Veterans Against the Iraq War

There's a new commercial playing around Indiana, and I'm sure, elsewhere, where Senators and House members have professed support for the presidents planned escalation surge.

It goes, "One the one hand... " listing those who've come out AGAINST the build-up - "2/3 of the American people", the bi-partisan majority in congress, the Iraq Study Group, and "veterans like us...". THEN, they show a veteran (apparently) who's lost an arm in the war. He says "On the other hand, there's George Bush...", as if ONLY he is for escalation.

There are a few things I don't like about it:

1. Where do they get the 2/3 number?
   • Those who don't approve of the job the President is doing? Not all of them are against the war. They more disapprove based on other foreign or domestic policies.
   • Those who voted in the last election? Dems won, but not by a 2/3 margin, by any stretch of the imagination, and while the idea of a "new direction" for certain policies was the platform and that voted on, has ANYONE seen ANYTHING but bitching and complaining about the war, drafting of referendums about the war and escalation, or almost anything else the president promotes? I haven't. If they REALLY wanted to take all they talked about before the election in a new direction, they need to work on IT, too. Hmmm?
2. It makes it seem that ONLY the president is FOR the escalation, and EVERYONE else is against it, which is not true. Otherwise, they why do they need the commercial, right?
3. The last line said by the one-armed vet: "If you support escalation, you don't support the troops." WRONG! That is just so patently wrong, I can't believe they're even using it.

It ends with another vet exhorting you to call your congressman (by name - apparently only those FOR the escalation) and tell him/her you're against it.

Now, I understand that there are vets against the war. I understand that the media reports (MUCH) more on those who are against the war than those vets FOR the war and why. (Showing wounded vets who believe we shouldn't be there... Remember, they shoot for ratings, and vets against the war is controversial and news.

But I also understand that many who have been there, many who are injured, some grievously, WANT TO RETURN. They BELIEVE in what the president and others are trying to do. The BELIEVE in their fellow soldiers. They BELIEVE in the Iraqis general population. They BELIEVE in what we/they are there for. For example:

Pete Herrick, 39, who was paralyzed from the neck down after three weeks in Iraq, says many members of the media won't talk to him because of their liberal slant, which doesn't mesh with his views."When they find out I don't want to bash the president," says Herrick, who lives in Fort White, "the interview's over."A political and military junkie, Herrick thinks that years of sectarian religious violence would have continued in the region without U.S. intervention.

[Source: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061113/NEWS/611130408/1004/RSS&source=RSS]

I believe it is unconscionable for the US Press (I could almost understand the rest of the world doing it, but...) being totally unwilling to talk to ANY and ALL vets, and get their views, even if they don't want to "bash the President", "bash the war", or talk to those who've actually thought about it, especially those who have been there. It would be even worse if they DID talk to them, getting their views about wanting to return, then only reported about their injuries, including FULL interviews with only others who are against the war.

What happened to reporters' objectivities? What happened to "fair and balanced" reporting, no matter what the reporter or their editors believe?

And, as far as that commercial goes, DO NOT EVER believe that "if you are FOR the escalation you are against the troops" crap in general. Being allowed to believe anything we want, no matter how right or wrong it is, is one of our freedoms. In other words, DO NOT EVER assume that those FOR the escalation ARE NOT for the troops.

You have the right to your opinion as much as the next guy. If you're against the war, you have the right to say so. Conversely, if you're for that war, you should also have the right to say so, too. BOTH cases should be reported by the media, especially an IMPARTIAL media.

Either way, DO NOT tell me I am "for" or "against" anything, based on my belief on the war.