Public leery of another Middle East entanglement *updated*

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------------

*Update* In case you think I'm being overly sensitive about the condescending press, I refer you here.  The takeaway quote is, "If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you."Not the eerie similarity to the second sentence of the below article.
---------------

The single thing I wanted to note here is the glaring presumption of the writer. He tells us that Americans don't support a military strike in Syria, and then tells us why: We are too stupid and uniformed!

This attitude towards the general public is typical from both journalists and government. Apparently, we need them to tell us how to think and what to do. If we differ with them on their preferred attitudes and actions, we are stupid, misinformed, mind-numbed robots who listen to too much talk radio.

We can't possibly differ because of independent study and thoughtful consideration of the issues. No, you see, if we aren't reaching the same conclusions, we just don't have the facts.

---------------------------

WASHINGTON (MCT) — The American public doesn’t have much appetite for a military strike in Syria.

People don’t fully understand how America has a national interest. They’re not well-versed on who’s fighting whom and they wonder why this country is not spending precious federal dollars on boosting the domestic economy rather than engaging in faraway conflicts.

And, said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark, “they’re a little bit burned by mismanaged expectations” of American missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Support for military action would jump, according to polls, if it was proven that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on its own people. But even that boost wouldn’t fully erase the deep skepticism.

“No question people would have a highly negative reaction to the use of chemical weapons. But there is just limited support for involvement in the Middle East and in Syria,” said Carroll Doherty, an analyst at the Pew Research Center.

An NBC News poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday found half of Americans do not support military action in Syria. By 41 percent to 27 percent, they do not think the use of military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians.

Members of Congress are hearing the same kinds of doubts, one reason they’re clamoring for President Barack Obama to lay out his case clearly before embarking on any military mission. The public agrees — nearly four in five want Obama to get congressional approval before acting.

In a rare display of bipartisan agreement, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California echoed the same concerns as those of Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

“There needs to be more consultation with all members of Congress and additional transparency into the decision making process and timing,” she said, “and that the case needs to be made to the American people.”