But waitaminnit... How about this older poll?
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. [...] The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.
So let's see here. Are the American people wise and deliberative, perceiving geopolitical matters with a clarity unmatched by the Bush administration... or ignorant sheep, easily led by same? Or have they just been studying up since 2003? Gosh, I need a program.
UPDATE: With a tip o' the hat to Belmont Club, here's Secretary Rumsfeld speaking about the fears of civil war in the aftermath of the destruction of the Golden Mosque:
From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation, according to General Casey. The number of attacks on mosques, as he pointed out, had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized in some instances. And I guess that is to say nothing of the apparently inaccurate and harmful reports of U.S. military conduct in connection with a bus filled with passengers in Iraq.
Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side. It isn't as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues. On the contrary, the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq.
And then I notice today that there's been a public opinion poll reporting that the readers of these exaggerations believe Iraq is in a civil war -- a majority do, which I suppose is little wonder that the reports we've seen have had that effect on the American people.
The above obviously supports my point - that there's an agenda being set, and news is being shaped to fit it. Secretary Rumsfeld strongly implies later in the press conference from which the above is taken, though, that the agenda-setting is not necessarily (is not even probably) on the part of the journalistic media - but rather is a disinformation campaign on the part of al Qaeda itself. I'm chastened to admit that even though I've been posting and commenting on this and similar subjects for a long time now (on this blog, only once recently - here), I neglected to consider that the press might be useful idiots.
Wretchard at Belmont believes, concerning the recent report that Iran's "signature" is on particularly deadly shaped charges being found in Iraq, that the news cycle will go thusly:
The 'Iraq is in a state of civil war' lead will continue to be emphasized but attacks may suddenly shift to American troops after a long period of being concentrated upon sectarian targets to create another theme: a Shi'ite insurgency. This plus a clamor to 'bring the boys home' may create a triple wave designed to entirely collapse public support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The enemy may have failed to win the Sunni insurgency; been unable to plunge Iraq into civil war; proved incapable of stopping the formation of a new Iraqi army and state. But none of that will matter if the three themes of 'ongoing civil war', a Shi'ite insurgency and the need to engage in headlong retreat are successfully promoted in "the capitals of the Western world".
And this, friends and neighbors, is why I get so frustrated at the continuing efforts on the Left to "gotcha" Bush: it's a bootless distraction from the matter of real import - that there is a segment of one of the largest religious populations in the world that is committed to our destruction. That segment is forced into asymmetric warfare with us at present and for the foreseeable future. But it's not necessary for them to win a war if they can win the peace, to borrow a phrase. How important is it that we, the West, either remain in control of or successfully integrate and inculcate our values into immigrating Muslims in the societies we presently dominate? Ask these people - except that you can't, because they're dead.
9 comments:
First it is bad form to compare different polls generically. It is a math thingy, you know, but whatever.
To your point, I don't know why America would come to the conclusion Iraq is in a civil war and also alow themselves to be duped about AQ/Iraq:
Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash: ""We're in a civil war now;"
Current US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad:In remarks that were among the frankest and bleakest public assessments of the Iraq situation by a high-level American official, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the "potential is there" for sectarian violence to become full-blown civil war.
But wait Official Presidential and DoD outlook, via Chairman of the JCOS, Gen. Peter Pace:
"I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they're going very, very well from everything you look at."
Do you sense a disconnect there from the Bush Administration?
Eventually you will realize that it wasn't the rain but the man peeing on your leg. But one would need to conclude the sun was out the whole time. Wouldn't they?
Hugs,
---Robert
The point I'm making is not to compare the polls, Robert - it's to compare the reaction of the media to the polls. Two polls, each conducted by a news organization; one concludes that the people polled are stupid and believe everything Bush tells them; the second concludes that the people polled are NOT listening to what Bush tells them but rather gathering their news independently, and drawing an inference in direct opposition to what Bush tells them. Both polls have been breathlessly reported by all the major news outlets. TV news is, of course, the worst, because it reduces the polls to handy snippets just as I've given them here; at least newspaper (and online newspaper) reports of the polls acknowledge that there were other questions asked, other results found.
It's about the media's objectivity, not the American people. Was I insufficiently ironical? (Apparently so.)
The potential for civil war has been present ever since Saddam Hussein lost control of the Ba'ath; some might say that civil war was already being waged even while Hussein was in power, albeit a hopeless civil war, by the Kurds. Why did the American public conclude in great numbers that Hussein was involved with 9/11? Considering that Bush and his spokespeople publicly stated over and over that there was no evidence of his direct involvement? Hmm. I see two simple scenarios (one of which requires me to go back to the old poll and try to find the questions, which I'm not going to do now but maybe will pursue later): that the polled public correctly saw Saddam Hussein as a sponsor of terror and interpreted the question as being about terrorism generically rather than 9/11 particularly, or that the polled public had been paying a little too much attention to the many soundbytes in the news that, willfully or not, cut important phrases from quotes. The one from Rice, I'm thinking of, where she says something about Iraq's being involved with 9/11 in the sense that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, but explicitly not directly in planning or carrying out the attack - everything after "9/11" was cut in most news media.
But gosh, thanks for the advice on the math thingy. You know how math-averse I am; anything beyond long division is Greek to me.
Am I being insufficiently ironical again?
Lest we lose sight of the big picture.........
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
Jamie, take a breath. Relax. It is OK. We will find the right voice where our humor will translate in this medium.
No your post asked the question how could the public believe such an absolute crazy notion that Saddam and Al Qaeda were joined in evil three years ago. Compared to now that America overwhelmingly understands we are watching one of the greatest policy failures in American History.
I'm sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I did realize you were blaming the "media" for all that. I just wasn’t going to let you get away with it. I mean can it be their fault when one minute they were willing dupes in the run up to the war and the next they can not get on board the propaganda train.
After all how can anyone not know there is a beautiful flower of democracy blooming from the Fertile Crescent, with all the wonderfully repainted schools and stuff?
No Jamie the “Media” is doing all right just no one buys into the President's “information” anymore. You incorrectly blame the messenger when the President’s message is clearly divorced from reality in the case of Iraq particularly so. So obviously it is still raining in Pennsylvania.
For instance:
"Why did the American public conclude in great numbers that Hussein was involved with 9/11? Considering that Bush and his spokespeople publicly stated over and over that there was no evidence of his direct involvement? Hmm."
Hmm maybe the public made the 911-AQ-Iraq linkbecause of this Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (March 18, 2003)
"continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations [That would be Iraq since this is the letter for declaring war on Iraq], organizations, or persons [Anyone other then Ossama Bin Laden of course] who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
I don’t know Jamie the link between Iraq , Al-Qaeda and September 11th was one of the two official reason for the invasion and all, and I know that I am all slow and everything, but this might have had something to do with public opinion at the time. But then I and the rest of America might have missed the “just kidding” part that apparently never gets reported when discussiong the 911-AQ-Iraq link.
So Jamie is it ironically all the “Media’s” fault or has the lies caught up to this Administration?
hugs,
---Robert
Robert:
It's tempting to delve back into the casus belli argument. It's very tempting. But I have the feeling it'd be a waste of my already-flagging energy, since you recognize only two, the other one being WMD, I'm assuming. I also assume that you deny any connection between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda, regardless of 9/11; otherwise (again) the Bush Lied! thing doesn't hold up nearly so well.
OK, just one more revisiting:
*******
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
************
...in short, Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq. The letter from which you quoted speaks to Sec. 3(b) of the AUMF, basically by restating it, with additional information not reflected in the public docs. Note the similarity - here, from the AUMF Sec. 3(b):
"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
"(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
...and here, from the letter you cite:
"Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
In other words, boilerplate. The important part of the President's letter is the "enclosed document" he mentions. Besides which, the point of my post (I say again - and it's not lost on me that you're apparently not in agreement with me about what my point was, which obviously means I must strive for more clarity) is that the media, still very much attached to its agenda-setting function, does not report everything it ought to report, does report some stories preferentially or at the expense of others, interprets news (including self-generated "news" like these polls) rather than simply laying it out, and vigorously presses "the public's right to know" when it suits the media themselves far more than when it serves the people.
There's never been "objective journalism." But certainly a media universe that includes the blogosphere approaches that standard, as a gestalt, far more closely than the print/broadcast media alone.
Your contention appears to be that people were duped by Bush after 9/11 but not now - why not? Did Bush have more reason to promote a lie in 2001-2003 than he does now? If Bush Lied during the period leading up to the Iraq invasion, in order to railroad us into a war for reasons best known to himself (since Occam's Razor fails to slice it as a lie, we have to postulate reasons unknown), and was so successful that almost three-quarters of the American people believed his perfidy, why on earth would he be less motivated to Lie about a brewing civil war in Iraq? After all, he's a party hack, right, so he'll want to keep a Republican in the White House as well as keeping Republican control of Congress - having Iraq enter the death spiral right now is not the best way to accomplish that aim. So IF he lied to get us INTO war with Iraq, surely he'd lie to KEEP us in Iraq - yet somehow the American public got a whooooole lot more sophisticated between 2003 and 2006, and now an even larger percentage of the populace does not believe Bush's Lies.
You may interpret this phenomenon as "Of course - after all, they've seen him lie again and again; sooner or later they were bound to stop believing him." (I want to hear the Big Lies, though. I keep hearing about them, but they don't seem to pan out.) I, on the other hand, think Occam would be more satisfied with "the news media, attempting to set the agenda as always, plays the American public like a violin."
Other Anonymous:
Bush approval polls appear to have a single goal: to illustrate the purported fact that the American public is moving toward the Democratic Party. Unfortunately the polls don't reflect the conservatives who are disappointed with Bush's conservatism and who wouldn't vote Democrat if their lives depended on it. Don't be fooled by a 34% or 41% or whatever approval rating for Bush: it does not correspond to a 66% or 59% or whatever approval rating for the Democratic platform.
For the record, I support the Dubai ports deal - cautiously. I don't like the size of the deficit or the spending free-for-all. I like tax cuts. I'm not satisfied with national security policy or our approach to our borders, though I'm not as vehement on the subject as some. But what Bush has done right is to act decisively to counter a threat that's been gathering against us for going on three decades now, and to take a position that the world cannot but benefit from a Middle East where the common people are sovereign, as they are in the Western world. Whether we'll be successful in midwifing representative democracy in a place very different from our home, no one knows yet - but that we're giving it a shot is a far sight better than the prior policy of pretending not to notice that the people we were supporting in the name of Stability were horrible, and the people we were throwing to the wolves were increasingly hostile to us because of it.
It seems inarguable to me that a fully functioning and self-sustaining representative government in Iraq, coupled with a liberalization of the Middle East generally, would be an unalloyed good for us and for its denizens. Why is the Left not on board with it? Or, if they are, why do they never, ever mention it, preferring instead to throw out the "gotcha" attempts with such depressing regularity?
Hallooo lo lo lo lo.... Hallooo lo lo lo lo....
If you are just some casual observer here and you have read all the way down to here man you are hardcore. Because, you are doing some deep comment spelunking (love that word). And frankly Jamie should buy you a beer, and me too for ripping through all that.
Let me take a moment to refresh everyone what we are talking about. Jamie presented two polls, one showing a strong public belief of the fallacy that Iraq was somehow involved in Sept. 11th and with al-Qeada. She then when on to bring up another poll highlighting the public’s overwhelming fear of the impending civil war in Iraq.
Jamie is arguing that these public perceptions were solely the result of a “Media” agenda. Or “ that the media, still very much attached to its agenda-setting function, does not report everything it ought to report, does report some stories preferentially or at the expense of others, interprets news (including self-generated "news" like these polls) rather than simply laying it out, and vigorously presses "the public's right to know" when it suits the media themselves far more than when it serves the people.”
Now in an age where Fox “News” is the highest rated “news” channel on cable, and all the Sunday television political talk shows skew right ; it is amazing how we can be talking about a media agenda against the president.
My stated contention in this debate is that the difference between the two polls represents the public coming around to Bush’s lying coupled with an administration that is obviously detached from reality thus reducing competence in the administration. My personal opinion (and the facts agree with) that there was never a link between September 11th and Iraq. People were led to believe it, at the time, because the White House is really, really good at managing the “Media” sphere. In the run up to the war they manipulated reporters through their monopoly on the core information. That allowed them to generate the momentum in public perception.
There was also something else at work. The administration is really, really good at language manipulation. This is something that will be studied and rightly so. This is how it works (ref 2); in its simplest form, take Iraq make the (true) statement that “Iraq supported terrorists and terrorist organizations” then add the following (also true statement) to the speech “Terrorist attacked us on 911”. You now have a language pivot around the word terrorists so that this equation is left in the listeners mind A+B=B+C so A=C. The key to this working is C or A must cause some sort of emotional connect in the listener and you have to get the listener to here it over and over. It also matters that the listener is unaware that there are thousands of “Terrorist” groups with differing agendas. And there for can not distinguish between Iraq Terrorist and al-Qeada
See if you can spot the pattern:
“Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties. It's a country with wealth. It's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americans must understand in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists,”
“we must cut off money together; we must smoke these al Qaeda types out one at a time. It's in our national interest, as well, that we deal with Saddam Hussein.”
“It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield,”
“He's [Saddam Hussein] a murderer. He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”
All that was from one press conference. you can go back and read the past statements of administration officials and you will see this pattern over and over. It is brilliant marketing, however unfortunate.
This case White House would say it and then administration friendly outlets like; Fox “News”, Rush Limbaugh, right wing Talk Radio and or BLOGs would reinforce the message.
Here is a more recent example of the Administrations media manipulations Zogby poll of US troops done in February 2006. That poll shows “Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11”. Now how can that happen? Since the President has said
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks,"
Of course he says this seven months after using the 911-AQ-Iraq linkage to justify the war. But there it is 90% of the military in Iraq believe the opposite is true. Again, How? It is really easy when you are Secretary of the Military, Don Rumsfeld and can block information from reaching the troops. You do this by only allowing approved propagandists Bill O’Rilley Fox News and Rush Limbaugh while blocking alternative voices like wonkette, Air America radio, Al Franken etc… (Link 1) link 2 I think it is worth noting that if ones only source of news happens to be the approved DOD new sources that person is the most likely to be uninformed of the facts about Iraq.
If you control the information, you control the “media”. Fortunately, now the “Media” is not obligated to simply regurgitate White House talking points. The public now has an alternate reality in which to measure the Administration’s contentions. And as I illustrated earlier, there is a huge gap between reality and the Administration. That effects public confidence and there you have your plunging poll numbers.
But let us get to specifics, Sec. Donald Rumsfeld.
“From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation, according to General Casey. The number of attacks on mosques, as he pointed out, had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized in some instances”
And Jamie’s statement: “The above obviously supports my point - that there's an agenda being set, and news is being shaped to fit it”
Frankly when I read that on Monday I almost spit coffee all over my keyboard from laughing so hard. You see when you are playing poker and you have an ace in the hole you feel pretty good. But when you given another ace on the flop, it is over. You see Rumsfeld was my ace in the hole. If you think that quote “supports” your point you are very, very sadly mistaken.
Because of a few things, first of all, over the last three years Sec. Rumsfeld has a pattern of blaming the media whenever things look looks bad in Iraq. Something really bad happens in Iraq, he then comes out with the “Media” is not reporting the good things attack.
For Example:
August 29th 2003: Najaf bombing kills Shiite leader, followers say
Iraqi officials: At least 125 dead, 142 wounded
Sept. 5, 2003 Rumsfeld “That obviously annoyed the secretary. "There was news up there," Rumsfeld said during the press conference held in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces. "There was good news. Important good news."
Also “Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of Combined Joint Task Force 7, also took exception to media coverage of the situation in Iraq. "It is very disturbing to me to sit here every day and watch the news back home that focuses on the bad things that are occurring in Iraq," he said.”
Here is another one
31 March, 2004 Bodies mutilated in Iraq attack Four contractors working for the US army have been killed and their bodies mutilated in the Iraqi city of Falluja. Also that month,
April 2004
Pictures taken at Abu Ghraib prison last November, showing U.S. soldiers inflicting pain and humiliation on Iraqi prisoners, were at the center of a classified Army investigation into alleged abuse at the notorious prison.
So queue Sec. Rumsfeld;
May 12, 2004, Good News in Iraq Being Ignored, Rumsfeld Says: “However, such alleged acts, [Talking about Abu Ghraib] Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pointed out to members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, "certainly don't represent Americans or the American military."
And the "enormous progress" being made in Iraq, Rumsfeld asserted, is "getting ignored" by the media.”
I could go on. But there are actually other things to consider when one hears about the “Media” not reporting the “good news”. Consider this the department of defense has contracted with the Lincoln group to write and plant “feel good” news stories in Iraqi papers. . So there is positive news about Iraq, but it has to be hyped beyond its significance. New school gets painted or 80 people die in a bombing, which is more significant?
So there you go, blame the media. It is all the media’s fault. Give me a break. The Administration is simply unable to control the media like they used to so then they simply start blaming it for not being healed when the obvious is staring everyone in the face. This whole “blame the media” thing is simply an attempt to distract from the Administrations abysmal failures. And as a personal note I think it is very cowardly.
Yes, it was good times reading the authorization for war. I am curios though; when it is my point that the Bush administration was running around linking 911-AQ to Iraq with every breath, that it was a lie, and that the media was only reporting what was being said by the administration, why would you bring up this? Especially since this is the official document authorizing the war states the lie;
“Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;”
Very interesting. Again as the President said six months later: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks,"
Also quickly (I am passed 1700 words, I know)
“Wretchard at Belmont believes, concerning the recent report that Iran's "signature" is on particularly deadly shaped charges being found in Iraq, that the news cycle will go thusly:
From U.S. general says no proof Iran behind Iraq arms
President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq to stir up trouble.
Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."
Hey we don’t have any proof but you know what that didn’t stop the President. from making the claim. I will tell you how the press will handled it; front page “Iran arms insurgents”, then A10 three days later “Joint Chief suggests no proof”. Have we seen this same thing before? No Proof! You hear that NO PROOF! What is the media’s agenda now? To attack Iran with what the administration is saying, I laugh at the naive premise.
I will give you my opinion. Debate it all you want. Iraq is probably a lot worse then we even know. Right now the military is just a buffer between the Sunni and the Shias. It is an easy buffer to maintain because the Sunni are the bad guys and the Shia are the anti Saddams and have had the ear of the “Project for the new century” crowd for years. But, the Kurds are sitting there (and frankly the Kurdish north is very stable, less Kurkuk of course) with a very deep sense of entitlement to the land. If the Shia somehow overcomes the Sunni then the Kurds will have something to say. This might be 3-4 years from now and it is not going to be fun.
The Kurds will want Kurkuk but could easily move to take everything from Baghdad north. That would lead them a good chuck of the oil fields. This current civil war is small potatoes compared to the Kurdish Shia conflict. This is not being reported and I really don’t think you can put a smiley face on it when it happens. Who would the US side with then? Iraq would move to help the Shia. Turkey doesn’t want a Kurdish state right next door. Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan become very interesting players as well. And ironically the media has nothing to do with that. And after all we have see over three years, I do not have any faith in this administration to prevent this. Our military, our trillions of dollars (on the creditcard) stuck in the Middle East, and for what? All the while Osssma Bin Lauden has his own talk show on the WB that has to be good.
I’m done. Good luck with you BLOG. I am looking forward to seeing you guys later this year. We will not talk politics, of course. My love to all.
---Robert (damn 2200 words, sorry)
Just one minute, here, Robert. You're still mischaracterizing my position. You say,
***
"Jamie presented two polls, one showing a strong public belief of the fallacy that Iraq was somehow involved in Sept. 11th and with al-Qeada. She then when on to bring up another poll highlighting the public’s overwhelming fear of the impending civil war in Iraq.
"Jamie is arguing that these public perceptions were solely the result of a 'Media' agenda."
***
My point is not that the media is solely to blame for public misconceptions. My point is that the media is willing to portray the public variously as doofuses and as foreign affairs analysts as it suits their purposes. Hence the "Come again?" title - there's cognitive dissonance on display between these two extremes.
I doubt that you'd make much argument of the perception that Fox News is the doofus news; is there a media outlet or watchdog (other than maybe Newsbusters) out there that affords it the credibility that CNN gets? Or CBS? But why, or why not? I'd contend that though Fox News has the greatest market share on cable TV, it's still viewed by many in the media biz as an upstart - and more than that, as a mouthpiece, because its editorial bias appears to lean the "wrong" way. CBS reports the National Guard memo "story" but retains its cachet as "News Outlet." CNN features Christiane Amanpour heavily, a reporter who takes public pride in her ability to shape events by her reporting, yet it's the TV news equivalent of the NYT.
I've only read the first few paragraphs of your comment so far - got Bailey's mousse working - but I promise to read the rest after tomorrow's party. But sir. Attempting to reframe the debate in your own terms by "restating" my position for the benefit of lazy readers... get your own dang blog, dude. Obviously bandwidth is not an issue for me, but having to re-explain myself in every comment is making me tired.
OK, Robert, I read it all. Let's see.
The only way in which your loooooong comment relates to my post is that you contend that "the difference between the two polls represents the public coming around to Bush’s lying coupled with an administration that is obviously detached from reality thus reducing competence in the administration." All the rest is frankly hijacking, to which I'll respond if you want to copy and paste it to a post to which it's relevant.
So. As to the sentence that relates: I say one more time, my point was simple: the media, in its agenda-setting role (that is a term of art in communication studies, not just my own term, and it has particular meaning that's relevant to my point), filters what it reports; it really is "all the news that's fit to print" rather than simply "all the news" - which is unavoidable; newspapers have an upper bound of weight and size! - but the guardians of "fitness" have their own filters, of which they may or may not be aware. (I think they probably aren't very aware; they probably think, like, apparently, you, that an organization that asks donors to "Support our fight against conservative misinformation!" is non-partisan.)
My follow-up dovetails nicely with your whole Bush propaganda schtick (and btw, if there was ever a war in which propaganda, on both sides, was not considered a weapon, I'd like that history lesson right now - and getting true, positive stories into the papers in an attempt to bring to public light the good things that representative government can support and bring about is a damnsight better than the agitprop you seem to believe is going on). Rumsfeld points out that our enemy does have a propaganda arm, and wonders aloud whether that arm might have sufficient influence in the worldwide news services (well within the realm of possibilities if they're "in" with al Jazeera) to try to win this war the only way they can, by sapping our will sufficiently that we'll leave on our own.
What do you want to happen, out of curiosity, in Iraq? How about in Iran?
Post a Comment