most people have experienced believing what they read or see on the news only to learn -- sometimes after considerable investment into the belief -- they learn the error of holding said belief. There are benefits to be had by identifying and correcting one's own errors. Most people have experienced that too.
Three options: Call it 1) polling ignorance, 2) polling incompetence or 3), dare I say, polling fraud. Exposing it for what it is should be easier by tapping into people's experiences explained above. Each person can discern for themselves which of the three apply.
Ya know, we live with terrific technology. It's a shame that we aren't watching live debates with both sides or all sides of any issue putting their most knowledgeable debaters on stage. Hold their feet to the fire, so to speak.
Here's an idea for live, reality TV...
Value Destroyers versus Value Producers --
You Decide Which is Which.
Ironically, the value destroyers would generally have the lesser knowledgeable debaters because those already in power won't go on stage. So they'd have to rely on bottom rung, ladder-climbers to take the stage. Such a show of weakness is not a good sign going into debate. Especially going up against the other teams first string, most knowledgeable debaters.
Pick any issue and make a wish list of which debaters on either side you'd like to watch.
So long as polls and MSM is biased real valid authorities in most industries won't stick their necks out. Or the MSM won't give them the time of day.
Tangentially, there's a couple of article threads posted today with a poll that showed 45% of the respondents thought Hillary would bring corruption baggage back into the White House. ...That's a paraphrase, but you get my drift. I don't know the specific questions asked.
There's that lie again...
The liberal Egyptian writer Tarek Heggy predicts that if the U.S. abandons Iraq to those now dispatching suicide bombers, by 2015 “Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan & Pakistan (at least) will be in the hands of radical Islamists with at least two nuclear powers among these countries.” Unimaginable? Sure – just as President Clinton could not imagine that the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 would, within less than a decade, acquire the skills to turn both buildings into rubble; just as President Bush, when he unveiled that “Mission Accomplished” banner four years ago, could not imagine that the Iraq war was only just beginning.
Please identify the lie. Are you are suggesting that the president said "Mission Accomplished" knowing full well we would be in this position now and therefore he lied? Or, are you suggesting he did not unveil the banner, and the author of the article lied?
The second option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.