• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

He really is that stupid.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Second rate reporter says what?

Not all heroes wear capes.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Republicans do not pay their debts.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Take your GOP plan out of the witness protection program.

Republicans in disarray!

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

We still have time to mess this up!

The willow is too close to the house.

You cannot shame the shameless.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / War / On The Ground In Iraq

On The Ground In Iraq

by John Cole|  January 5, 200712:44 pm| 145 Comments

This post is in: War, Blogospheric Navel-Gazing

FacebookTweetEmail

Bill Ardolino has filed his first offical report from the ground in Iraq.

Nothing ground breaking, just a sort of puff piece on Navy Corpsmen, but at least he is there, and he is actually walking the streets. Good for him. Plus, while the whole situation is a disaster, our troops deserve a puff piece here and there. Most of them are doing everything they can to make this a success, so I can handle some glowing pieces about them.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Superman Sucked
Next Post: Cowher Resigns »

Reader Interactions

145Comments

  1. 1.

    Zifnab

    January 5, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    I’ll give Bill points for looking totally bawler.

    Tales like this really do make me want to join the marines. :-p

  2. 2.

    Bill from INDC

    January 5, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    Thanks for the link, but I’ve been doing analytical reporting that should satisfy war critics that need some political Iraq Policy blood on my blog, which I consider just as “official” as the Examiner piece.

    Also, I know what you are saying, but “puff piece” makes me bristle, as I’m watching what these guys are really doing, and the glowing descriptions require no airbrushing. They both care for their patients; That kid really is treating the families of the Fallujah PD because he is kind. They are both trying to make a difference. They do save the lives of the insurgents that just tried to kill them. And both have seen more horrendous injuries in several months than an inner city ER doc sees in a career, maybe.

    So you “can handle some glowing pieces about them,” and people like them?

    You should beg for more “puff pieces,” John.

  3. 3.

    The Other Steve

    January 5, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    And both have seen more horrendous injuries in several months than an inner city ER doc sees in a career, maybe.

    That can’t possibly be true.

    Everybody knows the violence in Iraq is much less than in Detroit. It’s a Known Fact(tm).

  4. 4.

    John Cole

    January 5, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Thanks for the link, but I’ve been doing analytical reporting that should satisfy war critics that need some political Iraq Policy blood on my blog, which I consider just as “official” as the Examiner piece.

    Also, I know what you are saying, but “puff piece” makes me bristle, as I’m watching what these guys are really doing, and the glowing descriptions require no airbrushing. They both care for their patients; That kid really is treating the families of the Fallujah PD because he is kind. They are both trying to make a difference. They do save the lives of the insurgents that just tried to kill them. And both have seen more horrendous injuries in several months than an inner city ER doc sees in a career, maybe.

    So you “can handle some glowing pieces about them,” and people like them?

    Get off on your bad self.

    I went to your website, and I found no analytical pieces. I found this first installment complete with the following Editor’s note:

    Editor’s note: Blogger Bill Ardolino is embedded with a U.S. Marine unit in Iraq. He’s there to find out the truth about the U.S. war effort on the ground in Iraq. Unlike the vast majority of mainstream media journalists who stay within the Green Zone in Baghdad, Ardolino is on patrol in the streets wherever his embedded Marine unit goes. This is his first exclusive dispatch for The Examiner.

    And what followed was a puff piece about the Corpsmen. Period. And, as I stated, I am ok with that because these guys are going out every day doing tough jobs. The thing is- that has never been in question. Everyone knows these guys are going out and doing really tough jobs in unthinkable conditions with unprecedented levels of bravery.

    So, despite the assertion that you are going there to really find out what is going on, your first installment was a puff piece- one that those guys have earned, but nothing groundbreaking. And you even AGREE with me, yet still are bent out of shape with my characterization.

    I appreciate the fact that you are over there, and I thought this was a good piece- but it is what it is, and nothing more. Don’t get pissy with me for being honest. And don’t tell me what I should be begging for, as my opinion is that our soldiers over there are, for the most part, doing things like the two corpsmen you have described on a daily basis. I don’t need to beg to havbe you tell me that- I already know it.

    I stand by my post. It wasn’t a criticism, it was an accurate assessment of what I saw.

    And for goodness sakes, stay safe.

  5. 5.

    TenguPhule

    January 5, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    Also, I know what you are saying, but “puff piece” makes me bristle, as I’m watching what these guys are really doing, and the glowing descriptions require no airbrushing.

    And yet in the grand calamity that is the farce of absurd screwups, hubris and dead bodies that is the Iraq War, it doesn’t change the horrible overall reality a bit.

    I would say bravo to their efforts, but after seeing over 3,000 dead faces just on our side I just can’t look at this as more then a ‘puffpiece’ as John so accruately marks it.

    He at least seems to admire your efforts.

  6. 6.

    Pb

    January 5, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    Bill from INDC,

    Good call–“puff piece” does technically imply some exaggeration, which I don’t think was John’s intent here–but he’s the communications professor, so I’ll let him try to explain himself.

  7. 7.

    Bill from INDC

    January 5, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    Fallujah is violent enough that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. I will write more on it later. The radicals are terrorizing this city. They are ruthless. Insane. They intimidate the locals like the mafia, except they’ll cut your family’s heads off with a machete. This situation here is terribly complex, but that aspect of it isn’t. Nor is the humanity these corpsmen are showing the Iraqis.

  8. 8.

    Bill from INDC

    January 5, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    John –

    1. It’s a bit sad that you are so absorbed in your political animations (and how your readers will perceive the piece) that you feel the need to caveat a link to it. Specifically given points 2 and 3:

    2. I did not write the intro to the story, an editor did without my knowledge.

    3. You write: “I went to your website, and I found no analytical pieces. ”

    Try looking a little harder next time:

    “This is the second installment of my interview with Quais Abdul Raazzaq, a 41 year-old Sunni Iraqi journalist. In the previous post we discussed Iraq’s deterioration since 2003, the nature of Saddam’s rule, political cronyism in the ministries and the shortcomings of the occupation, as well as briefly touching on Raazzaq’s assertion that divisions between Shia and Sunni are exaggerated in the public perception of the conflict. In this post I press him on this claim, for if Iraqi Shia and Sunni get along, what has caused 2006’s surge of violence along sectarian lines?

    His responses started out oblique and gradually became more pointed as he prompted me to fill in some blanks. And his opinion, to the extent it’s correct, has difficult implications for Iraq’s establishment of a representative central government and American interest in the region.”

    http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002910.php

    http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002912.php

  9. 9.

    Punchy

    January 5, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    Plus, while the whole situation is a disaster, our troops deserve a puff piece here and there.

    In the words of DougJ, how come we never hear about the 139,995 soliders who weren’t blown up today?

  10. 10.

    matt

    January 5, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    Bill, first of all, thanks for your reporting! Do have a sense that with the right policy/strategy, some positive, forward momentum could take place?

    Also, what’s your sense of how soldiers feel about what’s going on in Washington? Do they feel as depressed and cyclical toward the whole thing like most Americans seem to feel, or do they feel well represented by our..er, representatives?

  11. 11.

    OCSteve

    January 5, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    Bill beat me to it. I was going to say JC that you didn’t look very hard on his blog. Unless “filed” means appearing as something other than a blog post.

    Someone likes puff pieces:

    Current rank: # 1 of 14,266 articles

    Keep safe Bill – I look forward to your posts, or articles, or wherever your first hand reports show up.

  12. 12.

    Bill from INDC

    January 5, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    matt –

    “Do have a sense that with the right policy/strategy, some positive, forward momentum could take place?”

    To be honest? I need to let a lot of this percolate. But it’s a lot more complex than I realized, and much of it is indeed negative. And I am a supporter of this war, so much of it is not what I’d like it to be.

    As far as the soldiers and Marines – opinions vary. Probably most are well-motivated and pro-victory, many simply find the political aspects above their pay grade and focus on their mission and some (fewer) are disillusioned.

    Got somewhere to be, won’t be around for further questions/replies. Thanks.

  13. 13.

    Val Prieto

    January 5, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    John,

    Your post seems rather petty.

  14. 14.

    Pb

    January 5, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    Bill,

    It’s a bit sad that you are so absorbed in your political animations (and how your readers will perceive the piece) that you feel the need to caveat a link to it.

    Now I think that’s unfair–from my experience here, I do believe that John Cole is expressing only his own opinion on his blog, and honestly isn’t influenced by what my or your personal opinions of that may be. I have no reason to question his honesty, just as I’ve had no reason to question yours, until now. Do you actually have any reason to believe that John is indeed “so absorbed in [his] political animations (and how [his] readers will perceive the piece)”, or were you just being a dick, and an ignorant one at that?

  15. 15.

    John Cole

    January 5, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    John –
    1. It’s a bit sad that you are so absorbed in your political animations (and how your readers will perceive the piece) that you feel the need to caveat a link to it. Specifically given points 2 and 3:

    2. I did not write the intro to the story, an editor did without my knowledge.

    3. You write: “I went to your website, and I found no analytical pieces. ”

    I think it is a little sad that every time I write something, people accuse me of catering to the audience here. I routinely tell them to GF themselves, and I assure you that was not my motivation. My motivation was to link to your piece because I thought it was an interesting read and I thought it took balls of you to go over there and do what you are doing. In return, you have agreed with me that it was a puff piece then told me I was wrong to say it was, and then accused me of merely writing something to cater to my audience. Sure am glad I linked to you in the first fucking place.

    Additionally, as to all the other analysis- I read the interview. And it was just that, an interview. It was better than anything I have done on the matter, but it is not what I would consider a hard hitting analysis. I am not sure what I am missing, or how I have come across as insulting your work. I think you are doing a good job, I linked to it, and I think we both agree that the piece on the Corpsmen is a puff piece. Why are you all bent out of shape?

  16. 16.

    Tsulagi

    January 5, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Nice story about the corpsmen. Contrary to what patriot caricatures like Hannity, Coulter, etc. constantly tell their brain-dead fans, there are plenty of non-ass-uppers for Bush that enjoy reading and hearing these kind of stories. They make you proud. Wouldn’t mind seeing a few more on this blog. There are a lot of great men and women in uniform in Iraq and AF.

    Intelligent ones too like that 21 year-old Navy corpsman who goes out of his way to treat wounded and their families. In return, voluntarily he was given a list of bad guys and maybe inspired a few of the ISF as he said to “actually start doing their job.” What a concept. We needed a whole lot more of that early on. But doesn’t hurt being done now.

    I wish the Navy corpsmen well and a safe return. A lot of them have been called to Iraq. Unfortunately, combat medics are a favorite target for snipers.

  17. 17.

    morfydd

    January 5, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    I found the interview interesting. I can’t say it’s *analytical*, more a transcription, but that makes it more useful to me than usual reporting.

    I can see what the subject is responding to, rather than just the juicy quote in response, and can see the preconceptions the questioner brings. The article doesn’t bring much context or analysis, but I can get that anywhere else.

    The corpsman article, OTOH, is much like anything I’d read in the MSM. This may be shocking, but even as a diehard liberal, I just assume that our troops are doing a hard job with dedication and kindness. I just don’t necessarily believe they’re being put to the right uses by our leaders.

  18. 18.

    John Cole

    January 5, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    As I reread this (I must have missed PB’s comment the first time), I think I see what is upsetting you- you think that when I state it is a puff piece, you are exaggerating their work.

    That isn’t the case. I think no exaggeration is necessary to call them heroes. If that is what is upsetting you, then it is just a poor choice of words on my part.

  19. 19.

    TenguPhule

    January 5, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    Probably most are well-motivated and pro-victory

    Shorter Bill from INDC: Some of our troops might be defeatist liberal traiterz who don’t believe in victory.

    Well that sheepskin didn’t take long in coming off.

  20. 20.

    Steve

    January 5, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    Stay safe, Bill. I have a lot of respect for your willingness to go over there and find out the facts for yourself.

    I think we all enjoy reading positive stories about the great effort our troops are putting in, it’s just that some of us have grown accustomed to the folks who think NOTHING should be reported from Iraq other than painted schools. Like I said, I really appreciate your efforts to bring us a full picture.

  21. 21.

    ThymeZone

    January 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    I think it is a little sad that every time I write something, people accuse me of catering to the audience here. I routinely tell them to GF themselves, and I assure you that was not my motivation.

    Let me say, John never panders to his commenters. He says what he thinks and stands behind what he says, no matter what the commentariat thinks about it. Has always done so, regardless of which way the bog winds were blowing.

    Other than that, I have no dog in this fight. I was 4F and the only army the Selective Service would have let join would have been the Russian army, figuring that my defects (which were, at that time, thought to be mostly physical — ha ha) would pay off for America if I were on the other side.

    I think no exaggeration is necessary to call them heroes

    Amen.

  22. 22.

    Bill from INDC

    January 5, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    John –

    you think that when I state it is a puff piece, you are exaggerating their work.

    Yeah, that’s a portion of what got me.

    That isn’t the case. I think no exaggeration is necessary to call them heroes. If that is what is upsetting you, then it is just a poor choice of words on my part.

    Fair enough.

  23. 23.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 5, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    CBS is reporting that the military has informed our so-called president that it only has 9,000 guys available for that much discussed Baghdad ‘surge.’

    Has it gotten to the point where Bush is now issuing orders to imaginary troops?

    http://thinkprogress.org/ (Front page article, scroll down..)

  24. 24.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    When I was in the Navy we referred to our corpsmen as ‘pecker checkers.’ Which kind of infers that we didn’t exactly regard them as being ‘heroes.’

    But that was in the early ’80s. Maybe things have changed.

  25. 25.

    ThymeZone

    January 5, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    CBS is reporting that the military has informed our so-called president that it only has 9,000 guys available for that much discussed Baghdad ‘surge.’

    He’s going to send in the YMCA.

  26. 26.

    CaseyL

    January 5, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    CBS is reporting that the military has informed our so-called president that it only has 9,000 guys available for that much discussed Baghdad ‘surge.’

    Looks like the military is trying its damndest to prevent this travesty from happening without actually, publically mutinying.

  27. 27.

    stickler

    January 5, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Overheard in the Oval Office, earlier this afternoon:

    “Where is Wenck? Where is Steiner?”

  28. 28.

    The Other Steve

    January 5, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    Also, what’s your sense of how soldiers feel about what’s going on in Washington?

    Quite honestly, I don’t care.

    You don’t go to war just because the soldiers want to.

  29. 29.

    The Other Steve

    January 5, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    I’m Pro-Declare Victory and get the Fuck out.

  30. 30.

    cleek

    January 5, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    I’m Pro-Declare Victory and get the Fuck out.

    Yeah, well, McCain and Lieberman are pro-2-year-surge. So there.

  31. 31.

    Scott Chaffin

    January 5, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    when I state it is a puff piece

    So what exactly do you mean by “puff piece“?

    You knew perfectly well what it meant when you wrote it, as well as how any sensible person would interpret it.

  32. 32.

    Zifnab

    January 5, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    You knew perfectly well what it meant when you wrote it, as well as how any sensible person would interpret it.

    Ok, dude. Lay off. Bill already chewed him out. No need to beat the horse.

  33. 33.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 5, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    The Military Times polled 6,000 active duty military people, and the results aren’t so very good for Photo-Op George. Only 35% now approve of Georgie’s handling of the war in Iraq. And only 41% now say we should have gotten into a war in Iraq, down from 65% in 2003.

    You see? Military people think pretty much like everybody else.

    http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

  34. 34.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 5, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    Ooohh, Scotty mad. It has often occurred to me that the people most likely to take such extreme umbrage at any perceived slight of our military heroes are those who were never military people themselves.

    Must be some kind of psychological overcompensation on their part.

  35. 35.

    The Other Steve

    January 5, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    Ok, dude. Lay off. Bill already chewed him out. No need to beat the horse.

    When you’re a loser, beating a dead horse makes ya feel good.

  36. 36.

    The Other Steve

    January 5, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Ooohh, Scotty mad. It has often occurred to me that the people most likely to take such extreme umbrage at any perceived slight of our military heroes are those who were never military people themselves.

    Must be some kind of psychological overcompensation on their part.

    No way man, he got a purple heart for rhoids as a proud member of the 82nd warbloggers.

    Surely that counts for something!

  37. 37.

    The Other Steve

    January 5, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Wait a minute, I just got a phone call from a well informed source who says the rhoids might have been self-inflicted.

  38. 38.

    Tsulagi

    January 5, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    Ok, dude. Lay off. Bill already chewed him out. No need to beat the horse.

    Yep. I guess in calling it a “puff piece” John Cole had a Jon Carry moment. Just kidding.

  39. 39.

    ThymeZone

    January 5, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    I just got a phone call from a well informed source who says the rhoids might have been self-inflicted.

    While funny, this must be called the Unfortunate Word Picture of the Day.

  40. 40.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 5, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Over on MSNBC.com they have The Ancient McCain saying that he is now supporting a “sustained surge.” Isn’t that a bit of an oxymoron? Can you really have a surge if you don’t also have an ebb?

    Maybe McCain would want to rephrase that one. My recommendation would be: “Stick it in and stay.”

    Sure to strike a chord with the Viagra Generation.

  41. 41.

    John Cole

    January 5, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    So what exactly do you mean by “puff piece“?

    You knew perfectly well what it meant when you wrote it, as well as how any sensible person would interpret it.

    What I meant was a flowery piece that really tells us nothing, but makes our guys look good. Anyone with half a brain (I understand that excludes you, Fat Guy, so I don’t mind breaking it down for you) already thinks our guys are doing valorous things on a daily basis over there. I didn;t mean to say he was exaggerating, and if I used the wrong word, so be it. I meant what I meant and have already addressed the issue.

    Ok, dude. Lay off. Bill already chewed him out. No need to beat the horse.

    Calm down. It’s Scott. The only reason he ever even reads this site is to get his panties in a bunch about some heresy I have committed ands then write about it using words and sentences he, himself, does not understand. He is passionate, though, so I don’t really mind. My personal favorite is when I was in full froth about the Schiavo debacle and wrote the following:

    Life, for me at least, can not be reduced to a beating heart or a cluster of cells with the potential to become a human. Regardless, someone elses moral certainty about what life is does not give them the legal right to impose that viewpoint on other people. Michael and Terri Schiavo were not to be afforded the right to do what they felt was best in this situation, because Michael and Terri Schiavo’s concept of life differed from what some in the Right to Life community believe.

    In short, I lamented that other people were forcing their moral certainties about life on Michael Schiavo, and Scott’s response was a true classic:

    One is left to wonder exactly what Cole believes life is, or as in this case, can be reduced to. Swear to God, I’ve asked him that question one hundred different ways, and he can’t, or won’t, answer it. Rule of law, he whimpers, sneaking a peek out from behind his mommy’s skirts. His own moral certainty, and the mind-bending arrogance assumed thereby, leaves me slack-jawed…he believes himself infallible. Which is why I’ve come to the determination that Cole is a piss-poor thinker. It is somehow literally impossible for him to connect all of the disparate facts that played out over one and one-half decades in the Schiavo case. For Cole, it only comes down to what a judge says. Which should certainly come in handy over the years, no? Judge says this, judge says that, that’s the way he’ll jump.

    ***

    All of Cole’s handwaving and “rule of law” about judges is completely besides the point. Never forget that Cole is an academic, practicing in academia (and he’s probably bouncing off the walls that this comes down during summer break). He lives in a world that is, to my eyes, completely insulated. I base this on my (thankfully, exceedingly rare) brushes with academicians. They seem to live by rules, committees, meetings, quorums. That’s ultimately neither here nor there, but it’s important to establish the facts.

    That’s right. When I questioned other people forcing their moral certainties on the Schiavos and promoted the idea of leaving end of life decisions to the individual rather than to the masses of religious knuckle draggers, the Fat Guy accused me of… moral certainty. And then launched into a long and unrelated tirade about my chosen profession.

    So ignore him. If it isn’t about BBQ, beer, or poker (and he does know about hose things, in particular BBQ and poker- his beercan chicken is awesome) he doesn’t even understand what he is talking about.

  42. 42.

    ThymeZone

    January 5, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Sure to strike a chord with the Viagra Generation.

    Hey, we’re people too.

    But the really troubling thing is that we’ll have an Iraq policy best desribed as “priapism.”

    Bush needs to call his doctor right away, his hard on for the rest of the world is about to turn dangerous.

  43. 43.

    Zifnab

    January 5, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Never forget that Cole is an academic, practicing in academia (and he’s probably bouncing off the walls that this comes down during summer break). He lives in a world that is, to my eyes, completely insulated. I base this on my (thankfully, exceedingly rare) brushes with academicians.

    Haha. Man, that just says it all, doesn’t it.

  44. 44.

    jg

    January 5, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    That’s right. When I questioned other people forcing their moral certainties on the Schiavos and promoted the idea of leaving end of life decisions to the individual rather than to the masses of religious knuckle draggers, the Fat Guy accused me of… moral certainty. And then launched into a long and unrelated tirade about my chosen profession.

    Reasons to be dismissive.
    Brought to the right wingers ears by the FatGuy. Saves them the trouble of dealing with information that contradicts the ‘message’.

  45. 45.

    TenguPhule

    January 5, 2007 at 7:01 pm

    When you’re a loser *Foley*, beating *off* a dead horse makes ya feel good.

    Fixed.

  46. 46.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 5, 2007 at 7:48 pm

    Boo Yah!! Sammy Brownback is running!!

    Go Sammy! Go!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16490611/

    Watch him take Iowa and send the GOP establishment into a state of gibbering paralysis.

  47. 47.

    HyperIon

    January 5, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    Unlike the vast majority of mainstream media journalists who stay within the Green Zone in Baghdad, Ardolino is on patrol in the streets wherever his embedded Marine unit goes.

    i have a question about the meaning of this statement. it has to do with where most non-embedded jounalists “stay” and what “stay” implies. i recently heard Anne Garrels of NPR stating explicitly that jounalists do not live in the Green Zone, which makes sense because the Green Zone is a government area.

    so they live in hotels outside the Green Zone. she said that some journalists still interview people outside the Green Zone but not as much as before, given the decrease in security in Iraq. That is, you must take security with you when you venture too far out. it’s either private security (expensive) or embedding (not expensive but might have its own drawbacks from a jounalist’s POV).

    i’m reading the block quoted statement above and getting a sense of “Ardolino is not a wimp like those MSM journos who are too scared to venture outside the Green Zone.”

    but maybe i am projecting; folks are often careless of how commas can change meaning.

    “MSM journalists, who stay” has one meaning.
    “MSM journalists who stay” has another.

  48. 48.

    HyperIon

    January 5, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    But it’s a lot more complex than I realized.

    amen, brother. now if we could only get the CIC to admit that.

    and complexity cries out for facts, nuance, analysis. what are the correct assumptions and which are the false ones. is there going to be a debate, a discussion?

    remember when John Cole did the “here’s what we have all agreed on wrt Plame” iterations? we need the same damn thing on CSPAN as a marathon call-in. right now there is no dialog, only shouting at each other. or repeating stupid snark.

  49. 49.

    The Other Steve

    January 5, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    I heard Herman Miller is having a special discount for members of the 82nd chairborne on Aeron chairs.

  50. 50.

    Hyperion

    January 5, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    I heard Herman Miller is having a special discount for members of the 82nd chairborne on Aeron chairs.

    thanks, TOS, for illustrating my point about

    stupid snark

  51. 51.

    Pb

    January 5, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    HyperIon,

    complexity cries out for facts, nuance, analysis. what are the correct assumptions and which are the false ones. is there going to be a debate, a discussion?

    A: No.

    This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

    But seriously, I wanted to have that debate starting in 2002–guess what happened instead. Unfortunately, a good debate or even a good discussion really does require at least two sides to come to the table, both participating in good faith. And, yes, an acknowledgement of one common set of facts and definitions. So good luck with that, but I’ve stopped holding my breath–wake me up when the current know-nothing movement dies off.

    “A true knowledge of facts does not in itself, of course, lead to knowledge of ends. But false knowledge excludes the very possibility of it. The demolition of ideologies, as executed in Bell’s work, cannot tell us where we ought to go, as Americans and twentieth-century men. But it does at least help us to keep up with ourselves.” — Irving Kristol

    “We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam’s regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people’s pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.” — William Kristol

  52. 52.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 1:31 am

    It’s too bad that more generally the press lets its biases get in the way — there need to be more stories like this. We all agree the war is going badly, but that does not mean that we should ignore the contributions of the very real heros in Iraq.

    Maybe if there were more stories like this being read by the public, the American people would still have the stomach to finish the job we started.

  53. 53.

    Doug H.

    January 6, 2007 at 2:00 am

    Shorter Jimmy Mack: Doltschstoss!

    Longer Doug H: All the personal stories aren’t going to wipe out the horror of constant bombings, executions, and wanton slaughter. You figure a way of stopping that, then you’ll win back the American people.

  54. 54.

    TenguPhule

    January 6, 2007 at 2:26 am

    Maybe if there were more stories like this being read by the public, the American people would still have the stomach to finish the job we started.

    Shorter Jimmy Mack: Clap Louder, Assholes!

  55. 55.

    Beej

    January 6, 2007 at 2:40 am

    The MSM and most of the anti-war groups have been careful to avoid what I regarded as one of the most shameful aspects of the Vietnam era: The vicious repudiation of members of the military who served in Vietnam. Spitting on returning soldiers, calling them babykillers and worse, these things, thank God, have been absent this time around, and I hope there will be no trace of this in the future no matter how long this thing lasts. These people deserve our respect and support, even if the war and the way it has been conducted both suck.

  56. 56.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 5:17 am

    Looks like the Army has found a novel approach for obtaining the troops necessary to properly staff Georgie’s Iraq Surge.

    CNN: Army Asks Dead To Sign Up For Another Hitch

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/05/dead.letters.ap/index.html

  57. 57.

    Tulkinghorn

    January 6, 2007 at 7:07 am

    The MSM and most of the anti-war groups have been careful to avoid what I regarded as one of the most shameful aspects of the Vietnam era: The vicious repudiation of members of the military who served in Vietnam.

    Not to grab a tangential comment and make a flame war out of it, but those of us under 50 have no direct experience with which to evaluate this comment. Since we are more than 50% of the population now, please throw us a source or two to educate ourselves.

    My limited understanding is thus:

    1-A lot of hostility over the draft was played out on college campuses and elsewhere, which involved disrespect to soldiers and vets who willingly followed the law or volunteered for what some consider and illegal war, and so were, by implication, morally culpable with the illegal war;

    2-Returning vets, many who were traumatized and otherwise socially alienated, were treated shabbily by the vets from WWI, WWII, and Korea;

    3-Cheesy pop culture and media depictions of Vietnam vets as unstable and dangerous added a sort of official opprobrium to Vietnam era vets as a class;

    4-Numerous anecdotal stories widely circulated of petty and spiteful behaviour by leftists, hippies, college professors, birkenstocks-with-socks-wearing assholes and others commonly defined as “the left”.

    Maybe I am missing something here, but is seems awfully thin gruel with which to support the widely made assertion that the “the left” (which now includes Andrew Sullivan and Gerald Ford, apparently) hates the troops and wants to see them fail out of some perverse desire to morally triumph over their political and cultural adversaries.

    But has there ever been serious, objective analysis of the “spitting on returning soldiers” meme? How much of it happened, who exactly did the spitting, how long was this an issue, and what does this mean for our all-volunteer armed forces now?

    You see this sort of anger and bitterness about the “spitting” by well educated democrats like Jim Webb, even, so it must be more of a military culture issue than a “right-left” issue, but it is an unhealthy one that should be properly aired, discussed, and resolved, and should not be used by a political faction to alienate a professional army from the people that they are sworn to defend.

  58. 58.

    ThymeZone

    January 6, 2007 at 9:37 am

    Looks like the Army has found a novel approach for obtaining the troops necessary to properly staff Georgie’s Iraq Surge.

    Bush’s approach here reminds me of an old pilot’s joke.

    Flying at night in a storm, and not sure of where they are, two pilots discuss their plan. Ahead is a mountain, but which one? The 4000 foot one or the 6000 foot one? They decide to split the difference and fly at 5000 feet.

    Bush’s new Surge-O-Matic strategy is going to fly the Iraq storm at 5000 feet. Since a couple of brigades is not enough and enough brigades is too many and more than we have available, we’ll split the difference and send in about four brigades.

    Like everything else we’ve done over there so far, this move will insure a lousy outcome.

  59. 59.

    ThymeZone

    January 6, 2007 at 9:56 am

    But has there ever been serious, objective analysis of the “spitting on returning soldiers” meme? How much of it happened, who exactly did the spitting, how long was this an issue, and what does this mean for our all-volunteer armed forces now?

    Excellent post. Good summary.

    The “hippies spitting on soldiers” meme was the counterpart of the “soldiers shooting students” meme that sprang from Kent State and other events where troops and police clashed with protesters.

    Dual-demonization. But since I am old enough to remember it clearly, I’ll suggest that it was the politicians that started it. When citizen dissatisfaction with government gets characterized as unpatriotic and treasonous by politicians for their own purposes, then the decibel level and nature of citizen protests and complaints is going to go up. In situations like this, the government initially has the power, which includes the power to defuse the unrest. Instead, if LBJ, Nixon and Bush are our examples, they seem intent on inflaming the passions by calling their detractors traitors and communists and terrorist-lovers and so forth. They’re idiots, and I hold them responsible for the skewed rhetoric and skewed perceptions.

    To badly paraphrase Steinbeck, we’re the people. We deserve better than to be called traitors and communists for saying that we don’t like what the government is doing.

  60. 60.

    The Other Steve

    January 6, 2007 at 11:08 am

    thanks, TOS, for illustrating my point about stupid snark

    Ahh, but does this war deserve any other response than stupid snark?

    I don’t think so. In 2002/2003 we were railroaded into this folly by self-inflated assholes who though “War is good for the economy” or other inane explanations.

    Since war supporters are unable to have an intelligent debate, the only thing left to do is make fun of them.

  61. 61.

    The Other Steve

    January 6, 2007 at 11:11 am

    The MSM and most of the anti-war groups have been careful to avoid what I regarded as one of the most shameful aspects of the Vietnam era: The vicious repudiation of members of the military who served in Vietnam. Spitting on returning soldiers, calling them babykillers and worse, these things, thank God, have been absent this time around, and I hope there will be no trace of this in the future no matter how long this thing lasts. These people deserve our respect and support, even if the war and the way it has been conducted both suck.

    Yet it was the Republicans who did the most damage.

    By blaming the loss of Vietnam on the soldiers, when Vietnam was lost by the military leaders and the policy makers.

    Don’t believe me. Listen to a Republican trying to explain away the Draft.

  62. 62.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 11:23 am

    Listen to a Republican trying to explain away the Draft.

    I’m getting tired of this particular liberal talking point — the specter of the big, bad, scary draft. Why are you all so against a surge but so favor of a draft? Other than the fact that Bush supports the first and opposes the second, I mean?

  63. 63.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 11:31 am

    A draft would mean that the prancing precious darlings of Republican families might be called upon to set aside their busy schedule at the Country Club to perform some unpleasant and possibly hazardous duties on behalf of their country.

    Which, come to think of it, doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

  64. 64.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 11:34 am

    A draft would mean that the prancing precious darlings of Republican families might be called upon to set aside their busy schedule at the Country Club to perform some unpleasant and possibly hazardous duties on behalf of their country.

    If you feel so strongly that way, why don’t you volunteer for duty in Iraq yourself? What’s your excuse? And you mock Malkin for going over while you sip your lattes and watch your Stewart DVDs.

  65. 65.

    ThymeZone

    January 6, 2007 at 11:43 am

    Why are you all so against a surge but so favor of a draft?

    Because without a draft, the perpetual war policy is dishonest and disconnected from the realities of the country and its politics. To say nothing of being harmful to the readiness and availability of forces that are tied up fighting useless wars.

    The draft makes the perpetual war policy face up to its true costs and true effects on the defense posture of the country. It democratizes war.

    And you mock Malkin for going over while you sip your lattes and watch your Stewart DVDs.

    Not me. I think Malkin should live in Baghdad, I don’t drink lattes, and I have no idea what a “Stewart DVD” is. Is that a new name for Blu-Ray?

  66. 66.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 11:46 am

    You’re missing the point, Jimmy Crack. If there ws a draft and little Republican boys and girls were called to go into harm’s way, there would be no war in Iraq.

    Nobody wants to fight in Loser Bush’s vanity war. And one of the few things that keeps this wretched enterprise going is that only the poorest and most powerless people in this country are called upon to do so.

    OK, Keyboard Commando?

  67. 67.

    Tulkinghorn

    January 6, 2007 at 11:48 am

    The attraction of a draft is that you would get a military that was based on a cross-section of society, as opposed to a military-elite subculture that is starting to arise now.

    It is pretty hard to justify a peacetime draft, though, even for ‘big-government’ liberals. A wartime draft when the CIC is manifestly incompetent and who is managing the war with reckless indifference to the welfare of the troops is also problematic.

    Thus, one or two liberals in congress have suggested thinking about a draft, and the rest have not supported it.

  68. 68.

    louisms

    January 6, 2007 at 11:50 am

    There was, in the Vietnam era, a protest song called “The Universal Soldier” which sumed up the thinking behind the distasteful but, I think, understandable disapproval much of the left felt for returning Vietnam vets. And one saw, on occasion, bumperstickers reading:”What If They Gave a War and Nobody Came?”. The idea is that wars are waged not by Presidents and Congresses, but by soldiers. It was felt that the individual had a moral responsibility not to participate in unjustified wars, a responsibility which could not be shirked in the name of patriotism.

    I really hate bringing this up, because it’s so devisive, but I must confess that the idea, however unpleasant and insulting it’s implications, has some merit. George Bush isn’t fighting this war. Brave, but misguided soldiers are. To not observe that the “boots on the ground” are perpetuating the Iraq war is to be intellectually dishonest. To studiously avoid observing this truth may be understandable in the interest of honoring our soldiers as they risk their lives over there, but facts are facts. What if they gave a war and nobody came?

  69. 69.

    Tulkinghorn

    January 6, 2007 at 11:51 am

    And Malkin is not going over there to fight, but to troll for stories and anecdotes to support four years of unhinged, irresponsible, and dishonest rhetoric on her part. Since she is going to inconvenience our soldiers who will need to protect her, she is detracting from the war effort.

  70. 70.

    Jonathan

    January 6, 2007 at 11:51 am

    The MSM and most of the anti-war groups have been careful to avoid what I regarded as one of the most shameful aspects of the Vietnam era: The vicious repudiation of members of the military who served in Vietnam. Spitting on returning soldiers, calling them babykillers and worse.

    I’m a Vietnam era vet, I spent many an hour in uniform in airports, bus stations and the like. I honestly don’t recall ever being treated with anything other than respect.

    Just my personal anecdotal evidence.

    I never tried to join the American Legion but from what I have heard from other Vn vets they were sometimes treated shabbily by WWII vets in particular.

  71. 71.

    ThymeZone

    January 6, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Brave, but misguided soldiers are

    I don’t follow. Are you suggesting that soldiers get to pick which wars they fight?

    That is not only far removed from the factual reality, it’s an insult to every soldier, as I see it.

  72. 72.

    The Other Steve

    January 6, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    How exactly are you going to recruit dead soldiers to reenlist?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16493727/

  73. 73.

    VidaLoca

    January 6, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    Jimmy,

    Why are you all so against a surge

    Reason 1: It’s not a “surge” it’s an escalation. In other words the term “surge” is an implicit lie, made for the purpose of confusing people who are credulous as to Bush’s actual intent, or people who actually support his goals but need a cover in order to feel comfortable in doing so.

    Reason 2: Whatever the word used, the policy is a failure and adding a few more battalions of troops will not change that fact. This is the point of TZ’s “two pilots” story above. The situation we face is a potential Stalingrad-on-the-Tigris and adding more troops puts more troops in danger.

    but so favor of a draft?

    I’ve seen two arguments made in support of the draft.

    Argument 1: It will be more fair. While the military currently claims to be a “volunteer” force the reality is that whether or not you volunteer for a career in the military has a lot to do with the other choices you have in your life. People who can make other choices, make them. The claim is made that a draft would change this by making all people of military age subject to military service, thus making the military a more democratic institution. My personal opinion is that while the premise is correct, the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

    Argument 2: It will break what remaining support exists for the war. My personal opinion is that the conclusion is probably correct but the premise is too clever by half, and an extremely opportunistic way to go about making public policy.

  74. 74.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    And Malkin is not going over there to fight, but to troll for stories

    Still, that’s a hell of a lot more than you’re doing, isn’t it?

  75. 75.

    Punchy

    January 6, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    How exactly are you going to recruit dead soldiers to reenlist?

    Oh, come on. You’ve never seen Weekend at Bernie’s?? Dead guys can get a LOT done…

    And I finally clicked on the link. What the HELL is Lance Freaking Armstrong doing smoking a cig in this picture????

  76. 76.

    Tulkinghorn

    January 6, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    And Malkin is not going over there to fight, but to troll for stories

    >>Still, that’s a hell of a lot more than you’re doing, isn’t it?

    It is less than what I am doing (which is nothing), because I am not actively hindering the ability of the troops to pursue their mission.

    Unless you consider disagreeing with the president to be tantamount to supporting the enemy. I do not think that is the case, in part because I am not a bleeding idiot.

  77. 77.

    Darrell

    January 6, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    Val Prieto Says:

    John,

    Your post seems rather petty.

    Exactly

  78. 78.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    Unless you consider disagreeing with the president to be tantamount to supporting the enemy.

    Stereotype the opposition much? Of course, disagreeing with the president is not tantamount to supporting the enemy. In fact, most supporters of the president don’t support everything the president does — see immigration, reform. But I know you reality-based people think that all Republicans are gun-toting backwoods priests with three wives, two teeth, and a statue of George Bush on a crucfix.

  79. 79.

    Tulkinghorn

    January 6, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Who is doing the stereotyping here? I inferred from you that doing “nothing” was worse than what Malkin is doing, which is a pointless vanity project.

  80. 80.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Malkin is risking her life. Period. You may not like her politics, but you should respect her courage.

  81. 81.

    Punchy

    January 6, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Malkin is risking her life.

    Using the present tense, eh? Has she gone yet? If not, why the present tense?

  82. 82.

    louisms

    January 6, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    THYMEZONE, I wasn’t suggesting anything, but only trying to explain the thinking of those to put some blaim on the soldiers for the raging of a war. Personally, my feelings are mixed on the issue, as I understand that the military could not really do its job were soldiers free to elect not to participate in a war for which they can find no justification.

    But the thought is that every individual bears personal responsibility for his/her actions, responsibility which cannot be avoided by arguing that he/she was “just following orders”. The feelings of those who hold this view are that soldiers not only GET to pick which wars they fight, but are morally OBLIGED to do so. If the burden of proof that a war was just and essential to our security were placed on our government, if the individuals making up our military forces felt free to opt out of a conflict which they personally felt lacked coherent justification, such misadventures as either the Vietnam or Iraq fiasco would be far harder to wage. And would it be so injurious to our nation if niether had ever been fought?

    I’m not exactly playing devil’s advocate here, as I personally feel that this view holds some limited merit (as I wrote, my own feelings are very mixed on the issue). But I absolutely agree that to suggest that the individual grunt bears some responsibility for the war is an insult to every soldier. And I’m loath to insult those who are laying their lives on the line for what they believe, foolishly or not, is our national security. Hence, my waffling on the issue.

  83. 83.

    VidaLoca

    January 6, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Malkin is risking her life.

    A quick scan of her blog shows nothing that would lead to any conclusion other than that her ass remains safely parked in Maryland. Even from there, though, she’s been effective: the source of the story is now facing arrest so it’s unlikely he’ll be talking out of turn again any time soon. Particularly if he ends up like another AP stringer who the assassins got to.

    Net effect? If AP has no sources it can’t do much to report the news. Hussein’s arrest may just be the consequence, not the intent, of Malkin and the rest of the wingnuts that have been flogging this story, but it is exactly, as Tulkinghorn says, a vanity project. Even if Malkin was right it still would not rescue the fact that the Iraq project is a rolling clusterf*ck.

  84. 84.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    So far all Malkin has done is schmooze around the Green Zone talking to REMFs.
    Something that does not seem in any way out of character for those of her particular political stripe.

    Chances are that after a few days of hanging around this highly fortified area she’ll scamper back to the US and treat us all to months of jabber about how she went to the “front lines.”

  85. 85.

    Steve

    January 6, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    Chances are that after a few days of hanging around this highly fortified area she’ll scamper back to the US and treat us all to months of jabber about how she went to the “front lines.”

    I hope she doesn’t end up offending other occupants of the front lines.

  86. 86.

    VidaLoca

    January 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Paddy,

    So, I’m wrong? She’s actually made it as far as Baghdad?

  87. 87.

    Krista

    January 6, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    We all agree the war is going badly, but that does not mean that we should ignore the contributions of the very real heros in Iraq.

    You might want to double-check that one. There are still many who are convinced that the war is going fine, and it’s just the liberal media who is being all negative in the attempt to destroy morale at home.

    And yeah, it is a bit of a piss off that many of the people who are the strongest proponents of the war have kids who are of age to enlist. They don’t stop for even ONE second to think what it would be like if it was THEIR kid over there, because they know that it’s not going to happen, that their kid will be safe. The people who are the strongest proponents of war are often those who have to sacrifice absolutely nothing.

  88. 88.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    Vida – No, you’re right. I was just twisting Jimmy’s wiggly nose.

  89. 89.

    Tom in Texas

    January 6, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    Malkin is risking her life. Period. You may not like her politics, but you should respect her courage.

    The irony that Malkin, who desecrated Kerry as faking every aspect of his Vietnam service, is now earning hosannahs for her bravery in flying to a war zone is stunning. This argument sounds eerily familiar to those of us defending John Kerry’s service, but to Malkin et al. it seems that he faked all his injuries and only volunteered to get elected anyway. I am certain, however, that you respect the immense efforts Kerry expended Jimmy. After all, he risked his life. Period.

  90. 90.

    Darrell

    January 6, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    They don’t stop for even ONE second to think what it would be like if it was THEIR kid over there, because they know that it’s not going to happen, that their kid will be safe. The people who are the strongest proponents of war are often those who have to sacrifice absolutely nothing.

    You know, I think this is one of the most obvious lies coming from the left. And it’s more than just a few of you saying it. Survey after survey indicates that those who are serving/have served in the military are, on average, more conservative, more likely to vote Republican, and more likely to be from Red states. In other words, walking the walk.

    But that doesn’t stop the left making such absurd (on many levels) assertions..

  91. 91.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    Darrell: I know how you feel about cites, but perhaps you can come up with one that refutes this one? Because it looks like the military is fleeing the GOP, just like other patriotic Americans concerned with the disastrous incompetence shown by the Republicans these last few years.

    Weening The Military From The GOP

    “In the 2004 (Military Times) poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56 percent. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military republicans plummeted to 46 percent.”

    http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4958544

  92. 92.

    The Other Steve

    January 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    You know, I think this is one of the most obvious lies coming from the left. And it’s more than just a few of you saying it. Survey after survey indicates that those who are serving/have served in the military are, on average, more conservative, more likely to vote Republican, and more likely to be from Red states. In other words, walking the walk.

    And yet Darrell still has not signed up to join the Army.

    So how exactly is this a lie?

  93. 93.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    I think Darrell needs to address the issues brought up by the 2006 Military Times Poll. I’m sure he wouldn’t be making ugly accusations about people of a certain political persuasion telling “obvious lies” unless he had some rock hard evidence to back it up.

    So Darrell? Let’s see it!

  94. 94.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    And yet Darrell still has not signed up to join the Army.

    Uh, neither have you, pal. What’s your point?

  95. 95.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    Where’d Darrell go?

  96. 96.

    The Other Andrew

    January 6, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Americans don’t have “the stomach to finish the job”, Jimmy Mack? Yes, blame America for losing the war; that should win over voters in 2008. It might help to specifically define what the job actually is, though, and how we’re realistically going to finish it.

    Personally, I think America has the stomach to finish any job it feels is necessary or worthy, and I can’t see anything getting in the way of that, let alone something like media coverage. But this is a war of choice, which was based on either blatant lies or knowing/unknowing exaggeration, and it’s helping our actual enemies and draining our military strength, which will prevent us from confronting those enemies in the future.

    I say we do the exact thing that bin Laden doesn’t want us to–get out of this quagmire so we can get the country strong, again. 9/11 was intended to weaken it, the best way to fight back is to get things back on track. Rebuild and improve the military, institute an ethical, competent foreign policy that will win over international moderates and thus hurt al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts, contain religious fundamentalism at home and abroad, and improve America’s economy, healthcare situation, education system, etc., so we’ll be stronger than ever. I realize that’s wildly optimistic, but I’d love to see it.

  97. 97.

    Darrell

    January 6, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Paddy O’Shea Says:

    I think Darrell needs to address the issues brought up by the 2006 Military Times Poll. I’m sure he wouldn’t be making ugly accusations about people of a certain political persuasion telling “obvious lies” unless he had some rock hard evidence to back it up.

    So Darrell? Let’s see it!

    What the hell is your point? Based on the Military Times polls you cited, I assume you’re too damn stupid to realize you don’t have a point. By the Military Times’ own polls, the military supports Bush, supports the war on terror, and identifies as Republican in significantly greater margins than other Americans, which was my point. Military Times Poll

    While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent. While that is down from his high of 71 percent in 2004, it is still far above the approval ratings of the general population, where that number has fallen into the 30s.

    52% approval in the military versus 30-something % approval in the general population. Get it? and this:

    While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the popula tion as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the mili tary respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a figure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.

    Only 16% in the military identify themselves as Democrat. Any other questions Paddy?

  98. 98.

    Tsulagi

    January 6, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Well, if Malkin ever makes it to the Green Zone, if she’s not too busy fending off soldiers wanting their pictures taken with her and blogging happy news about life in that zone, maybe she could use a few of the happy stories from residents of New Detroit. Here’s one from Iraqi Konfused Kid on his blog. He even starts it off with “WARNING: This story has a happy ending.”

    It’s a heartwarming tale of a 20-something Sunni and his Shia friend. Just a day in their life encountering men of God in the new democracy and the value of alternative interrogation in seeking the truth. Everyday stuff. Happy news. How could she pass that up?

  99. 99.

    Darrell

    January 6, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    But this is a war of choice, which was based on either blatant lies or knowing/unknowing exaggeration, and it’s helping our actual enemies and draining our military strength

    How is it helping our actual enemies? and please define for us who the ‘actual’ ones are.

    Rebuild and improve the military, institute an ethical, competent foreign policy that will win over international moderates and thus hurt al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts

    Sounds like typical liberal Kumbaya nonsense.. outline for us what foreign policy/diplomatic changes would “win over” moderates.. most of whom in the middle east are living under dictatorial regimes run by despots.

  100. 100.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    Only 16% in the military identify themselves as Democrat.

    I’m surprised it’s that many. From what I’ve seen, there’s hardly any “blue staters” in the military. I wonder who the Democrats in the military are — maybe African-Americans, I might guess.

  101. 101.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Only 16% in the military identify themselves as Democrat.

    Though not for too much longer, I would hope. If we can finish the job in Iraq (a tall order, I know), effect regime change in Iran (not as tall an order, IHMO), then I think Syria and the Saudis will fall into line in shortish order. You can call that wishful thinking, but better wishful thinking than a surrender mentality.

  102. 102.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Whoops. That last post was a screw-up. I meant to write

    most of whom in the middle east are living under dictatorial regimes run by despots.

    Though not for too much longer, I would hope. If we can finish the job in Iraq (a tall order, I know), effect regime change in Iran (not as tall an order, IHMO), then I think Syria and the Saudis will fall into line in shortish order. You can call that wishful thinking, but better wishful thinking than a surrender mentality.

  103. 103.

    ThymeZone

    January 6, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    You know, I think this is one of the most obvious lies coming from the left

    This has been today’s entry on the “Long list of absurd things that Darrell thinks.”

    Sounds like typical liberal Kumbaya nonsense..

    Because the alternative to years of Permanent Useless War and Death is something Darrell calls “Kumbaya.”

    please define for us who the ‘actual’ ones are

    Darrell supports the Permanent War but apparently doesn’t know who the “actual enemies” are.

  104. 104.

    ThymeZone

    January 6, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    Though not for too much longer, I would hope

    Because … what? The 3000-year history of the region without an Arab country that can establish and maintain a successful democracy is going to magically come to an end, thanks to the brilliant leadership of a former drunk who can’t even manage his own PR through a hurricane?

    Yep, that must be your thinking.

  105. 105.

    Tsulagi

    January 6, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    I’m surprised it’s that many. From what I’ve seen, there’s hardly any “blue staters” in the military. I wonder who the Democrats in the military are—maybe African-Americans, I might guess.

    Though not for too much longer, I would hope. If we can finish the job in Iraq (a tall order, I know), effect regime change in Iran (not as tall an order, IHMO), then I think Syria and the Saudis will fall into line in shortish order. You can call that wishful thinking, but better wishful thinking than a surrender mentality.

    Given those two statements, my first inclination is you got to be a spoof. Noboby is that retarded plus an asshole. If not a spoof, then you’re fighting hard for the title of lamest dick, brain-dead Foley Republican manly man. No doubt Bill Bennett would applaud, but I have full faith Darwin will take care of such idiots.

  106. 106.

    VidaLoca

    January 6, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    Darrell,

    which was my point

    Wait a minute. This was your original point, in its entirety:

    You know, I think this is one of the most obvious lies coming from the left. And it’s more than just a few of you saying it. Survey after survey indicates that those who are serving/have served in the military are, on average, more conservative, more likely to vote Republican, and more likely to be from Red states. In other words, walking the walk.

    But that doesn’t stop the left making such absurd (on many levels) assertions..

    Filtering for background noise, and noting that you’ve brought in a single survey so far, we have:

    [A] survey indicates that those who are serving/have served in the military are, on average, more conservative, more likely to vote Republican, and more likely to be from Red states.

    Now it seems to me that that’s pretty unexceptionable if we assume that in that sentence the “more”‘s mean “moreso than the average in the general population”. It pretty much agrees with everything I’ve ever read about demography and politics among the military. But so what?

    Next you go on to make a new point, which is different in the sense that instead of discussing demographics or voting patterns or party preferences, you assert that the people in the military support Bush, support the WOT, and support the GOP in significantly greater numbers than other Americans:

    By the Military Times’ own polls, the military supports Bush, supports the war on terror, and identifies as Republican in significantly greater margins than other Americans…

    Well, that would be interesting if it were true, but what does the poll you cited say?

    For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

    When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

    Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

    Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

    […]

    While approval of Bush’s han dling of the war has plunged, ap proval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent. While that is down from his high of 71 percent in 2004, it is still far above the approval rat ings of the general population, where that number has fallen into the 30s.

    While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identi fied themselves as Republicans, which is about double the popula tion as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the mili tary respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a fig ure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.

    The article you cite does not offer much support to the point you’re trying to make.

    To me it would appear that support for the war has fallen significantly, support for Bush has fallen marginally, support for the GOP has fallen significantly as well though support for the Democrats has not gone up proportionately. “The big gain came among people who said they were independents.” Which is worth noting because nobody ever claimed that they were joining the Democrats.

    Paddy’s making the same point that your own damn link is making: even conservative, red-state, military people are walking away from this asshat president and his clusterf*ck war.

  107. 107.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Dimwit Darrell: So even though those who identify themselves as Republicans in the military has fallen from 60% to 46% since 2003, you still believe the military is some bastion of GOP support? What do you base this on? Tin foil reports from the Mother Ship?

    And only 35% of those serving in the military approve of the job Bush is doing in Iraq. Sounds like we have a Captain Queeg situation going on here, Darrell.

    Darrell? These numbers do not show the level of support for either the Republicans or Bush that you originally claimed. And despite your sputtering and denial, I think it is obvious that you owe some people here an apology.

    That is, unless you’re the lying punk I suspect you to be.

  108. 108.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Tsulagi – I believe that one of the main reasons we see so many Red Staters in the military is that those states are incapable of producing jobs that pay a living wage. For those kids unfortunate enough to grow up in Wal*Mart America, the opportunities for meaningful employment just aren’t there.

    So they turn to the govt for a job.

    Article of interest:

    Young, White Country Boys: The Fodder Of Bush’s War

    http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/77859.html

  109. 109.

    VidaLoca

    January 6, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    you owe some people here an apology.

    Or at least bring your “A” game next time you play.

  110. 110.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    No doubt Bill Bennett would applaud,

    Ouch! That’s a low blow. Please don’t lump me in with that sanctimonious, priggish gambling addict.

  111. 111.

    VidaLoca

    January 6, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    I believe that one of the main reasons we see so many Red Staters in the military is that those states are incapable of producing jobs that pay a living wage. For those kids unfortunate enough to grow up in Wal*Mart America, the opportunities for meaningful employment just aren’t there.

    Also — with weak rural economies you’ll have underfunded and relatively weak rural school systems.

    There are two roads out of those hinterlands: college, and the military. They may not be prepared for the former, but the barriers to participation in the latter are lower. So a lot of troops join up, especially in peacetime, for the college benefits.

  112. 112.

    Darrell

    January 6, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    I believe that one of the main reasons we see so many Red Staters in the military is that those states are incapable of producing jobs that pay a living wage. For those kids unfortunate enough to grow up in Wal*Mart America, the opportunities for meaningful employment just aren’t there.

    Wasn’t there a study published recently that showed that our military personnel were better educated than the average American?

  113. 113.

    Darrell

    January 6, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    The article you cite does not offer much support to the point you’re trying to make

    Sure it does. Your simply being dishonest.

  114. 114.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Darrell: That would be “you’re,” not your. As in: “You’re simply being dishonest.”

    You sure do like to call people liars, don’t you. Pot…kettle…Darryl.

    Speaking of your veracity problem, my post said nothing about the education level of the people who join the military or are in the military. What it did say is that the economic opportunities in many red States are so poor that military employment becomes something many are forced to accept.

  115. 115.

    VidaLoca

    January 6, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Darrell,

    Sure it does. Your simply being dishonest.

    Hee-hee. You really have to do better than this. I quoted your comments verbatim, quoted your own linked article against you, showed you where the main point you were arguing against had not been raised by anyone until you raised it yourself… and I’m being dishonest?

    OK, whatever. You, at least, are not being dishonest. You’re just being… Darrell.

    Thanks a lot, it’s been fun playing, I’m out for the afternoon.

  116. 116.

    Tsulagi

    January 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    So they turn to the govt for a job.

    Under the caring, nurturing guidance of fatherly military recruiters. LOL. Those vultures know where the pickings are plumper.

    Still, there is a broad cross section in the services and the average intelligence in the military is a bit higher than that of the population as a whole. The characterization of those in the military being dumb shits who would have no future outside of it is wrong.

  117. 117.

    Darrell

    January 6, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    Still, there is a broad cross section in the services and the average intelligence in the military is a bit higher than that of the population as a whole. The characterization of those in the military being dumb shits who would have no future outside of it is wrong.

    Good post. Now please spread the news to your fellow leftards who haven’t gotten the memo yet.

  118. 118.

    Tsulagi

    January 6, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Good post. Now please spread the news to your fellow leftards who haven’t gotten the memo yet.

    You know Darrell, I’m beginning to think Hillary was right. It takes a village. And every village needs an idiot. You’re doing a heckuva job.

  119. 119.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    The Darrell Dodge in action. Lie and fly.

    So Darrell, would claiming that the military is in blind lockstep with the Bush administration and its insane policies be tantamount to suggesting that they’re all idiots incapable of thinking for themselves?

    It seems that you’re unwilling to admit that the people in our military might actually be thinking for themselves, and have actually been coming to the same conclusions about Bonehead Bush as everyone else.

    Pretty damned elite of you, Darrell.

  120. 120.

    Pb

    January 6, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    Blindly comparing the results of a military times survey to a survey of the general population is idiotic on its face for obvious structural demographic reasons alone. Adjust for that, and split out the officers from the enlisted men, and then get back to me–until then, it’s like comparing a red herring to oranges.

  121. 121.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    What would those ‘obvious structural demographic reasons’ be, Pb? This was a survey of 6,000 active duty military people, which is a fairly large sample. Why would the opinions of Americans serving in the military be sampled any differently than those of Americans not serving in the military? Are civilian polls done with special consideration taken for job descriptions or pay grades?

    Aren’t we all from the same country?

    Please explain.

  122. 122.

    Pb

    January 6, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    Paddy O’Shea,

    What would those ‘obvious structural demographic reasons’ be, Pb?

    Well, gender is a pretty obvious one–over 80% of those surveyed were men, whereas the population of the US is divided somewhat differently. Other factors to look at would generally include age, race, income, religion, maybe sexual orientation, etc.

    This was a survey of 6,000 active duty military people, which is a fairly large sample.

    I counted 954 in the raw data for 2006, but maybe they didn’t release it all–still, it isn’t representative of the military as a whole, either, as they admit–in fact, the sample is heavily biased towards the officer corps and the older/higher ranking enlisted men. I counted two E-2’s and ten E-3’s total–now compare that to the five O-7’s and sixty O-6’s, and then tell me what’s so representative about it.

  123. 123.

    Darrell

    January 6, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    Paddy O’Shea Says:

    The Darrell Dodge in action. Lie and fly.

    that’s rich, given what you wrote next

    So Darrell, would claiming that the military is in blind lockstep with the Bush administration

    I’m sure the irony is lost on you

  124. 124.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 6, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    Blindly comparing the results of a military times survey to a survey of the general population is idiotic on its face for obvious structural demographic reasons alone.

    Shorter PB: I was for the survey before I was against it.

  125. 125.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    Pb – Read the article. It says the Military Times poll was 6,000 active duty personnel. Where did you do all that counting? And why does rank matter so much to you? Are you suggesting that the opinions of some ranks matter less than others?

    Darrell – Do you mumble cryptically in person, or is your inability to communicate clearly something that happens only when you attempt to write?

    Have you ever suffered a severe head injury?

  126. 126.

    demimondian

    January 6, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Pb’s right here, Paddy. There are several black arts involved in building a successful poll, two of the blackest of which are the construction of the question set and the weighting of the panel’s responses. Remember the 2004 “scandal” in Ohio about exit polls? That was exactly an instance when an unbalanced sample was not correctly interpreted.

  127. 127.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    Sure, Demi. The 2006 Military Times poll showing that support for Bush and the republicans in decline is obviously a fiction.

    Give Darrell a kiss.

  128. 128.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    The only thing worse than out and out liars are those timid souls who, out of a perverse sense of fairness, attempt to find something good in what they say.

  129. 129.

    demimondian

    January 6, 2007 at 9:47 pm

    I didn’t say it was a fiction — I said that it was unreliable. There are obvious biases and methodological flaws in the poll.

    When Darrell takes data that draws a conclusion he likes and ignores its flaws, you call him out on it, right? Why don’t you hold yourself to the same standard?

  130. 130.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 6, 2007 at 9:53 pm

    Horseshit, Demi. All I did was site a poll. And I find it annoying in the extreme that a perfectly upright poll conducted by a perfectly upright military paper on the opinions of military people should be compared by your pristine self to corrupt Ohio politics.

    Really, where do you get this crap?

  131. 131.

    Tsulagi

    January 6, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Pb and maybe demi,

    If you’re going to analyze, one other thing you need to take into account when looking at polls of those serving in the military is a cultural bias. As one line near the bottom of the Army Times poll noted “There is a strong strain in military culture not to criticize the commander in chief,” That would apply to the mission too.

    There is a cultural effect you have to factor in, and it’s a black art applying it correctly. No one is going to be 100% accurate.

    For instance, say when Army or Marines try to gauge morale in the field, they know if they ask a soldier “how’s your morale?”, likely 999/1000 they’re going to hear something like “Good to go, sir!” They know to ask a follow up something along the lines of “How about the morale in the rest of your unit?” If they hear “Well, not so good, not me, but a few think this is fucked up and we’re getting screwed, sir”, they know that is much closer to the morale of that soldier.

    Anyway, what those poll results are telling me is overwhelming the majority have lost confidence in their CIC, they think the mission is fucked up, and now they’re not buying the bullshit that it is necessary and they’re blaming Republicans.

  132. 132.

    demimondian

    January 6, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    Really, where do you get this crap?

    From dealing, daily, with data collected by polling and surveys. The only corruption in the 2004 exit polls lay in the idiots who didn’t understand what they measured, and over-interpreted them. You’re over-interpreting this poll, too — it may mean what you say, but it could equally well mean nothing.

    So, I ask again, when Darrell spouts off about something he doesn’t know, you cheer when he’s nailed for it. OK, Paddy, boy, here, you’ve been nailed for ignorance. Deal with it.

  133. 133.

    demimondian

    January 6, 2007 at 10:56 pm

    Tsulagi — I can’t speak for Pb, but I didn’t read him as saying the poll was wrong, but, rather, that it was methodologically flawed. Polls are not the be-all-and-end-all measurement devices that they’re frequently believed to be, and methodology is key. It’s very easy to wind up with “Dewey beats Truman” if you aren’t careful.

    Intuitively, I find it plausible that the poll’s results are accurate. However, I’ve found it particularly important to be skeptical of polls which say what I want said, since I otherwise won’t be skeptical enough.

  134. 134.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 7, 2007 at 3:01 am

    Darrellmondian – You have blithely spoken of your vast professional experience, and using this as the basis for what you personally seem to feel is an unimpeachable basis for making rather broad (though imprecise) judgements, leave us with very little to go on.

    So really, when are you going to tell us why or how the poll is biased and methodically flawed? Talking about Ohio doesn’t quite get to the nub of it, you know?

    Enlighten us, Darrellmondian. Or otherwise you will seem to be just “spouting off.”

  135. 135.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 7, 2007 at 4:56 am

    Oh, and Darrellmondian? On the “Cost Of War” thread Darrell is contesting some other poll numbers.

    I’m sure you’ll want to jump in and lend him a hand.

  136. 136.

    Jimmy Mack

    January 7, 2007 at 10:15 am

    Just to put in my two cents worth: it seems like polls generally skew Democrat for whatever reason. Look at 2000, look at 2004, most polls had Bush losing and Gore or Kerry winning. Yet that’s not what happened.

  137. 137.

    demimondian

    January 7, 2007 at 10:27 am

    Paddy, baby, I can’t and won’t tell you what I do. Sorry. No, it isn’t classified work, but my employer fears, generally, that if the nature of the work anyone does gets out, it would potentially expose valuable short-cuts to competitors. I am not sure I agree, but it isn’t my call.

    No, it isn’t fair, and, yes, I agree that you shouldn’t take my assertions on faith. How much credence you should lend them is for you to decide.

    Meanwhile, I really want to understand why IOKIYAAP to misuse and misrepresent data sources. I am surely dense, that using data without caring whether it’s valid or not sounds more like bullshit than like argument. You, however, with your mastery of the language and its nuances; you who are wise beyond my limited capacity to understand; you who know — teach me.

    Speak! O, Muse! Enlighten me!

  138. 138.

    demimondian

    January 7, 2007 at 10:29 am

    Woo, Jinny Mack! I love to read that concern troll stuff.

    Of course, it’s false; in fact, pre-election polls generally skew Republican, and partial results aren’t released, precisely because they are partial and unpredictive.

    But, hey, IOKIYAACT, right?

  139. 139.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 7, 2007 at 10:41 am

    All I am discussing here is the Military Times poll, Demi darling. That you seem to believe that the opinions military folks cannot be accurately sampled shows a certain lacuna in your life experience. While I am certain your top secret work is filled with the most arcane and sophisticated of equations and data (such a revelation!), you appear to have a certain lacking in the human being department. Military people are not from another planet. They have opinions and they like to be asked about them. And given some of the kinds of situations they are put into, those opinions can at times actually be more intense than those felt by couch-bound civilians.

    And given the poor leadership shown by President Bush, and the sometimes fatal consequences his failures can have for those serviong in the military, is it really all that surprising that his regard within the military has declined?

    One other question: If our military people cannot be trusted to accurately reply to a poll conducted by their own press, how can they be heard? By denying the validity of this otherwise widely respected work, you seem to be saying that they have no right to be heard.

  140. 140.

    demimondian

    January 7, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    That you seem to believe that the opinions military folks cannot be accurately sampled shows a certain lacuna in your life experience.

    Who said anything about that? I criticized your *interpretation* of a set of measurements by saying that the measurements, as performed, were meaningless. I don’t quite see how those things are the same.

    Obviously, IOKIYAAP, though. O! Muse! O! Spirit of Enlightenment! Please, thou whose wisdom rains down on us like piss out of heaven, wisdom on us some more!

  141. 141.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 7, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    When my wisdom pisses from heaven you turn your face up like a little flower, and smile.

    Demi the happy daisy.

  142. 142.

    Tsulagi

    January 7, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Jeez, you two are getting into a pissing contest over almost nothing.

    It’s very easy to wind up with “Dewey beats Truman” if you aren’t careful.

    True, but this poll wasn’t trying to forecast an outcome in a winner take all contest where say 500 votes in FL rules. It was trying to determine opinions, attitudes, and trends.

    The methodology in that poll may well have had flaws. As Pb suggested it could have been heavy in the responding sample with colonels and one-star generals. If true, I have my guess how that might skew the numbers a little, but throw out my guess.

    Even if those flaws caused MoE to jump to 10%, then you applied that error potential all in the administration’s favor, given the military culture, I say my conclusion is still reasonable. I’d even spot you 20%.

  143. 143.

    demimondian

    January 7, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    A pissing contest, eh? Full marks for the clever pun, in context.

    It’s very dangerous to try to infer trends from polls that aren’t designed to measure them. Any poll reflects feeling at a time certain, and, samples being what they are, you’re a lot more likely to get a response from someone who feels attacked or marginalized, yet right, than you are from someone who’s basically contented. So I doubt the validity of the results.

  144. 144.

    Krista

    January 7, 2007 at 8:49 pm

    Jeez, you two are getting into a pissing contest over almost nothing.

    You’d almost think he’d never been here before…

  145. 145.

    Pb

    January 8, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    Paddy, etc.,

    Don’t take my word for it, of course. For the research-impaired, the raw data is here, and their admission is here:

    The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty mili tary subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representa tive of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more ca reer-oriented than the overall mil itary population.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Geminid on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:38pm)
  • Dr. Jakyll and Miss Deride on Cake Watch: Day 1 (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:37pm)
  • Steeplejack on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:33pm)
  • jimmiraybob on Cake Watch: Day 1 (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:29pm)
  • JPL on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:28pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!