Say Anything Blog

If the Kerry interview on Fox this am is any measure, it appears that no matter how well things might be going the Left insists that the glass is not only half empty it’s got a hole in the bottom, and no matter what happens in the future we are defeated and must leave now.

Juan Williams insisted that the Democrat Congress is doing the peoples will in extracating us from this Vietnam type quagmire in Iraq. Those are my words, not his!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

You know my position on Iraq so I won’t bore you but I must point out that 42% of those surveyed believe things were better under Saddam or that the leaders are equally bad. This is not an encouraging result.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

42% of those surveyed

Compared to those surveyed while Saddam was in power? ROTFL!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

You know my position on Iraq so I won’t bore you but I must point out that 42% of those surveyed believe things were better under Saddam or that the leaders are equally bad. This is not an encouraging result.

The 42% number is skewed by the Sunnis who had “most favored” status under Saddam.  Of course they had it better.  They got to lord it over everyone else in the country.

The 42% number is irrelevant, as those who think Saddam was better were undoubtedly the crooks and thugs who had it good under him.  And who cares what they think?

But I’m not surprised at your reaction, Mike.  I show you a silver cloud and you start looking for the dark lining, right?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Mike, two more things to bear in mind:

Of the Sunnis, who had most-favored status under Saddam and who are the political enemies of Maliki’s Shiite coalition, only 51% of them say they had it better under Saddam.  That’s a startling number for that particular demographic.

Also worth keeping in mind is that not all of the poll respondents were likely brave enough to answer the questions asked them honestly.  Remember that these were a people who suffered murders and rapes if they didn’t vote the right way on “election day.” Many of them are probably too scared to be all that vocal in the support of Iraq’s current regime (fears undoubtedly driven by all this talk of an American pull out) and that’s going to skew the poll toward favoring life under Saddam as well.

You can look at this negatively if you want, and probably will because that’s what best reinforces your preconceived notions about Iraq, but there’s a lot here to be happy about.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

One thing I like about blogs like this one is that someone like Mike can offer a statistic and sooner or later another person will either prove that statistic was manufactured out of whole cloth or offer another, reasonable view of what those statistics really mean. This is wonderfully educational!

I am glad Mike posts here and others like him, because it creates good debates and contributes to a better understanding of the issues.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman...I like it here too because nothing is more boring than reading stuff you agree with consistently. Hearing and understanding opposing views is the best way to sharpen one’s own views. I’ll also point out that the 42% figure comes from the poll that Rob is basing his positive post on.

Rob said

You can look at this negatively if you want, and probably will because that’s what best reinforces your preconceived notions about Iraq, but there’s a lot here to be happy about.

With all due respect, it says a lot about your notions of Iraqi reality when you can base your post on a poll that says 42% of the respondents prefer Saddam or don’t see a difference with him gone. I don’t find that news horrible, I’m sure that the numbers will change over time for the better, but I certainly don’t see it as proof that Iraqis think things are better and it certainly doesn’t support the positive tone of your post.

I wouldn’t use the poll at all if I were writing in support of the present policy...it’s not the good news that you appear to think it is.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Mike, I think your inability to grasp the positive implications of this poll speaks a lot about your inability to grasp reality from Iraq that isn’t necessarily seen through a lens of overt liberal media bias.

But this is the same impasse we always reach.  You think Iraq is awful, I think we’re making progress.  Whatever.  I did find one line in your comment interesting and worthy of further discussion:

I’m sure that the numbers will change over time for the better

I take this to mean that you think things will get better in Iraq over time.  Progress, in other words.  But what do you think will happen if America abandons the mission in Iraq, which is something you support?  Do you think that progress would still take place?  If so, how?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You think Iraq is awful, I think we’re making progress.

How reasonable of you. The sad part is that the situation will become even more awful when the Americans leave.

But what do you think will happen if America abandons the mission in Iraq, which is something you support?

See above...things will get really awful. We don’t necessarily disagree on that but where we do disagree is whether Iraq will become stable if the present policy is pursued. You say yes, I say no. I say America should leave Iraq because the mission will not be successful and you might as well save your lives and dollars. I didn’t want the foolishness started in the first place, the foolishness has been bungled and thus won’t succeed and the results can not be positive.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

So you think things will be worse if Americans leave, but cannot possibly get better if we stay.

Basically, you’re denying any progress in Iraq what so ever, elections, constitutional government and influx of private capital for development be damned.

Is it hard work to be this obtuse?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

MikeAdamson said, I didn’t want the foolishness started in the first place, the foolishness has been bungled and thus won’t succeed and the results can not be positive.

World War 2. Bungled mission after bungled mission. Very long periods of intense fighting where the future victor was still very much in the air. Using your logic, the Allies should have lost that war.

lik suggests

Using your logic, the Allies should have lost that war.

No. If the Allies insisted on changing their goals and refused to devote the necessary resources to accomplish the changing goals then we would have lost. Since the goal of WW2 was to stop Hitler and the Allies never wavered from achieving that then I don’t see how you can find it analogous to the Iraqi mission at all.

Rob asks

Is it hard work to be this obtuse?

I wouldn’t know.

Basically, you’re denying any progress in Iraq what so ever

I forgot...if I’m not behind the policy 100% then I don’t see any progress in Iraq what so ever. In fact, if I find the policy stupid then i can’t see any progress in Iraq what so ever because if I don’t support the policy then I must be a brainwashed liberal and I can’t permit any evidence to tamper with my ideologically predefined view.

The fact that you see this poll as good news just shows how bereft of genuinely good news the war supporters are. The position that the mission must continue is misguided IMO but at least its defensible...the position that good news abounds in Iraq and that all that is required to successfully complete the mission are sufficient time and sufficient will is cartoonish.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

The fact that you see this poll as good news just shows how bereft of genuinely good news the war supporters are.

Actually, we are “bereft of genuinely good news” because the MSM refuses to report it.  It exists, but those like you want to deny it and silence it, in your rush to secure defeat in Iraq for the forces of freedom.
The consequences of that defeat, which have been extensively discussed on this blog(and elsewhere) are horrific, just like defeat for freedom would have had horrific consequences in WWII.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

MikeAdamson said, ”I didn’t want the foolishness started in the first place, the foolishness has been bungled and thus won’t succeed and the results can not be positive.”

President Lincoln and the Civil War, it was the most bungled, screwed up management of war in our history. That is the nature of war, war is never tidy, in fact it is always a damned mess and thank God it is, or we would use war almost daily as a means of national and foreign policy.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Y’all know where I stand concerning polls, and 5,019 out of 20 odd million is not much of a sample. I prefer the poll that happened a year ago. It is the one that matters.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

The 42% number is skewed by the Sunnis who had “most favored” status under Saddam.

Right. I’m sure they only say it used to better because they just don’t have brass fixtures in the john now.

MikeAdamson, based on your “logic” (ahem), we could have easily gone the other way. 65% think things are same or better, and only 29% think things will be worse.

Sounds fantastic!

Carrick...what you say is true although the cost in terms of lives and dollars seems a tad high to achieve “the same as before.” My point in commenting was not to rehash old arguments but to express my opinion of what the poll results say.

I haven’t looked at the poll itself so it may be valid or it may not but to claim that its results represent good news is a stretch...unless you consider the “no difference between Saddam and now” in positive terms as you suggest.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Sparkie:

Right. I’m sure they only say it used to better because they just don’t have brass fixtures in the john now.

I’m pretty sure the rape rooms and the forced expulsion of Shi’ites from their lands so that Saddam’s cronies could live there was a factor too.  Of course you’re too ignorant to be aware of that.

MikeAdamson, my only point was you were playing with numbers.  The poll is pretty mixed in its results, but still much more positive that US media portrayals.