Support For War Highest Since 2006
March 13th, 2008 at 01:43pm Matt Margolis
The Politico reports this very significant piece of news.
American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.
According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.
The implications of this poll are very big. Since the two Democrats running for their party’s nomination are both against the war and for an immediate retreat, the increasing support for the war effort won’t help either of them in a general election campaign.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, War on Terror
73 Comments
1. Obama2008 | March 13th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Believing that the war is winnable or going well is very different form whether Americans still support going into Iraq.
That still polls very negatively, with 60% of Americans saying the war was a mistake.
If the war is so popular now, why did the Bush “administration” think the recent Pentagon report discrediting any Al Queda links to Saddam too politically sensitive to release.
Cherry picking data again, it seems, Matt.
2. Joe | March 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I agree, that thinking it is going well is a huge difference than supporting it.
How come you didn’t post this from the PEW poll?
3. James | March 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
If more people want us to win in Iraq, and Hillbama want to cut and run, this poll is still bad news for them.
4. Joe | March 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
James,
Everyone “wants us to win in Iraq”. The problem is nobody in the current executive branch can define “win”. I’d be willing to bet a larger percentage of people would like to see the war ended and us no longer spending $12billion a month.
But hey, according to George, Mission was Accomplished 4 years ago. Remember that? So we’ve already won. Now end the occupation.
It’s also nice to be so proud that the number who think it is going “Fairly Well” has increased. That is something to really be proud of. After 6 years, I would hope that things would have been going “Fantastic” by now.
5. SteaM | March 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Matt,
What are the “goals” that we are going to achieve in Iraq?
6. Canadian Observer | March 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Support For War Highest Since 2006
It just goes to show that you can never overestimate the intelligence of the American people. Sigh…
7. William Teach | March 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
If “everyone wants us to win in Iraq”, then why have those on the left been calling for retreat and defeat even before the war started?
8. Sunny | March 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
What is happening in November will be the determining factor in how people will vote - be it the war, the economy, illegal immigration, loss of jobs, loss of homes etc. It is the kitchen table issues that get people out to vote and determines how they will vote. There is a lot of time between right now and November. We haven’t even started the campaigns between the two final canidates. A lot of things could happen during this time span.
9. Sunny | March 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Willy, who called for retreat and defeat? I have not heard one person say they want the US to be defeated. However, I do not believe anyone knows what “winning” is at this point. If someone could define “winning” it would be helpful in setting goals to do so.
10. William Teach | March 13th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Sorry, Sunny, but, I utterly refuse to be pulled in to this same old tired argument once again.
You can claim a win if you like, but, this has been discussed so many times over the past 5 years that you should be aware of it.
11. Michael | March 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I read the poll to mean that even those who are against the war and were calling for immediate withdrawl are seeing the results of the surge and now see that we can continue the effort until Iraq can defend itself and bring our troops home. US casualities are lower and lower as the job of fighting is being turned over to Iraqi troops with US troops in backup rolls. There is a way out that doesn’t abandon the Iraqis who have sacrificed so much and will allow our troops to come home knowing the did a fantastic job under very trying conditions. Even many on the left and in the middle now see the surge worked and advances are real and it is the quickest way out of the area and to get our troops home. That is one reason the economy has taken over top billing as a campaign issue surpassing the war in voters’ concerns.
12. JD | March 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“Support For War Highest Since 2006″
And is this supposed to be a good thing? I guess this also means that more people care less about America and our military people since 2006.
13. Joe | March 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Teach, how are we supposed to claim victory if we don’t know what victory is?
Was it to get rid of Sadaam? That was done.
Was it to allow them to have elections? That was done (a couple of times).
We hear all the time that Iraqis are starting to take the lead in defending themselves, yet you don’t hear anything about us stepping down (remember? “We will step down as the Iraqis step up”)
Our soldiers have done everything we’ve asked them to do and they’ve done it perfectly.
Meanwhile, we aren’t even back to the pre-surge levels of military in the country. How long do we keep this level of committment?
If there is no political reconciliation, what is our military supposed to do? At what point, if the Iraqis keep spinning their wheels is enough enough? We have an economy in shambles right here in the U.S. At what point do you say $12bln a month is not worth it any longer?
14. William Teach | March 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Sorry, Joe, been down this road hundreds of times. I will not be dragged down it again. If you do not know the answers, you haven’t been paying attention for 5 years.
15. Diana Powe | March 13th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
How’s that grasping at straws going, Matt? Did you forget to mention this paragraph from the story in the Politico?
Of course, the Politico’s story neglects to mention anything about the margin of error. Regardless, since you are so excitedly pointing to this “very significant piece of news”, are you now going to honestly acknowledge the fact that most American’s believe that it was wrong to invade Iraq?
16. Magnum Serpentine | March 13th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
The Neutral Gallup poll shows the following:
“With the five-year mark of the start of the Iraq war approaching, Gallup finds that 60% of Americans would like to see a timetable set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and 59% say the war was a mistake”
From Gallup Poll
next
17. Diana Powe | March 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
While you’re excitedly acknowledging the importance of polling data, how about this:
or this:
18. Pansy | March 13th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
It would be instructive to compare current levels of support to the year 2003, rather than 2006. In 2003 there was a near media blackout of editorial voices criticizing the war (except in the more “extreme” lefty blogs). That year is pretty much ground zero for Iraq war support.
It would also be instructive to hear from conservatives about ANY recent US war that they did not reflexively support. I want to believe that you have given this some thought.
19. JS | March 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
1. Obama2008
I guess you must be from Sudan, eh? Stuck under Islam? Because anyone who even thinks we are losing a war is a fool. Its like, oh ya, lets go fight the bully, Obama2008 likes to get hit. You dont have to swing, just get hit.
We won the Iraq war. We will win the war on terror. We will also honor our soldiers in the field and respect thier dignity and the cause that WE sent the over there for.
Cowards like you dont should be tried for aiding the enemy by spreading defeatist rhetoric, and shot for treason.
20. JS | March 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Winning the War on Terror
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/CommentaryToo/1039.html
21. JS | March 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Must be Obama2008s web site.
22. Freedom1 | March 13th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
800 Thai Muslims Call for Murder of Danish Cartoonist
A very global war.
23. Fredrick Schwartz | March 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Here are some facts,
1) Invading Iraq was done on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute and those invested in profiting from an American show of force in the Middle East
2) No matter what you do where you send forces or how many Muslims you kill, America is a free society and by definition its security is porous. Another attack will come and Americans will die that is the nature of 21st Century global condition between the two set of the most arrogant ideologues ever on the face of Terra. Ask anyone in the CIA, DIA, NSA off the record and they’ll tell you the same.
3) The earliest the Iraqi government could maintain order if American troop levels remain the same as they are today is 2020. That’s 12 more years with estimates 400-450 US deaths per year.
4) At 12 billion USD per month that would be 1.728 trillion USD over the next dozen years and that does not include the two years it will take to draw down to zero which is the goal of the Shi’a government.
5) Unfortunately 2020 is a presidential election year and could be the midst of a two term presidency if the winner of the 2008 election serves two terms. Taking into account that there will be a terror attack on US soil by then it will become politically expedient to remove the troops because they will have followed you home while you are still in Iraq. This will end the political cowardice of both the Congress and the Executive Branch in this matter
6) Pakistan will have become the focus of attention for the US by 2010 because of the disintegration of the democratic underpinnings of the Musharraf dictatorship. The issue of loose nukes in Pakistan will cast a great cloud over the 2010 midterm elections.
7) The American people will be more far wearier of foreclosure and high gasoline prices by November 2008 than the Iraq War.
8) The US economy has been in recession since August 16, 2007.
Finally) The fact that William Teach will not address the issue of what “winning” in Iraq is means that he is either a member of the Bush administration, because they can’t define it either, or he is a useless ideologue who cannot understand the ramifications of global actions in the 21st century milieu of realpolitik. In terms you can understand Bill, “You are a stubborn and stupid man who thinks you can wave a foam finger that says USA #1!!!! and everything will be okay. Grow up son, your country of soft pampered protein eating suburbanites are locked in a war with people who see death everyday. At the very best you can hope to break even against their tactics and the one time you slip up it will cost you thousands of lives. Welcome to what Israel has dealt with for the past 30 years. Mossad knows you don’t have the stomach for this game because it’s easy to be cocky behind a wall of nuclear weapons facing down another country. But when you swing at smoke what happens?
24. gaijin | March 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Teach William,
Refusing to argue a point that you have already lost in the past. I like your style kid, keep up the good work.
Freedom1,
So what are we supposed to do about that? Are we going to invade Thailand and every other country in which muslims protest? What are your solutions?
The goal of the surge was to decrease violence in order to give the Iraqi government a chance to pull itself together and meet the benchmarks set out for them.
The troops have done a good job of helping to decrease the level of violence. However, political success is not being achieved, which is the ultimate goal of the surge. Thus, on that grounds, it is failing.
It’s as if your house is on fire, and the fire is being put out faster than before, but overall your house is still burning down. No one has thought to turn off the gas main which is the cause of the fire. Until that happens, the house will continue to burn, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but the house continues to burn.
Peace, Gaijin
25. William Teach | March 13th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Nice try, Gaijin, but, still not biting. Old arguments, old discussions, if you haven’t done them hundreds of times, then you ain’t been paying attention.
War, WT ;)
26. bongoman | March 13th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
JS:
I suppose this also applies to anyone who questions the invasion and occupation of Iraq? We should all be shot? How much dissent is tolerable in your view JS? At what point does dissent become treason?
27. lib | March 13th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
the support may be slightly up - but still the country is quite clearly against the war. Go on and live in your denial world Matt - nothing will bring you out of it
28. Piggy | March 13th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Oh please please please GOP run on the Iraq war and how good it is for America. Tie this around every Republican in Congress as well.
Democrats will have have supermajority in both houses and the Oval Office
29. Joe | March 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
JS, how exactly do you “win the war on terror”?
Do you kill every single terrorist in the world? That would be mighty impressive. I guess you just want perpetual war.
Freedom, keep posting those anti-Islam posts.
30. SEW | March 13th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
JS, Looks like you’re outnumbered about 10-1. Just say boom, boom boom and they will all scatter.
31. SteaM | March 13th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
bomb, bomb, bomb… bomb, bomb, iran
32. Diana Powe | March 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
bongoman,
I note that js is concerned with maintaining the appearance of justice since their will still be a trial before you are shot.
33. Freedom1 | March 13th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
SteaM, “bomb, bomb, bomb… bomb, bomb, iran”
Now that Admiral Fallon has retired, we just might bomb Iran.
Joe: “Freedom, keep posting those anti-Islam posts.”
I will. Count on it. Muslim Man Shoots Sister Then Congratulated By Family - Ynet News.com
34. Mark Noonan | March 13th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Can’t stand it, can you liberals? You see your edifice of lies about the war crumbling, and its scaring you to death.
35. Freedom1 | March 13th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Gaijin, “Are we going to invade Thailand and every other country in which muslims protest?”
Muslims “protest”?! 800 Thai Muslims are demanding the murder of a cartoonist.!. This is barbaric.
Oh, and if you haven’t heard Muslims in Thailand have murdered, decapitated, shot, burned alive thousands of Buddhists in a violent jihad in Thailand, since 2004. Far more than “protests” are going on. (Video) - VOA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osySp5FdjxM
36. Almiranta | March 14th, 2008 at 12:04 am
It is fascinating to watch what passes for thought on the far Left. They are still running against Bush and they are still arguing about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq.
Fortunately the conservatives are working in the present, while the Libs are still thrashing around in the past.
And in this present, we understand the risks of pulling out of Iraq. We know those risks, they have been explained and detailed over and over again.
And the trolls who infest this site will never be able to grasp that reality, because they are so busy tilting at last year’s wndmills.
37. Dennis | March 14th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Deleted - off topic.
38. Gaijin | March 14th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Freedom1,
Are you promoting the bombing of Iran? Do you realize what that would do to the US economy and military? Pissed about gas prices now, bomb Iran and watch oil hit $200/barrel and $7/gallon gas
OK, forget about protesting muslims, are you advocating that the US invade and occupy every country on the face of the earth which has any terrorist, terrorist sympathizers or Muslims groups we don’t approve of?
How would you go about such a task
i.e. troop numbers, financing, etc?
Mark,
“Can’t stand it, can you liberals? You see your edifice of lies about the war crumbling, and its scaring you to death.”
That’s just too good to pass up! We, the liberal kooks, saw the edifice of lies about the war crumble long ago. Like, I don’t know Al Qaeda being in Iraq, WMD, being greated with flowers, 6 months tops, Iraq will pay for its own reconstruction.
For those of you who would like to say that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, you are absolutely wrong…well according to the US Military. But don’t take my word for it:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/index.html?iref=newssearch
Ya, Mark, you sure showed us!
Peace, Gaijin
39. Diana Powe | March 14th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Deleted - accuses Mark Noonan of dishonesty; which accusation from lefties is getting rather annoying.
40. Freedom1 | March 14th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Gaijin - “Are you promoting Iran’s nuclear weapons program? Do you realize what that would do to the US economy and military if they nuked Israel and/or sold a nuke to a terrorist group which used it to nuke the USA?
“P****d about gas prices now, bomb Iran and watch oil hit $200/barrel and $7/gallon gas”
Let’s see…$7/gallon gas vs Iran with nuclear weapons, Israel nuked and terrorists in possession of an Iranian nuclear weapon that they will detonate on US soil.
Not a tough choice.
First, are you aware that Al-Qaeda and is in many, many countries around the world like France? Do you grasp that? Second, do you understand in any fashion that Al Qaeda is hardly the only Islamic terrorist groups waging war against America and the West? Do you understand that?
What do you propose to do about all of these Islamic terrorist organizations in all of the countries around the world who want to destroy us?
41. Mark Noonan | March 14th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Gaijin,
Seen it - and it doesn’t say that al-Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq, it says that Saddam and al-Qaeda weren’t linked…but, then again, its just another leaked story about a report and I’m sure that once the full report is in the public square we’ll see that there are a bunch of qualifiers on “linked”. You on the left have played this game far too often fo we on the right to be impressed by it.
42. Freedom1 | March 14th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Mark,
By “linked” leftists will only accept a signed contract between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda - notorized of course.
Oh, brother.
The USA is winning in Iraq. The Iraqi government is really starting to make major progress. The Iraqi infrastructure is improving daily. The future of Iraq is looking brighter and brighter by the day. :)
43. Mark Noonan | March 14th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Freedom,
Heck, if it were notarised by Barack Obama, they’d still say it was a Rovian plant…they’ve invested themselves in defeat, and can’t pull back.
44. Freedom1 | March 14th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Seriously.
45. liberalHope | March 14th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Look - just go look at the polls I posted.
(1) you picked the poll that most agrees with your position and ignored the fact that the majority of the polls do not show as drastic a shift as you would like
(2) you ignored them again when I posted it
its nothing different with you guys. Just ignore what you don’t want to see. More suicide bombings in Iraq - ah shucks - just more signs of those damn liberal defeatists. What a pair of absolute jokers you guys are..
46. Fredrick Schwartz | March 14th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Freedom 1,
I understand you love your country because I love mine too but you know you can do that because you live in the current land of plenty. Come back and talk to me in 6 months when things get really bad economically in the United States. I don’t mean shallow recession bad I mean you can’t make ends meet anymore bad because that’s where it is going. Bush and the neocons and people with a lot of liquid assets are scared to the point of having to wear an adult diaper that Bernanke is going to run out of Fed Funds Rate points to cut before the GOP can run out of the White House in 2009.
Here’s something you don’t know when the Fed Funds Rate dips below the 2 yr Treasury Note yield Bernanke’s hands are tied. The Fed Funds is 3% right now and likely on Tuesday they fed will cut another 50 to 75 basis points to 2.5% or 2.25%. With 2 year notes at 1.63% he really can’t go any lower than 1.75 I am told without, according to economist Carlton Pryor,”. . . causing technical confusion in the markets and setting off a massive wave of overnight inflationary pressure on consumables.” Now it’s August and the recession is full blown but the rate cuts have injected massive amounts of inflation into the economy with gasoline leading the way at a national average of just under 4 USD a gallon. Bread eggs and milk all have increased 10 to 15% in consumer price based solely on the 4.50 USD average price of diesel fuel. So in mid August lets say that to “relieve pressure on the oil futures market and play a little arbitrage profit taking with the dollar that is now worth ¥88 a wise ass in Dubai open a trade in Light Sweet Crude oil futures for October valued in €.
Which do you think would do more damage to US Americans? A loss of their economy in a week when the .DXY drops from 60 to 40 overnight or the scintilla of a chance that some Muslim might get his hands on enough radioactive material to poison a few square blocks in some college town in the Midwest? All my chips are in on the economic bomb.
I still have to ask you Mark,
What is America winning in Iraq? If you think you need to be in Iraq for 20 more years with a force of 170 000 or more US troops say so. If you know that’s the case then you should be advocating for a draft. This thing is costing 12 billion USD a month with no end in sight. How long do you think the US economy can bear that kind of waste?
I have to ask if McCain is elected and the GOP gains control of both the House and the Senate and the draft is reinstated so the long term occupation of Iraq can begin in earnest what do you think the reaction of all those 18-25 year old men who aren’t in college will be? You are old enough to recall that war in SE Asia that I actually was a part of and it wasn’t pretty here back home.
The war in Iraq was only wrong because that’s not where the war should have been fought. Turkey should have been allowed to go into the Kurdish north and destroy both the PKK and Ansar al Islam the precursor to the Tawid wal Jihad which is erroneously called al Qaeda in Iraq. That threat and 400 billion USD could have been saved just listening to Mossad and the SVR and the Vevak prior to December 2001 when the Israelis, the Russians and the Iranians all sat down to videoconferences with the Bush administration and pledge support in rooting out and killing those responsible for September 11.
Now think about this Freedom 1, for nearly 120 days Iran was an ally of the USA in the war on terror and if Osama bin Laden had been killed or captured at Tora Bora the Pasdaran who gave volumes of raw intelligence in support of that operation about the Taliban and had boots on the ground in the form of HumInt would have claimed a victory against Sunni extremism that would have resonated around the Muslim world. It may even have led to the willingness of Hezbollah to come to the table in Lebanon with anti-Syrian elements in the Lebanese government.
This might have led to negotiations with the mid level diplomatic representatives of the US and Iran on a wide variety of other issues including diplomatic recognition and renewal of missions. That sort of cooperation might have meant peace.
All those in favor of the war in Iraq understand though is that they must not “lose.” Anyone that’s been in combat knows there’s only one way to win a war and that’s unconditional surrender of your enemy. The problem with Iraq isn’t really the wrong country was invaded it is that fear of a backlash from the public if more troops were killed there caused political cowardice to trump military necessity. You would already be having your parades and the insurgency would have been crushed or maybe never even developed if Shinseki had been listened to and 450 000 troops had gone in and stayed 14 months to do the job. No Green Zone no CPA no al Askari mosque bombing. The reconstruction would have been going three or four fold where it is today and America’s traditional allies would have been on board because it would have been a “slam dunk.”
Add 100 000 NATO troops to that US total and you would have “won.” But the ruse of WMD mandated that Bush and the neocons put in the cautious number of just under 200 000 because their focus groups were pegging on questions about tens of thousands dead from nerve gas on the way to Baghdad. There wasn’t any nerve gas, there wasn’t any phosgene and had there been the ships in the Persian Gulf would have nuked the northern outskirts of Baghdad and once again you would have “won.”
Mark this is just about political cowardice nothing less but heck you bought Iraq and I think America deserves to stay there for 50 or 100 years so those who want to rewrite history and make this tragic policy failure a “win” for Christian conservatives a generation from now can know what a miserable bungle it actually was.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
47. JS | March 14th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Of course, we all know that everything F Schwartz wrote had any solid foundation, he, and not Bernanke, would be Treasury Sec’ty, and CIC, to boot.
The sprinkling of facts amidst conspiracy always make someone “sound” like they have a grasp on reality, but remember, its only a “CONSPIRACY THEORY”. Nothing more. The reality is, those like F Schwartz that push these CONSPIRCY THEORIES are the real cowards.
48. Some Assembly Required | March 14th, 2008 at 7:13 am
There you go again, you cannot provide a sufficient rebuttal so you attack the credibility of the messenger and cop out to calling the argument a Conspiracy Theory. Thus proving you have been brainwashed into thinking the way the current administration wants you to. Any argument which does not coincide with the administrations agenda is a conspiracy theory.
49. Fredrick Schwartz | March 14th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Well i guess the signals from Fox don’t carry through the dense thicket of woods around your trailer park JS but Ben Bernanke is the Federal reserve Chairman and Hank Paulson is the Sec’y of the Treasury. Conspiracy? So economic realities are now a conspiracy?
I want two of whatever JS is smoking and a side of the Dupre chick that Spitzer loss his career for, to go.
But I’ll bite JS what makes me a coward to point out what sage minds like those of Jimmy Rogers Rick Santelli and Carlton Pryor say regarding the decline of the US economy?
50. Sunny | March 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Freedom1 | March 14th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Mark,
By “linked” leftists will only accept a signed contract between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda - notorized of course.
Is it relevant to you that the report was put out by the Pentagon? Probably not. You righties will never accept the truth. Idoit.
51. Sunny | March 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.
Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that “no one” in the U.S. and Iraqi governments “feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,” or in the provision of basic public services. Washington Post 3/13/2008
Once again I ask: What is winning in Iraq? I know that Freedom does not want that question asked, but it seems it must be.
52. Amanda | March 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Mark,
“I’m sure that once the full report is in the public square we’ll see that there are a bunch of qualifiers on “linked”.”
Don’t hold your breath:
“The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network.
“Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters — if they asked for it. The report won’t be posted on the Internet.”
Looks like the report says what it says. Otherwise, why bury it?
53. Tractatus | March 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Deleted - accuses Mark Noonan of dishonesty; which accusation from lefties is getting rather annoying.
54. Arch | March 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“It would also be instructive to hear from conservatives about ANY recent US war that they did not reflexively support. I want to believe that you have given this some thought.”
I’ve given this some thought, Pansy, and I have to say the only recent American war that I didn’t “reflexively” support was WWII. I thought that the axis powers had the right idea about the political relationship between corporations and government.
Other than that, every recent American war was great because I support the troops.
55. Joe | March 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Arch: Other than that, every recent American war was great because I support the troops.
In case you haven’t heard, disagreeing with a war has nothing to do with not supporting the troops.
56. Diana Powe | March 14th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
The support for the invasion of Iraq, so unwaveringly exhibited by the faithful here has bought something that I believe they fail to trumpet sufficiently. Five years ago, at the direction of the President of the United States, this nation’s armed forces removed the most significant strategic threat to Iranian influence in the Middle East - the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein. Now, thanks to the current Administration, Iran has an oil-rich and Shi’a-dominated ally in the Gulf - Iraq. Far from being angry with us, the Iranians are probably celebrating their good fortune.
57. Tractatus | March 14th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Gee, all I said in comment 54 (now deleted) is that if Mark is annoyed by being called dishonest, then maybe he should stop being dishonest. I guess that’s too much to ask of him.
58. steveGA | March 15th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I’m confused Mark. I thought you didn’t look at single polls, you looked at poll trends. If this is the case, then the trend is still negative: the vast majority of polls show a majority of Americans not feeling positive about the war and supporting Democratic goals of getting out. In fact, the poll you’ve cited is an outlier.
When polling trends don’t go your way, you frequently state that polls don’t matter. If this is true, why are you citing one?
In short, why do you consistently do the exact opposite of what you say you should do? Are you dumb, dishonest, or just a hypocrite?
59. Barak | March 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
60. Diana Powe | March 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Barak,
So, tell us how you feel about removing Iran’s biggest strategic threat - Saddam Hussein - and replacing his Sunni-dominated government with a Shi’a-dominated government. That would be the same government that rolled out the wide red carpet a few days ago for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s historic first visit to Iraq by an Iranian president. That would be the same Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the right wants us to believe is the moral equivalent of Adolph Hitler. How does that work into your “victory” scenario? Square peg in round hole?
61. Barak | March 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hmmmmmmmm………….Let me see……..would I go back, knowing what I know now and put a known brutal dictator that the majority of the WORLD believed had nuclear aspirations back into the appalling, brutal positions he and his sons took from the Iraqi people? Or, should I stand firm on principle and help a fledgling democracy see their way to the light at the end of the tunnel?
Or, I guess I could say **ck you Iraqi people! We made a mistake, so now we are out of here and your on your own.
Calling all bleading heart liberals! Which scenario would you consider most humain?
Diana?
62. Diana Powe | March 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Barak,
I note with interest that you didn’t even address the question. According to the view of many on the right, Iran is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is morally equivalent to Adolph Hitler. Do you disagree with that view?
For anyone who does, maybe you, our invading Iraq provided a dramatic boost to “Nazi Germany” and “Adolph Hitler” as evidenced by his unprecedented state visit to Iraq. Your silence on that question seems to suggest that you’re okay with that.
63. Pain | March 15th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
The Iraqi people, as a whole, would be better off if the United States had not invaded their nation and overthrown the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein al Tikriti.
64. Barak | March 15th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
to tell the truth Diana, I had given Amade…..who as second thought for quite some time, if at all. But according to you, I think he’s Hitler reincarnate because I’m conservative. Hm……..
Well, if your question had anything whatsoever to do with my post, I would have answered, but since it did not, I will do exactly what I did before.
Pain…..your just ignorant……that’s OK, you’re allowed to be!
65. Diana Powe | March 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Barak,
If you’d read my comment, you’ll notice I didn’t assume that you personally believed the drivel about Iran being Nazi Germany or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being another Hitler. That is, however, a common conservative meme which calls into question the whole notion of “victory” in Iraq given Iran’s boost from our removing Saddam and his regime. You just ignored my question about whether or not you shared that view of Iran. You’ve also continued to ignore the larger issue of how what we did five years ago has served Iran’s national interests so well.
66. Faceplant | March 15th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“Can’t stand it, can you liberals? You see your edifice of lies about the war crumbling, and its scaring you to death.”
Public opinion on the Iraq war is virtually unchanged. One outlier poll doesn’t change that. Iraq didn’t have WMD (luckily the majority of the country isn’t stupid enough to believe your “he took them to Syria” argument), and the latest Governmental report reiterates (ONCE AGAIN) that Saddam did not have any kind of cooperative relationship with Al Queda (just like every other Governmental report has said).
Yet, if one were to get his information from this blog exclusively one would believe that Saddam had mobile weapons factories, a large chemical and possibly nuclear weapons stockpile that was all moved to Syria prior to the war, and had deep ties to Al Queda. And we would believe all of this, despite the fact that Gov’t report, after Gov’t report either disproves all of those assertions, or doesn’t find any evidence that any of it is true.
And then you all sit around a lament that you are the only ones who see the truth (despite there being virtually nothing to support your assertions).
I’m not sure I have ever seen a group of people more completely ditatched from reality than most of the Neocon readers of this blog, and those in the Neocon movement in general. It’s as sad, as it is scary.
67. Faceplant | March 15th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“Or, should I stand firm on principle and help a fledgling democracy see their way to the light at the end of the tunnel?”
Well, why don’t you ask the Iraqi people. If you really cared for the poor Iraqi’s, it’s there opinion that would matter isn’t it?
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf
“– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”
– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.
– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.
– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).”
Spare me your feigned grave concern for the poor Iraqi people. If you actually cared about them, you would be listening to their concerns and desires. It’s quite clear that your movement didn’t go to war in Iraq to free the poor Iraqi people.
68. Barak | March 15th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Hmmmmmm. Diana! Wow, let me sit at your feet oh mighty and wise one. Then again, if YOU knew that we were playing into Iran hands, why didn’t you warn us. Of course, since YOU don’t believe this about Iran, what are you worried about, what do you care if it served Irans National interests?
Me, personally, I’m not worried either! Israel could hand Iran their a** any day of the week.
One more thing Diana, where do you find anything to support your idea that this is a conservative meme?
69. Barak | March 15th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Spare me your feigned grave concern for the poor Iraqi people. If you actually cared about them, you would be listening to their concerns and desires. It’s quite clear that your movement didn’t go to war in Iraq to free the poor Iraqi people./
Ha, you have taken one to many faceplants! Personally, I joined the Marine Corp during “Desert Storm”, because of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people. My younger brother joined during 9/11 and did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. You haven’t a clue how many soldiers join for humanitarian issues as much as defense of their country.
Oh foolish, foolish liberals! Someday (maybe) you’ll understand. We hope & pray!!!
70. Mark Noonan | March 15th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Faceplant,
Well, that is their 2006 opinion…last I checked, this is 2008.
Furthermore - that report is put together by an organization run by:
Anthony Lake: Carter and Clinton Administration official and current foriegn policy advisor to Barack Obama.
I. M. Destler: of the leftwing Brookings Institute as well as the leftwing Carnegie Endowment.
Gloria Duffy: Clinton Administration official.
Catherine Kelleher: Carter and Clinton Administration official.
Bill Frenzel: Former Democratic congressman.
Not exactly an unbiased source, huh?
71. Pain | March 15th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
12% of Iraqis feel confident that the MNF can protect them and their families against threats
62% of the same felt the iraqi ppolice could protect them and their families from threats
This in a nationwide poll done by the DoD p.61
72. Almiranta | March 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Diana seems to be saying we should have left a murderous tyrant in place, so the area would have stability and the price of oil would not go up.
Sounds like “Blood for Oil” to me.
Yeah, we get it. Saddam was better than Bush, his regime was better than what they have now, the Iraqis yearn for the return of Hussein, the rape rooms are becoming things of nostalgia, there were never any WMD, the war was a mistake, it was all about whatever conspiracty ol’ Fred has dreamed up lately, blah blah blah.
The sad thing is not that you all believe this crap, it’s that you WANT it to be true.
73. kimberly4victory | March 16th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
“It would also be instructive to hear from conservatives about ANY recent US war that they did not reflexively support. I want to believe that you have given this some thought.”
Kosovo. Attacking a Christian country without any evidence of mass graves. The mass graves found so far have been dug and filled by Muslim extremists … who BTW have taken over Kosovo as the new AQ training ground. 14 resolutions for Saddam, Zero for the Serbs. And, the libs want us to cut and run from Iraq so AQ can have yet ANOTHER training ground.
The support for the war should be higher because, despite what the MSM tells us, the surge is working. Good reading on michael yon’s blog … from someone who is ACTUALLY there on the grounds with our wonderful, fabulous troops.