"So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Pollster John Zogby "proves" that 85% of US Military in Iraq believe the "war is retaliation for Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 attacks," in a poll about as intellectually honest as the question in this post's title.
I give you Zogby's "proof" question:
Well, when four out of the five possible responses to a given assertion are "yes," "yes," "yes," and "I don't know," is it any wonder Zogby can find such agreement?
Such transparent manipulation is just more testing of the boundaries of acceptable behavior for citizens of a country at war, in my opinion. It's scares the living shit out of me that such dishonesty is passed along to the American public without comment by the mainstream media. I hope I've made it clear in a year and a half of blogging that it isn't the right of Americans to disagree with the war that I question, rather it is the deliberate distortion of the war that I find reprehensible.
Hugh Hewitt proves the point in this radio exchange between himself and Iraq war vet GreyHawk:
[emphasis and transcription mine, so any errors are mine as well]
Listen to the whole audio of GreyHawk and other veterans disputing this Zogby nonsense here.
And let me point out for the record that I don't consider the Bush Administration above criticism in its handling of the war effort, though you won't read every one of my Bush criticisms here on Kadnine. Understand that I write my blog observing the military princple of Operational Security just as if I were still on active duty. I don't want even one American soldier's death, nor one Iraqi civillian death on my conscience. That means I don't critique troop movements, intelligence gathering techniques, patrol patterns, armor gaps, exit timetables, or any other tactical point that aids the enemy. Instead I argue from philsophical First Principles as an advocate for honest debate in good faith. Would that John Zogby and others felt similarly constrained!
I give you Zogby's "proof" question:
Please rate the statements in questions 8 through 14 as reasons for the Iraq invasion, using the following scale:
1 - Not a reason 2 - Minor reason 3 - Major reason 4 - Main reason 5 - Not sure [...]
12. To retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks
Well, when four out of the five possible responses to a given assertion are "yes," "yes," "yes," and "I don't know," is it any wonder Zogby can find such agreement?
Such transparent manipulation is just more testing of the boundaries of acceptable behavior for citizens of a country at war, in my opinion. It's scares the living shit out of me that such dishonesty is passed along to the American public without comment by the mainstream media. I hope I've made it clear in a year and a half of blogging that it isn't the right of Americans to disagree with the war that I question, rather it is the deliberate distortion of the war that I find reprehensible.
Hugh Hewitt proves the point in this radio exchange between himself and Iraq war vet GreyHawk:
Hugh: Do you think, Greyhawk, that most Americans serving, I don't want to say thay don't want to come home. Did you want to come home when you were serving?
GreyHawk: Absolutely.
Hugh: Of couse! I mean, uh, but, do you think that most American soldiers want to cut and run and just leave Iraq to the civil insurrection that would surely follow our immediate abandonment?
GreyHawk: Absolutely not. And that sounded like a 'push question' though, didn't it?
Hugh: It was a push question! It was a push question! You know, and that's the point of why Zogby here can't be trusted, isn't it?
[emphasis and transcription mine, so any errors are mine as well]
Listen to the whole audio of GreyHawk and other veterans disputing this Zogby nonsense here.
And let me point out for the record that I don't consider the Bush Administration above criticism in its handling of the war effort, though you won't read every one of my Bush criticisms here on Kadnine. Understand that I write my blog observing the military princple of Operational Security just as if I were still on active duty. I don't want even one American soldier's death, nor one Iraqi civillian death on my conscience. That means I don't critique troop movements, intelligence gathering techniques, patrol patterns, armor gaps, exit timetables, or any other tactical point that aids the enemy. Instead I argue from philsophical First Principles as an advocate for honest debate in good faith. Would that John Zogby and others felt similarly constrained!