I must confess myself confused this morning. Yesterday, across the top of a search engine (alas, I believe I am finally going to make the same switch everyone else has made, for this search engine has almost daily blasted headlines that annoy me - who wants to be annoyed before they even type in their search criteria?) a loud story about troops speaking out against the war seemed to be begging me to assume Bush is the bad guy, I'm wrong about everything, and there are no troops anywhere who like what they're doing.
Pardon me while I change my favorite search engine link... be right back...
Okay, that went poorly. I ended up giving them feedback they're never going to read, and blog-length. In order to appease my soul I shall make it an open letter by posting it here next.
Here was my point today, before I got carried away. It is similar to my earlier post about how the polls are completely wrong on Iraq (and there have been recent polls, apparently - though I'm having trouble tracking them down despite hearing about them on national radio - from polling companies not associated or affiliated with major news networks that support my theory completely).
The other side is desperate. They're seeing that their lies aren't working, that we are reading between the lines or getting our news somewhere else. They're doing everything they can to repair their damaged credibility, and they're doing it by changing their "sources". They are now going to the military to find people who are against the war. They've been trying to do this all along, but their sources have been discredited - retired generals who are die-hard liberals, discontented generals who were shunted aside because someone else could do the job better, generals who were denied their own war because they were promoted at the wrong time, etc. Now they've gone after the troops themselves.
I'm not denying that there are troops out there who dislike this war (and some of them any war is worth disliking). I know one of them myself, someone who joined the armed services and was taught Arabic before 9/11 (someone was on the ball) and who sent e-mails around about being against the war. Admittedly, I received ongoing and frequent e-mails from soldiers who were amazed about what good they were doing and begged us not to believe what is said on the news and only two from her, but they were disheartening. I replied every time that I was proud of what she was doing and sorry that it was stressing her out. So, I am not denying that there are legitimate members of our armed forces who actually are stressed out - or outright frightened - and I believe it is only natural to want to speak out from that fear.
However, while this story is running (from notoriously liberal sources) another story is getting grudging headline status, meaning it was on the home pages of news outlets everywhere, but they're not putting it as a "big four" story or something like that - you have to scroll down to the "other things we thing are important" section.
It states clearly that the Democrats in congress are backing off their plan (and campaign promise) to limit the President's wartime authority, or to outright repeal their vote to support the Iraq war. Not only has talk of "de-funding" the war died out, but now they're not even going to try to limit what President Bush can do.
I do think a lot of this has to do with the fact that, while the Democrats are definitely looking for ways (as they logically should) to increase their power and standing in government, they're actually not totally stupid. They can see the glowing symbols on the wall with Iran, and I believe in the back of their mind they'd love to see President Bush take care of that problem for them, or at least get it started, so they don't have to make the unpopular decision to take military action - yet they know it has to be done.
However, the link I am making is that if these stories about disaffected troops were really meaningful - that is, I believe it is heart-wrenching to think of anyone being thrust into a war zone who is terrified of being there, but let's pay attention to what percentage of the troops they really are (not how many they SAY are being them, but the actual, real numbers - how many of us have said "well, all my friends and I, and there are tons of us, agree") and whether or not their opinion is better or easier to support than other people in the same location and situation.
Perhaps put simpler, it is good to hear both sides of the story, but when you do that, keep in mind one side of the story may be told by a 3 to 12,401 ratio, and those three may be speaking without straight facts or any facts at all. I'm suggesting that we can tell which side is right by what the people in power, the decision-makers, are doing. Despite their own rhetoric that clearly supports the concept that the 3 are right, their actual actions are grudgingly in support of the 12,401.
Why is it we must read so hard behind the lines to find this truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment