He mentioned that he heard this morning that the Iraq surge was gaining public support, as witnessed by recent polls. He further claimed that these opinions were supported by the facts on the ground, as they say. Things were getting better, fewer people were dying, and the natural follow-through would be that Republicans would rally in 2008 on this improved record. He despaired but was convinced that facts were facts.
Feeling like I had inexplicably Rip-van-Winkeled through some stunning political developments (no mean feat with my news junkie and websurfing habits), I tried to press for details. He was irritated with my skepticism and pointed me toward NPR to shut me up.
So I did some research, to be a know-it-all. There was a story on All Things Considered today that mentions the O'Hanlon and Pollack article in the New York Times. If you haven't been keeping up with the details, the story behind the story is that the two authors, policy specialists, toured Iraq and concluded that things looked great! But they weren't exactly impartial observers.
Conservatives immediately embraced the article. The White House distributed the piece via e-mail under the heading "a potentially climate-changing article." . . . Both O'Hanlon and Pollack backed the invasion of Iraq and backed the troop surge. They have criticized the way the administration has handled the war, but it barely differs from the criticism served up by The Weekly Standard.The NPR story throws in this observation, which gets to the point of my colleague's claim.
Still, O'Hanlon and Pollack's point of view seems to be catching on more broadly. Recent polls suggest the number of Americans willing to see the troop surge extend through next April is growing.So, why is it that a person can be intelligent, engaged, informed, listen to news every day, and get nothing of the big picture? A big, excellent PR push to generate support for a surge, and like everything else with these lunatics, it works. Disheartening.
2 comments:
You can also direct him to the op ed piece in the NY Times on Sunday written by seven NCOs finishing up a 15-month tour with the 82nd Airborne. These guys say that anyone who says things are getting better is lying and there's no way we'll ever be able to win in Iraq.
Man, I'm getting ready to. I already cited to him something similar--a poll of policy specialists who were unambiguous in their view that it's a cockup.
He just e-mailed me that his info was based on an interview with a Democrat in congress, a war opponent who cited the polls as evidence that things were looking up--obviously a craven coward trying to tack his sails to public opinion. Then my friend surmised this was all just conflicting information.
Polls, obviously, do not prove a damn thing. But it becomes a loop: people believe things are getting better because people believe things are getting better.
I think there ought to be a remedial class for all citizens: civics + logic + statistics + analysis of empirical evidence.
Post a Comment