Only on Fox: Dayside anchor Jerrick asked whether anti-war protests are "just giving the terrorists in Iraq ... more hope"
On Fox News' DaySide, co-host Mike Jerrick asked Gold Star Mothers for Peace founding member Celeste Zappala whether recent anti-war protests were "just giving the terrorists in Iraq and the insurgents in Iraq more hope that possibly we're losing will in the United States to continue to battle," a question interrupted by applause from the studio audience. When Zappala responded that the soldiers were not being "well supported" by the administration, giving the example of the slow supply of body armor to soldiers, Jerrick quickly responded that "the Pentagon is really trying to resolve that issue."
From the interview of Zappala by Jerrick and co-host Juliet Huddy on the September 27 edition of Fox News' DaySide:
HUDDY: I understand you feel that Cindy Sheehan is right, and you say the administration is totally morally bankrupt. So, why are you a supporter of Cindy Sheehan? Go ahead and explain that.
ZAPPALA: Well, I'm Cindy's friend, and I'm a supporter of peace. I'm in Philadelphia. My son, Sergeant Sherwood Baker, was killed in Iraq while protecting the Iraq Survey Group, the people who were still looking for the weapons of mass destruction last April. He was Pennsylvania National Guard. And when we buried Sherwood, I made a vow to him that I would tell the truth about the war as best I could to everybody who would listen. And my whole family has made this promise. And so, we have joined with Cindy and many, many other families, Gold Star families and families who are still active-duty, and pray that they never become us.
JERRICK: Celeste, let me just jump in quickly here --
ZAPPALA: Sure.
JERRICK: -- because we've had so many people respond to us at DaySide with their emails and phone calls saying that don't you feel like the people who are protesting this war, especially the people we saw down there in D.C. over the weekend, are just giving the terrorists in Iraq and the insurgents in Iraq more hope -- [applause] -- that possibly we're losing will in the United States to continue to battle?
ZAPPALA: Are we losing will because the mission we're trying to accomplish is ill-led, because the soldiers are not well supported, because the information --
HUDDY: When you say "not well supported," what do you mean by that?
ZAPPALA: I mean that we families have had to buy equipment for our young people because they are told you need to go but you're not being supplied with a global positioning device, or you're not being supplied with phones, or you may or may not get a flak jacket.
JERRICK: But the Pentagon is really trying to resolve that issue, Celeste. The Pentagon is really trying to resolve that problem.
ZAPPALA: In two and a half years, a billion dollars a week? Someone is profiting quite mightily from all this --
HUDDY: Celeste, we have a studio audience --
ZAPPALA: -- and support for the troops would mean that some of these issues would have been dealt with long ago. They would have been an absolute priority.
"HUDDY: Celeste, we have a studio audience --"
What difference does that make? Is she trying to say "Don't make us look bad in front of the rubes"?
Why does this woman hate America?
Officially, American military personnel in Iraq are not killed or wounded by terrorists. Insurgents maybe, terrorists never.
When dozens of marines and soldiers died in Iraq during the month of August, it wasn't from terrorist attacks.
When dozens of men, women and children died in London during the month of August, terrorists did it.
Don't think so? Go check the official report issued by our State Department.
Exactly. When military forces are attacked, that's NOT terrorism by definition. Insurgents/guerrillas? Yes. Military forces are legitimate targets.
The "give the terrorists hope" line is a cliche' thrown out by TV personalities -- with no evidence whatsoever to support it.
"Exactly. When military forces are attacked, that's NOT terrorism by definition. Insurgents/guerrillas? Yes. Military forces are legitimate targets.
The "give the terrorists hope" line is a cliche' thrown out by TV personalities -- with no evidence whatsoever to support it." --publius
--------------------------------------------
Yet another example of conservatives changing the meaning of words.
Umm, this article is about a fablehood started by the pro-war crowd. Should this not, perhaps, be on the left side?
It looks like she was being double teamed but she was too fast on her feet for the Fox Dayside Hosts . Apparently nobody should speak out against any war right or wrong because it shows support for the enemy .
bunnygit - Wednesday September 28, 2005 08:15:14 PM ES
That is exactly the agenda of those who push this crap. Even though we are citizens and the top layer of government in this country we are not supposed to worry our little heads about policy. We are just supposed to be a bewildered herd, shutting up and doing whatever our betters tell us. This government works for me, and they darn sure are going to hear when I dont like the job they are doing.
Hmmm, I wonder if the rubes in the audience applauded on their own or if they were just following the "applause" sign.
Like a cat in a litter box I cover up the failings of the administration. I am Mike Jerrick, hack and shill.
Are you in trouble when the Fox studio audience stops buying it? Was Jerrick scared that the puppeteer with a hand in his backside would be seen and recognized, as Rove, Cheney, or Wolfie? The moment the Fox faith stop appaulding I expect Fox hosts (I will not call them anchors) will be fleeing for their lives.
Actually, FOX, GWB's invasion of Iraq has done more good for the Al-Qaeda network than anything else less than direct financial support from the U.S. government. Despite making up only 10% of the insurgency, these foreign fighters have received combat experience that no makeshift jungle-gym in remote Afghanistan could EVER hope to provide. The longer the U.S. troops stay there, the more hardened these dnagerous and fanatic jihadists become. Leaving Iraq would eliminate a large and well-trained target base on which these terrorists can hone their skills to use on America's homeshores.
--Exactly. We are killing alot of them, but think about it--thousands try to fight us. We kill off the slow, the clumsy, and the stupid ones. Those who survive are the toughest, quickest, and the smartest. We are essentially running a boot camp for them, weeding out the non-hackers. That was why the Vietcong were so tough, the natural selection from fighting the Japanese, the French, and finally the Americans meant that there were no easy targets left.
So I guess that means the innocent bystanders in this war, the civlians of Iraq, would have hope too. Can't stand for that.
the thought that insurgents or terrorists somehow need motivation for attacks is stupid and ignorant...its almost as dumb as they "hate our freedom"...They arent following mothers against the war and planning strategy around them. Can people come up with more productive things to do with their time than attack moms who have lost their kids and want to speak out against the war. Since when has wanting peace become an anti-american thing?
The thing is... it's true. The anti-war movement is a sign that we're losing our will to fight in Iraq, and no doubt the jihadists are going to be very hopeful that that they are approaching a great symbolic victory.
However - comma:
The foreign jihadists have maybe three goals. Goal #1 s their overall ideological objective: the elimination of US/Western imperialist influence in the middle east. Goal #2 is to make the US look bad -- evil, racist, decadent, cowardly, etc. That helps with their recruiting. Goal #3 is to recruit and train lots of other jihadists.
If the US withdraws, they can see that as a step in achieving Goal #1. However, there's nothing to stop us from regaining influence in the region in the future through more diplomatic and well planned means. Holding territory isn't really doing it for us. We can't get oil production back up to pre-war levels -- we can't even secure the road to the Baghdad airport. Diplomacy is going to make more of a difference long-term. (And it'd have to be long term since this administration doesn't do diplomacy.)
As for Goal #2, BushCo already handed the jihadists this on a platter. Our soldiers are posting photos of body parts on the internet -- Coulter says we should either kill them or convert 'em all to Christianity. Come on. Whether we stay or go, our image in the region is screwed.
For Goal #3, it'd be marginally better if we withdrew. While we'd give Al-Q the opportunity to run a "Join the Team that Sent the US Packing" recruiting campaign, our withdrawal would eliminate the perceived urgent need for money and recruits. It doesn't take much arguing to convince the people in the region that the US is a pack of imperialist dogs while we're right there occupying Iraq. If we go back home, we become less of a priority. Our withdrawal would also cripple their training, as they wouldn't be able to use the chaos in Iraq to blow up Americans every day.
As for taking over Iraq -- do you really think the foreign jihadists care? The ones that are running the insurgency are the former Ba'thists. They're Sunni, like Bin Forgotten, but they're secularists. The Shi'as on the other side would much rather become West Iraq than East Texas. Those guys are just there to kill Americans. They don't care who eventually controls the country as long as it's not us.
The Neocon strategy is proving itself to be crap, but we can't create a new strategy by simply imagining what would make OBL happy and then doing the opposite. If we don't start thinking about what's best for us, we're going to get baited into losing a lot more than we've already lost.
I doubt the Fox parrots or the clap-clappers in the audience are as well-informed or at least reasoning a perspective like yours, Sagra.
Thanks.
Thanks, MickD.
The part about the different factions seems a bit muddled. I was trying to say that OBL's crew wouldn't be 100% on the side of any of the Iraqi factions because of their ideological and religious differences with both the Sunnis and the Shi'as.
The foreign jihadists have maybe three goals. Goal #1 s their overall ideological objective: the elimination of US/Western imperialist influence in the middle east. Goal #2 is to make the US look bad -- evil, racist, decadent, cowardly, etc. That helps with their recruiting. Goal #3 is to recruit and train lots of other jihadists. by Sagra
___________________________________________________
Sagra, you're probably right. The only goal that isn't really takeing off, or has a chance of not is the first one-the U.S. still has influence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among others. The other 2 are practically inevitable. The United States comes across as Satan equals more recruits for jihad missions to kill hundreds if not thousands of more people. Yet the adminstration thinks the end isn't to far away, too shortsighted to realized that theres a near endless supply of men (and to a small extent as we saw recently women) willing to kill themselves and take as many people as possible in the process in the name of Allah.
Where do these people come from? It could be somewhat like Palestine, where a the majority of people in Hamas, the PLO, etc, come from poverty. So it's an deplorable way out, but it is a way out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under Saddam suicide bombers families received checks-so it gave a sense of honor (not in a good way at least from my perspective).
This adminstration doesn't want to be seen as the one who lost Iraq we can tell already. They'd rather send more people to the meat grinder than admit they messed up big time.
The main thing that's giving terrorists more hope is the contiunence of the flawed operation in Iraq. It's feeding their ideology. It's true it's a lose-lose situation, but we might as well cut our losses.
The protests don't give the insurgents nearly as much hope as they get from the knowledge that our government refuses to provide our troops with sufficient armor.
The motto of this administration: Every dollar spent on the troops directly is one less dollar you can give to your friends.
I imagine it'd be hard for them to ever be as happy as they were when we left all those high explosives unsecured. That was looters' heaven.
Perhaps when a cowardly little ChickenHawk stood up and taunted the enemy to "bring it on", the enemy could have gotten a lot of hope?
Since when has wanting peace become an anti-american thing?
______________
Since it has become an obstacle to our agenda and bottom line. The is only conformity, we are the neo-con. And there is no end in sight of the suffering we will inflict upon the people of the U.S. and the world. As long as there is profit in it.
I keep pondering the combined IQ of that audience... hmmm
80?
I believe you err on the side of generosity for the collective IQ of that audience...
That is funny, because I thought what motivated the terrorists was HATE. There is plenty to HATE with this administration.
Well then I guess if the insurgents are hearing about Cindy then they are also hearing about how we CAN NOT get enough Americans to jump right in line to enlist either.