Our Best and Brightest
February 28th, 2006 by LASalon.com News & Politics | War Room
Our fighting men and women:
What are the troops doing in Iraq? Fifty-eight percent say their mission is clear, but 42 percent say the U.S role is hazy. There’s one thing on which they agree, however: According to Zogby, which conducted the poll with New York’s Le Moyne College, 85 percent of the troops say a major reason for the U.S. mission is “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks.”
Maybe they aren’t really our best and brightest?
[Update: My assholism aside, there is a great deal of striking information from this poll. You can see a great deal of detail and tables from the poll in the Zogby press release about it located here.]
February 28th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Or maybe they are bud, whether Michael Moore and the great god Markos think so or not…
February 28th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
That’s completely unfair. To say something like that means you really know nothing about how the human mind works. Read Battle for the Mind, by Sargent. No one can stand up to indoctrination forever. If I put you in a closed environment and tell you every day for a year that your nose is a piece of cake, one day I’ll walk in and find you eating it. It’s a defense mechanism in your mind that you can’t control. Depending on your personality type it might take a week or it might take a year, but you can’t hold out forever. You simply can’t.
The quality of the minds in the military is in no way impugned by this statistic. Anybody stateside who believes it is at best sheltered, but if I were a soldier in Iraq for the last year I am telling you I would probably say the same thing. That’s just indoctrination. It’s an unbelievably powerful force.
APS
February 28th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
“indoctrination. It’s an unbelievably powerful force.”
I think I understand Ape.
Kind of like 4 years of indoctrination at Berkley and the other liberal sanctuaries for ” I think, therefore I am-and don’t try to tangle me up with concepts like “I do therefore I know what I’m talking about” pebble throwers and navel gazers in this society.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
BRT, I’m trying to remember the last time I saw you address the central point of a post, which makes you a) the most tenacious troll ever and b) obviously aware of the fact that the ideology you’ve hitched your star to is just so much shifting sand.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Wasn’t there something in the news a couple months back about the lowering–or proposing to lower–the standards for new recruits?
BRT, are you proposing that Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11th attacks? Or are you just trolling without regard to what you actually say?
APS, how do you explain John Kerry denouncing the military actions in Vietnam when he returned? Shouldn’t he have been indoctrinated at that point?
February 28th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Ape Man: It could be that there’s an element of cognitive dissonance at work as well. It’s related to the indoctrination, of course, but as Americans we’re so used to thinking of ourselves as the good guys that I can imagine a lot of soldiers would have to find some way to make sense of what’s going on when they find themselves engaged in actions that on the surface aren’t all that admirable. The idea that it’s payback for 9/11 would be a perfect way to resolve that tension.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
“how do you explain John Kerry denouncing the military actions in Vietnam when he returned? Shouldn’t he have been indoctrinated at that point?”
Ever try to “indoctrinate” a weasel, Joe?
February 28th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Central point?
How about restating it Auguste-if you can figure out what it is.
We can go from there…
February 28th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
The central point is: 85% of the military states that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
He was not.
Therefore, 85% of the military does not know why we are fighting, and moreover has been led to believe a false reason.
Unless your conclusion is “Good. Fuck ‘em” then you’re not addressing the central point of the post.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
“He was not.”
Who said so, auguste-Michael Moore?
Familiar with the term “no credible evidence”?
That’s what the bats have as regards claims that Hussein was not involved.
I say he was.
There’s too much evidence that points in that direction and it wouldn’t be the first time that compelling circumstancial evidence has convicted a lying murderous asshole.
Maybe you can prove that he wasn’t…
February 28th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Who said so, auguste-Michael Moore?
no…
“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11″ attacks.
President Bush Sept. 18, 2003
and
“Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday(September 16, 2003) that he had no reason to believe that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. ”
and
“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks….” Condoleezza Rice October 10, 2003
February 28th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
I was being flippant/facetious. Just like a wingnut to overlook that.
If 5% of American soldiers in Iraq think we’re there to punish Saddam for his role in 9/11 then THAT’S a problem. When 85% of them believe it that’s a REAL problem.
We cannot excuse this by saying that they have been indoctrinated. That may be an explanation, but it is NOT an excuse. There is no excuse.
We are in the first quarter of 2006, four and one half years after 9/11 and almost three years after the invasion of Iraq. Let’s not pull punches here: if at this stage of the game somebody thinks that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 then they are stupid. Is it their fault? Probably not. It says a great deal about the deception the Bush Administration has engaged in and the culture of fear they’ve created. It also says something about the talent pool from which the current appx. 150k American soldiers serving in Iraq were drawn from. Keep this stupidity in mind the next time you move to forgive some gross act of negligence or violence committed by our troops.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
BRT just won a tin-foil hat award, watch out for the Black Helicopters!
He did so when he returned. I imagine it would have been relatively impossible for him to do so when he was still over there.
And there’s always the problem of people answering polls the way they think they’re “supposed” to answer them, which can skrew everything up.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Kind of like 4 years of indoctrination at Berkley and the other liberal sanctuaries for ” I think, therefore I am-and don’t try to tangle me up with concepts like “I do therefore I know what I’m talking about” pebble throwers and navel gazers in this society.
Oh, btw BRT - fuck you.
Yes or No… Do you believe that we’re in Iraq to retaliate for Saddam’s role in 9/11?
Anything but a yes or no answer is unacceptable.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
It’s related to the indoctrination, of course, but as Americans we’re so used to thinking of ourselves as the good guys that I can imagine a lot of soldiers would have to find some way to make sense of what’s going on when they find themselves engaged in actions that on the surface aren’t all that admirable. The idea that it’s payback for 9/11 would be a perfect way to resolve that tension.
Excellent point, SS.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Wow! Just unbelievable.
Excellent post LA.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
I’m not excusing anything; I’m objecting to the assertion that it’s an indication that people in the army are stupid. It’s not. When I’m talking about indoctrination I’m talking about indoctrination they receive while on duty in the military.
We could test my assertion by breaking down the numbers and looking at whether length of time on active duty correlated with a higher incidence of this belief. I would wager strongly, maybe 4:1, that there would be a statistically significant correlation. In the interest of settling this I will contact Zogby about this question. He may not want to answer (and he may not have the data) but I will give it a shot. It’s an interesting question and I’d very much like to know if I were wrong.
I don’t want to get into a long argybargy about this. I was serious when I recommended Sargent. Everyone should read it. It’s over 50 years old but there’s a publisher that still publishes it.
Battle for the Mind.
Fascinating read. Wingnuts too - the material is not overtly political. You’ll find misinterpreting it to solidify your existing beliefs to be a trivial feat.
APS
February 28th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Incidentally BRT, “4 years of indoctrination at Berkley” is not the same as being housed and fed by captors who control your every move - that’s called brainwashing when you are essentially held captive that way. College is no comparison whatsoever.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Troops are stupid. Wow, what a revelation.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Psyberian:
I’d say there is something of a continuum there. Brainwashing is a certain kind of brute-force indoctrination, but the effects of college can certainly be similar, depending on the circumstance. There is a strong element of indoctrination present in higher education.
APS
February 28th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
General C, I don’t find that funny, I don’t find it appropriate, and I don’t find it in good taste. This isn’t my blog but I can tell you if it were I would remove that comment. It’s a disgrace.
I’m someone who has never been afraid to say I don’t support the mission in Iraq, and in that sense I don’t support the troops. I don’t have some crazy belief that we have to venerate these people just because they wear a uniform with an American flag sewn onto it.
But to say that they are stupid because they believe what their NCO’s and the other enlisted guys are drilling into them 24 hours a day is frankly hateful. These people are not stupid. They are just people, and people believe what they are told by authority figures, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
APS
February 28th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
APS:
Please tell us more about that book.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
I guess we should just do photo ops like Bill Clinton did with leaders from the Middle East.
Yeah, that’ll work.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
What’s that, Dave?
February 28th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
General C, I don’t find that funny, I don’t find it appropriate, and I don’t find it in good taste. This isn’t my blog but I can tell you if it were I would remove that comment. It’s a disgrace.
APS:
Removing that comment would be dishonest. There is a strong perception within the ranks of the left that soldiers are stupid. Whether or not this is true is another story. The fact is that this perception exists and it exists for a myriad of reasons. Let’s not pretend it doesn’t exist.
If military authorities are brainwashing their subordinates to believe that we’re in Iraq to avenge 9/11 then they are acting improperly. If this brainwashing is successful and 85% of the troops in Iraq believe it then something is terribly amiss. If this terrible misperception on the part of the troops makes them look stupid - and it indeed does make them LOOK stupid - then all concerned need to understand that and confront it.
If the war supporting establishment is upset/angry/concerned about the fact that the left misperceives soldiers as being stupid then they need to ask themselves why the misperception exists and they need to take steps to change that perception.
A great first step would be to stop telling the troops that the reason we’re in Iraq is because Saddam was involved with 9/11.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
APS–
I think radio broadcasts have probably helped in the indoctrination process. Having someone say things to you while you’re only half paying attention can have a profound effect. Hutu Power and Jim Jones both used this technique.
How significant is it that Armed Forces Radio broadcasts Rush Limbaugh, but refuses to carry Ed Schultz? Information available to the troops is limited, as they don’t have time nor inclination to seek it. 85% of their fellow soldiers believe Hussein was involved. And on top of it all, they have the Pig Man blaring while they’re trying to repair a vehicle, or fill out a report, or whatever their current task is.
If Bush had any respect for the troops, after hearing these poll results he would get on AFR and repeat that we’ve had no evidence of Hussein’s involvement.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:24 am
I guess we should just do photo ops like Bill Clinton did with leaders from the Middle East.
Yeah, that’ll work.
A) Huh?
B) Do you mean photo ops like Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein? George Bush welcoming the Taliban to Austin?
C) No, seriously, huh?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:40 am
Is “Saddam was behind 9/11″ really part of the indoctrination program for soldiers, though?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:09 am
I would think yes and no, Dadahead. The indoctrination probably looks more like this: We’re in Iraq fighting terror. We’re fighting terror because of 9/11. We’re in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and spread freedom and democracy. We’re in Iraq to remove Saddam. We’re fighting a war on terror. We’re fighting a war on terrorism. We’re fighting a war on Islamic fundamentalism. Although no two of these statements are related beyond being stand-alone rationales for the war in Iraq, it’s difficult to separate them. The natural desire (especially for soldiers, I’d imagine, but likely for all non-cynics) is to want to lump them together: we’re fighting terror in Saddam-Iraq, and 9/11 was the causal act of terrorism. You just have to look at it to see the conclusion–I’m not imagining this, am I?
TANGENT: As far as I can tell, no one’s pointing out that the Administration’s mea culpa is a carefully worded and deliberately misleading statement. First, they impliedly (expressly?) stated that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. Then, when the MSM actually did its job for once and a year or two after the fact ran with the story that 60% of Americans falsely believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11, the Administration issued the statement “we have no evidence that Saddam was involved.” NOT “Saddam wasn’t involved,” or even “we don’t believe he was involved.” No, we have no evidence. The implication of that precise phrase, used over and over again by various Administration officials all the way down from the President, is that Saddam was involved–the listener is supposed to confuse “evidence” with “proof,” because after all we have an evidentiary standard of proof in this country, and understand that Saddam was probably involved but we just can’t prove it. The only way to dispute this charge is to claim sloppy wording, sloppy repeated wording; that it wasn’t chosen carefully. That’s implausible to a point of absurdity.
Of course, it also bears noting that this is a faith-based Administration and not a scientific one–unsubstantiated belief is the modus operandi, rather than starting with skepticism and building up by means of rational empiricism. Those would also be the people this faith-based appeal was made to: “just BELIEVE that Saddam was involved.” BRT is evidently the perfect example; he just assumes that OBL’s great enemy Saddam was involved. And we’re “moonbats” for questioning it.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:50 am
Joe–
A lot of it has to do with the “2 sides” argument that the media loves. We’re trained, whenever we go to the movies or watch TV, to think of conflict in terms of simple us/them dichotomies. Films like “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” in which there are more than 2 agendas in play, are quite rare. So it’s natural to lump all of our enemies together. By 2001, Hussein had been an enemy as long as anyone could remember, so most people didn’t need much evidence to believe that he was involved.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:12 am
Zogby, Zogby, what’s the deal with the troops?
A recent Zogby poll on U.S. troops in Iraq shows that nearly 90% of our soldiers believe that their mission is to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks. Well that’s funny! You see, Saddam Hussein did not play
March 1st, 2006 at 4:17 am
Gordo, I love how that “you’re either with us or against us” reasoning tends to coincide in wingnut minds with the belief that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Because when you apply that to the WOT, you’re forced to conclude either that Saddam Hussein as the enemy of OBL is America’s friend, or else Osama bin Laden as Saddam’s enemy is our friend.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:59 am
Just a coupla’ quotes for y’all to chew on:
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
March 1st, 2006 at 8:06 am
Dave–
Clinton lied. Simple as that. Scott Ritter, who was on the weapons inspection team, was told that it didn’t matter what they found or failed to find, the official position of the U.S. would be that Hussein maintained the ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. That came in handy when Clinton needed to take some heat off of himself during Monicagate.
Hillary Clinton was working from intelligence given to her by the Bush Administration. I’m not excusing her, because she should have been more skeptical of the administration, especially in light of the reports that the inspectors had produced during her husband’s tenure, and the unfeasibility of the idea that Hussein could have started, mantained, and hidden a weapons program despite sanctions and constant surveillance.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:40 am
yeah dave, clinton was either lying or simply wrong.
personally i don’t get why some people keep bringing up the clinton-said-it-too argument and think it’s some kind of slam dunk. what clinton said is not relevant to the question of whether bush lied. all it means is that clinton may have lied too. so what?
as if i or the other liberals here are clinton loyalists in the same way that conservatives have sworn undying fealty to bush. personally, i wasn’t a fan of the clintons when they were in office, though they look good in retrospect now that i see how much worse a president can be.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:01 am
I read that poll result last night and was shocked by it. I do not believe 85% of the troops actually believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. That stat is totally unbelievable.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:04 am
And your evidence for that statement is?
March 1st, 2006 at 10:35 am
Shrub, Straight Shot, Double Rum and Convoluted Rice all say Sadam was not involved in nine eleven. So the fact of the matter when you consider historically these four people’s answers, Sadam must have been heavily involved. They’re telling the opposition “hell no he wasn’t involved” but the wingnuttery knows “he was the primary reason for nine eleven coming down” and that the devious answers by der leader and his tree house gang are told to us just to shut us wild grotto dwellers up, chest out with a smirk.
He must have done it.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:38 am
My evidence?
That same poll only listed 23% of those soldiers saying stay “as long as they are needed.”
If 85% of those same soldiers actually believed Saddam Hussein, and therefore Iraq, had something to do with 9/11, than a hell of a lot more than 23% of them would want to stay “as long as they wanted”.
I think their Colonel was the one writing down the answers to that question.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:58 am
not at all. if we went there to get saddam to retaliate for his role in 9/11 it makes perfect sense to think it’s time to go home now. we got him. all done!
March 1st, 2006 at 11:17 am
I have not read the specific poll questions, but it seems most answers were from a multiple choice list, especially the one concerning how long should the armed forces stay in Iraq. I wonder what conclusions could be made if the answer list contained these possible responses: (a) 1 Year, (b) 18 Months, (c) 2 Years, (d) Until Iraq has stabilized.
The answers, if provided as a list, exert a major influence in the analysis of the polls. Here is an example:
Q: How do you feel about (insert person’s name)?
A: a) I hate his guts alot
b) I hate his guts sometimes
c) He is an idiot
d) I want to have his child
The analyst would be able to state that “X percentage expressed negative attitudes towards the person, while Y percentage expressed a feeling of blind faith”
Polls. I love’em
March 1st, 2006 at 11:20 am
Bob: “Polls. I love’em”
Well, when they make you seem to come out on top, I’m sure you do.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:28 am
FYI,
I have been accosted to participate in federal election exit polls 2 times in my life. Instead of declining, on both occasions I decided to lie my ass off. I considered it a personal victory over Rather, Jennings, and (shit) the other guy.
I invite everyone to do it. It’s good for a laugh when the news puts up the poll results and touts it as being respresentative (Yeah, except for mine you pinhead).
March 1st, 2006 at 11:33 am
“if we went there to get saddam to retaliate for his role in 9/11 it makes perfect sense to think it’s time to go home now. we got him. all done! “
That’s a good point about the capture of Hussein but I still think more than 23% would still be looking for more revenge. It’s only an assumption of mine. That poll seems a bit out of whack to me.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:47 am
Bob Mc said:
I have been accosted to participate in federal election exit polls 2 times in my life. Instead of declining, on both occasions I decided to lie my ass off.
So you admit to lying to further your agenda.
Bob Mc = pathetic rightwing tool with no personal ethics or morals
~
March 1st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
OK, Will. How about if it was 70% or 60%?
Does that really change anything?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I don’t follow, Will. How is rebuilding Iraq going to qualify as more revenge against Saddam Hussein? They’ve gotten their revenge, and staying in Iraq doesn’t help them take more.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:58 pm
70% or 60% doesn’t really change anything. Maybe it’s denial on my part. I don’t want to believe that 85% of our soldiers in Iraq actually believe that.
Joe, maybe ‘revenge’ wasn’t the right word. More like ‘gun-ho’. More gun-ho to stay. And the word ‘needed’. I didn’t look at the word to be used as ‘needed’ by the Iraqis to rebuild, but ‘needed’ by us to ‘finish’ the job.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
What do you folks think about this picture?
[Click to open]
March 1st, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Support Our Dupes
March 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
My guess:
One guy in the picture is dead, two have come home with PTSD and two are still in Iraq because they can’t get the thrill of adrenilin anywhere near home.
The sign is now pulp, blocking a gutter drain in Baghdad, causing toilets to back up on one square block area.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:02 pm
You morons and your polls make me ill.
A quarter and your polls will get you a piece of gum.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:09 pm
” personally, i wasn’t a fan of the clintons when they were in office, though they look good in retrospect now that i see how much worse a president can be.”
Wow! You can say that as many times as you wish and it would still be true.
As to BRT.
What a dildo!
I graduated from the USAFA (before theocracygate and femigate), indoctrinated by my parents into thinking Vietnam was the “good fight” (they were tossed from the JBS for being too conservative - as if). Learned otherwise while there, very similar experiences to the Air America movie, and supported the anti-war movement when I returned.
My father became a liberal after several incidents of safety inspections of corporations placing their wife’s new Cadillac over their own workers welfare and my mum went anti-Bush after seeing the MM 9-11 movie.
BRT, you are in sad company, a group of selfish, greedy bastards that willingly subvert natural selection in favor of, well, their BJ favorites. Your short-sighted cultural values ignore personal responsibility yet you use the same personal responsibility as a club to attempt to beat anyone you decide cannot measure up to standards you can not, much less, will not, measure up to.
You admire Bush because he extends your hypocrisy and thereby, in your own mind, mainstreams it, justifying your cretinistic and illogical follies. Fine, take the moron and strip some other country. While we allow even idiots like you to spew any puke you wish, we might, at any time, start holding people like you accountable for the consequences of your actions. Your moment of intellect then becomes, “when do I exile myself”. Were I you, considering the manure you have strewn, I would err on the “conservative” side and leave now.
Take the moron with you.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Once again, this thread demonstrates that the ability of a wingnut to argue a given point is in inverse proportion to the time it takes him to start slinging ad homs.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Dave, your comments and a nickle puts you a quarter in the hole.
~
March 1st, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Thanks Sky Low.
The “puke” I’m spewing is about the same as the kind you’ll find among others who have been around long enough and have learned enough to develop a sense of what made this country great, what it is all about, what tears it down and what supporting your troops and your country really means.
My “admiration” is not so much for Bush per se, but rather stems from lessons I learned before you were ever born-to support your country and your leaders in time of war.
By the way asshole, what is ” theocracygate and femigate”-your version at least.
Not that I really give a damn..
March 1st, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Incidentally, the only decent bat post I’ve seen on this subject today was Jimmy’s. It was reasoned, thoughtful and worthy of response.
I’ll take some time to respond to him tomorrow, while you’re busy ginning up half assed, hyperbolic examples of cadets being forced to listen to sermons and females being raped before they can even get off the bus…
March 1st, 2006 at 6:02 pm
BRT,
>”The “puke” I’m spewing is about the same as the kind you’ll find among others who have been around long enough and have learned enough to develop a sense of what made this country great, what it is all about, what tears it down and what supporting your troops and your country really means.”
Okay, I’ll listen. So far, your puke is quite different from that exposed by those way smarter than you, but, I will listen., even to idiots.
>”My “admiration” is not so much for Bush per se, but rather stems from lessons I learned before you were ever born-to support your country and your leaders in time of war.”
Obviously, you learned very little from history. Advocacy of the Iraq invasion demonstrates ignorance of a very high degree. You may wish to look around rather than look for your mommy’s tit. You might learn something……
“By the way asshole, what is ” theocracygate and femigate”-your version at least.”
Um, sorry. Assumed , based on your comments, that you knew about the latest “scandels” at USAFA, at least within the last ten years. Based on your spew, why would I think you had any knowledge of events within the last century? Sorry to think there was something cogent.
“Not that I really give a damn.. ”
Wow, thanks for the summation of the moron admin. Fits perfectly.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:07 pm
As to BRT.
What a dildo!
This statement is offensive to dildos.