BUSH "Victory" document author is a pollster! (NYT)

BUSH looks not for better strategy, but better way to justify casualties.

NSC "Victory" document author is a pollster!
by demondeac
Sat Dec 03, 2005 at 10:15:44 PM PDT

It turns out that the National Security Council's, "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," 35 page document touted by Scott McClellan as, according to today's NYT, an unclassified, publicly accessible explanation of strategies that the administration has been pursuing in Iraq since 2003," actually originated at the computer of "Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who joined the N.S.C. staff as a special adviser in June and has closely studied public opinion on the war."


Bush's Speech on Iraq War Echoes Voice of an Analyst
By SCOTT SHANE NYT
Published: December 4, 2005
"This is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency," said Christopher F. Gelpi, Dr. Feaver's colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties. "The Pentagon doesn't need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion."

In their paper, "Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq," which is to be published soon in the journal International Security, Dr. Feaver and his colleagues wrote: "Mounting casualties did not produce a reflexive collapse in public support. The Iraq case suggests that under the right conditions, the public will continue to support military operations even when they come with a relatively high human cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/04strategy.html?ei=5094&en=eded032aae63bdcc&hp=&ex=1133758800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1133704888-ze1lYVPdl8ugc0ckxWUzuw


demondeac's diary :: ::
I believe this can be used to portray the administration as the cruel, heartless, cynical bastards we believe them to be.

Imagine if you will campaign commercials with repeated instances of Bush saying "I don't read the polls," jusxtaposed with the fact of this document's real intention.

While sons and daughter's are dying, the President looks not for a better strategy, but for a way to better justify high casualty numbers.

Remember, the research that INSPIRED Bush to hire Feaver was designed to argue that the deaths of our soldiers need not matter to public opinion.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/4/01544/3142

Hasn't there been enough leaked documents, coverups, blocked investigations, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

Don't hold your breath.

I'm more likely to get a date, or at the very least a job paying $100k/yr. :)

Heaven for bid one person gets screwed when we all get screwed by this administration daily.

I'm constantly amazed at how often they imploy his strategies. Notice Clinton never had to do this. He may have gotten blown in the Oval Office, but his government ran efficiently which is why he had approval ratings in the high 70s even after he was impeached. *'s government is just a caricature, a sham of what an administration should be.

If this was originally a political rather than military policy document, the target was bush. And we know that aids have to dumb down anything targeted at him to the fifth, or even third, grade level.

Casualities. Even greater casualties are looked upon as the "right conditions". More killing more destruction more Americanizing of the world...

Feaver:

--Appearing on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS in April 2004 he downplayed reports of civilian casualties in Iraq, noting among other things that "when newspaper reporters go out and collect information, and they ask people how many people died, and they faithfully report that number, that number has, is almost certainly inflated upwards."

Or, just the goodness of his dear heart?

And wrote his own damn speeches!
Note however how tortured is the NYT header...It was on page one - and I passed as it looked to me like praise.