Roger L. Simon: The Iraq Poll

One of my favorite bloggers, Dean Barnett, links to a Fox News Poll this morning saying over one-third of our country either doesn't want the new Bush policy in Iraq to succeed or doesn't know if they do. Dean thinks these stats mean the sky is falling.

I'm not so sure. Actually I thought it would be worse. But I also think that Dean may be misinterpreting the poll . I'm no polling expert - and I'm not even sure polling experts are polling experts - but I think most of those people were just registering their strong disapproval of the war and general Bush hatred. If you sat down with them, they would acknowledge it's better for the US to win. Now, of course, there are the members of the Sheehanese Liberation Front and their ilk. But I refuse to believe they represent a third of the country - or even close.

MORE: But speaking of "Which Side Are You On?"... Over on The Daily Gut is this interesting post about the recent pronouncements of Robert Redford at the opening of the Sundance Film Festival. It seems "Ordinary" (Redford's nickname used by those of us, including yours truly, who taught at the Sundance Institute) proclaimed he he had been Bush's ally after 9-11 (only to feel betrayed by the President, of course). The blogger at the Gut says that Redford was, to put it mildly, fibbing.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Reminds me of a poll that was taken about a year ago. I'm working from memory so I may not be recalling the numbers exactly right, but according to this poll, roughly 1/3 of the country thought that 9/11 was a conspiracy. So, either this country is 1/3 composed of certifiable lunatics, or something else was at work. That particular poll, if I remember correctly, was not broken down into dems versus repubs, and I strongly suspected that the demographics of the polling played a large part. With this poll, however, also this poll *seems* to reflect poltical stances, I would also suspect that the demography is at work here. Namely, did the recpients come predominantly from the metropolis's, in effect giving us a mental slice of what the city dwellers are thinking? Bloomberg is checked off as a New York republican, which is a laugh. Swarzenegger's another one. Now if a Nebraskan corn husker gets off his tracker long enough to say he doesn't want the U.S. to win, THAT would be news.

Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types...
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

MinorRipper, that's better than teaching them that jews came from apes and monkeys, and that their mission in life should be to die in martrydom for Islam. Hell, those kids show some damn good potential. There might be some hope for that shithole yet.

This minor Ripper guy is making the rounds, he is a troll and an idiot.He is also an example of that one third that wants America to lose and of course wants the Iraqi people to suffer and die. Nice guy.

Incorrect. MinorRipper is a good blogger (not a troll) and he has wisdom in his posts. I think it makes you feel better about your disappointing life to have a group of people to hate on. If you say dems want to 'lose' in Iraq, then it only fair to admit that the right wants to 'lose' the America as we (used to) know it: lost civil rights, spying on americans, habeous gone, PNAC, bankruptcy, abu ghraib, gitmo, dividing the nation, sending brave soldiers to die in a vanity war created by a petulant little man temporarily residing in our white house, etc...I think you get the idea. dems think there is a better way to accomplish our goals than bankrupting our country and creating enemies around the world (coalition of the willing, yeah sure). Why is that so hard to understand? Because we don't drink the kool-aid and walk lock step with your furher, doesn't mean we don't want to destroy our enemies. Of course we do. You don't understand the ulterior motives of this administration. Please try to get your facts from different sources than Faux News. They are not doing you - or america - any favors.

Why do I think I've seen your posts on very blog for the past four years. Different name, same unimaginative, ennervating cliche-ridden crap. I wonder what, if anything, would cause you to think.

"...to 'lose' the America as we (used to) know it.." Do we know it, or did we used to know it?

"...a vanity (sic) war created by a PETULANT little man.." Do you mean "vain" and "petty"?

The last four sentences are impressive, too. Set up the condition and explain your admirable alternative. Move over, Logic.

Why do I think I've seen your posts on very blog for the past four years. Different name, same unimaginative, ennervating cliche-ridden crap. I wonder what, if anything, would cause you to think.

But sir, you don't explain WHAT I said that was wrong or off base. You only insult, you don't inform. Why throw shit at me when you have nothing thoughtful to say about my post? Pathetic.

New here, Hi everyone.
I've been laughing about Stratrat's use of the the term 'furher' for the last 10 minutes. What a genius!

Redford says Bush owes America an apolgy for Iraq. I say Redford owes America an apology for An Indecent Proposal.

"New here, Hi everyone.
?I've been laughing about Stratrat's use of the the term 'furher' for the last 10 minutes. What a genius!
?Posted by: Roy Earle

And so what was just funny became a classic. I suggest that future troll posts be rated in decifurhers. The first post, I think, deserved a 5 decifurher rating. This, of course, is the standard, a 10.

No, you don't have to spell it out. I just thought you had something more substantial to say. My bad.

My post wasn't insightful, because insight wasn't required. All that was needed a quick read of your post. If you're insulted, read your post and dispute the charges. But, if you insist:

The sentence beginning "If you say dems want to 'lose'..." prove the fairness of your claim to follow.

Rather than disprove the list of catastrophic results you show for no comparative..oh, what the hell. Prove your list, discuss each and show your work.

How many are required to compose a "coalition of the willing", of which you would approve? And what is the cause of the "unwilling"? Prove it.

What is a "furhur", and after defining it, who is this person and why is he a "furhur"? Prove it.

I know this is a waste of blogspace, but this specimen of enlightened liberalism needs to explain himself.

I think that is what I had in mind. Your president doesn't seem to think insight is required also. Looks like you are part of the shrinking number of cheerleaders for this vanity war. You spouted lots of stuff that either was in my post or available with a small amount of research. Britain is leaving the coalition - get it? It is getting smaller because the kool aid is wearing off in some parts of the world - not your neighborhood evidently. I certainly don't know what you goals are: maybe graduating from high school would be a good start - maybe learning about the mulititude of news sources available to you - maybe approaching a fellow americans post with something useful - maybe presuming there are other ways to go about this invasion and occupation - maybe giving the dems time to see what their plan is. Mr Bush's plan is bankrupting our country - financially and morally. You are a part of America. We need you thinking more clearly though. Please try.

This creature came onto my blog and did the same thing before. He was over at Big Lizards posting his propaganda. My life has nothing to do with it. Minormoron is a stalker.

Those soldiers perform thousands of acts of kindness everyday and the thankless parasites like this only care about the alleged bad acts of a few. However if Saddam had carried out his plans to exterminate the Kurds I doubt very much if this idiot or you would have given a rat's behind.

As for owing America an apology, what about Bill Clinton? He is the one who came up with the idea of getting rid of the guy in the first place. Back in 98 AlQaida used his ill treatment of the Iraqis as an excuse to bring a fatwa against the United States.

Were all these people doing drugs in the late 90's? Do they not remember Clinton going after Saddam and accusing him of stockpiling weapons?

The economy is roaring, the deficit is plunging, oil is below $50 a barrel. If this is Bush's plan for bankrupting the country, he's screwing it up. More likely his detractors are, however. Give the Dems time to see what their plan is? They've had four fookin' years. How long do the dumbbutts need?

However if Saddam had carried out his plans to exterminate the Kurds I doubt very much if this idiot or you would have given a rat's behind.

I agree 1000% about the soldiers and the good works they do. God bless them. When I served (1970-1976) I didn't feel as though people wanted to know much about my good deeds either. Presuming to know about me is the beginning of your problem. You don't know me and I don't know you - except for the words we share with each other. Let me go slow here: Saddam was a bad guy - no question. Invading his country and becoming an occupying force is not doing any good. The invasion cannot be linked or connected to kurds. They are a proud people, but they are not the reason Mr Bush used to make his decision to invade Iraq. Mr Bush's reasons turned out to be untruthful. Of course I care about people being exterminated. I'm as human as you are. But we cannot use disconneted logic to infer the link between kurds and our invasion. You certainly have the right to either respect or disrespect what MinorRipper comments on. You can even ban him/her from your blog. No problem. I learn things (good things) from my interaction with blogs like this (and ST, Blue Crab, Ace Spades, etc...As long as the discussion doesn't turn too nasty, I would hope ALL americans would want to learn why the 'other side' thinks what they think. It's not because dems hate america. Its because we love america.

Give the Dems time to see what their plan is? They've had four fookin' years. How long do the dumbbutts need?

Quick little history lesson for you dickey: Four years of being the minority party does not provide very many avenues for change - unless the majority party (thats the repubs) grants those changes. Is that clear? If a committee chairman doesn't let your legislation leave committee - it doesn't leave committee. Even if the legislation was a great idea - dems would have to ask permission (and be granted permission) for the bill to go to the floor for consideration. You really must re-look the working of out legislature before you publically post something like this. It makes you appear unskilled. I don't mind helping you out though.

You have yet to respond to my post of inquiry, so we'll just get to the point, with a few preliminary observations.

I don't care about you, your service, your good intentions, your injured dignity, what you've learned at other blogs, what your hopes are, what you think Americans should be, your opinion of Saddam, that you regard yourself as human, how fastidious you are in news-gathering, or any of the other self-admiring bullshit you've excreted in the last three posts.

You aren't the issue. Just answer my questions about your first post, but failing that, answer these questions:

How do you view radical Islam, and is the Iraq War the cause of RI in Indonesia, Somalia, The Phillipines, Thailand, Deerborn, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Chechneya, Iran and a dozen other places? If so, what do we do about it?

I wonder how long the MSM will try to bury this? This is bullshit. The dems are putting this guy up for president? I think we just found out who our 1/3 segment of the population who are deranged.

Obama said it was a "predominantly Muslim school", not a Madrassa. He was four years old at the time.

The Unitarians, Quakers, Ba'hais and Episcopalians had to sit in the back of the class, but were generally treated with respect.

You do not know what you are talking about. I mean that sincerely. The left is like the Borg, I swear to God there is nothing original about you people.Bush Hitler. Bush bad. ugh.

Have you ever even bothered to read the Iraqi Liberation Act from 1998 when Clinton not only swore Saddam had wmd but gauranteed us he would use them? Have you ever read the actual Resolution that Congress voted on giving Bush authority to go into Iraq? If you had you would have realized that there were several reasons listed and to say they were all dishonest is ridiculous.

Have you ever bothered to read Resolution 1441 from the UN? Do you know anything about the years leading up the invasion of Iraq, including the years when Bush was still the Governor of Texas and had nothing to do with any of it? My guess is no, you do not know anything but lefty speak.

So, now we have people like you convinced that since there was no proof that Saddam planned 9/11 Bush lied or since there were no stockpiles ready and waiting to be found that Bush lied.

And yet there are never alternatives from you folks. Saddam could have saved his desert kingdom, but he wanted his weapons programs and his terrorist apparatus more. And I do mean terrorist. Saddam had his own terrorists he used to keep his people in fear. His country was a haven for infamous terrorists such as Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, the man Yasin who was the only terrorist not apprehended after the first attack on the Trade Center went to Iraq to hide, Zarqawi. I know the left thinks this means nothing that Saddam was secular. Tell that to the Israelis who were killed by the suicide bombers he paid. Nice guy.

Well from the beginning of this long war the Islamists have been a lot more pissed about the US going after Saddam than they ever were about our going after the Taliban.

But hey, look at like this if not for Bush Democrats would still be lying to you about Saddam's weapons.

Sorry Stratrat, but "Your president" as written in your 3:45 comment, pretty well establishes your bona fides, at least for me. Like'em or hate'em, as citizen's of this country, the holder of the office is "Our" President.

Rhod, I think this story is going to develop into something, if author of that Insight story is accurate. According to him the madrassa was in Indonesia. Michael Savage had the guy on his talk show. Supposedly Hillary Clinton has sent a team over there to dig up what they can.

Four years and no plan. Don't have to be in the congress to have a plan,rat. Anybody can have a plan. Not the Dems, though. Four years and no plan. Jeez.

The school in question is, or was, funded by Saudi Wahabbis, and Obama apparently left there by age four, or was there only during his fourth year.

He converted to Christianity, and can claim both revelation AND innocence on the matter. That's a hard-to-beat combo for liberals.

Noting the Clinton fingerprints on this, Laura Ingraham advised Obama to get a remote control ignition for his car.

That's interesting, Rhod. But won't the Christianity, in and of itself, cool the Left on him? And aren't they a significant part of the Dems' base?

Terye -- several times you've brought up Clinton's support of the Iraqi Liberation Act, or whatever it was called, in 1998. I'm sure it passed the House 430 to 5 or something, too. Somehow, the fact this legislation was passed somehow brands everyone who has jumped ship on the Bush's war as some kind of disingenuous hypocrite. Just like the Senate's unanimous alleged repudiation of the Kyoto protocol somehow is an argument against anyone every giving a damn about global warming.

Two things:
1) The Iraqi Liberation Act was a statement of Congress urging IRAQIS NATIONALS and EXILES to overthrow Hussein, and authorizing money to groups dedicated to that goal. It was not a license for preemptive U.S. intervention to overthrow him. Read Clinton's signing statement -- there is no contemplation of anything along the lines of the futile crusade that was launched in 2003. It specifically forbid the use of the U.S. military funds for anything but the training of those democratic opposition groups.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

2) That said, Congress was wrong to pass, and Bill Clinton was wrong to sign, the largely toothless and symbolic Iraqi Liberation Act. Though it was toothless and symbolic, it still served to effectively forclose the possibility of ever striking a Gaddafi-like deal with Hussein, which (coupled with making the non-fly zone over Iraqi Kurdistan permanent) seems to have been the least bad of all realistic options in Iraq. And which also, incidentally, I believe was what Hussein himself wanted all along.

Probably not. There's no excess of fervor in Obama, because it's reported that his church attendance in DC is sporadic. The Left can rationalize that into indifference, doubt, or golf.

Unless he's seen in the pulpit blazing away at some fine point about Paul in I Timothy, and wiping his brow with the ribbons in his King James, he's safe. He has the merit of being a smoker of cigarettes, too. What lefty can resist the rascal with the right ideas?

Very good point, Markus. Particularly about the No Fly Zones and the futile, but almost permanent, efforts necessary to enforce it. I just see no evidence that Hussein could have been Qadaffi'd. They were different animals with different ambitions and capabilities.

Actually markus Clinton said that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States, not just his own people and he punctuated this by bombing Iraq. Now maybe to Democrats bombing a country is not a big deal. But as far as the Iraqis were concerned it was something akin to war.

My point here is that time and again I have heard Democrats say that Bush lied about the WMD etc and in fact that is not the case at all. If Clinton had wanted a peaceful resolution that would have left Saddam in power to thumb his nose at the US and the UN then he should have done it instead of making war more likely, not less.

And BTW Clinton supported the invasion. Needless to say he changed his mind later, but back when it counted...he supported it.

On December 18, 1998, tapes and faxes from AQ were sent out. "We say it loud and clear that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nation in Iraq. For the crimes committed by the US against our Islamic nation will not pass without punishment." The statement was signed by the Vanguards of Conquest's secretary general, Abduallah Mansour [an alias for Al Queda's #2 man and strategic planner, Dr Ayaman al Zawahiri]. It was published in the al-Hayat on December 19, 1998.

I'm still trying to understand what the poll results mean. Note also that (question 21) 48% of Democrats said that: most Democrats want the Iraq plan to fail and the US troops to be withdrawn in defeat. Very explicit, not much ambiguity about this one.

Seems to me that the people answering "yes" to question 19--"Do you personally want the Iraq plan Bush announced last week to succeed?"--must either (a)have been confused about the meaning of the question, taking for agreement/disagreement with the plan, or (b)really hate this country and wish it harm, or (c)hate the Bush administration so much that they are willing to accept harm to the country as "collateral damage" for its destruction, or (d)be very strong isolationists and hope for a defeat leading us to withdraw to our own borders.

IMO, the people on the stinky end of that should-we-win poll do not desire the US to lose, except for the usual few. They want Bush to lose and to hell with the consequences. Or, perhaps more accurately, there are no consequences so serious that they outweigh the fun of beating Bush.
If we lose in Iraq, Bush loses, and nothing else counts, then or later. If, afterwards, one of them finds his wrist up between his shoulder blades so he is forced to discuss the consequences, he can/will find somebody else to blame. Probably Bush.

Four years and no plan. Don't have to be in the congress to have a plan,rat. Anybody can have a plan. Not the Dems, though. Four years and no plan. Jeez.

You know, I really am getting tired of seeing this piece of shit commentary. The Bush Administration keeps pretending like no one else has any suggestions and they've been waiting with baited breath.

There have been multiple recommendations from senators, committees and experts in both ME politics and Insurgency warfare. The Iraq Survey Group, for instance. Levin, Biden, Hagel and Snowe seem to have some ideas, but they too have been marginalized.

Face it, people have ideas... However, since they don't fit with the NeoCon plan (which appears to have been incorrect in every assumption so far) they're simply dropped and the fools crow again: "Does no one else have a plan?!"

"Four years and no plan that doesn't involve toothless make work or depending on fairy tales..."

There, with that qualifier, it fits reality. Now people can put that in their clipboard for future use, and we'll all be happy. Except for our new troll up above, of course, but nothing is perfect.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by good, old-fashioned stupidity.

January 19, 2007: The Iraq Poll - Doom and Gloom

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post