Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Monday, January 29, 2007

Webb Distorts Military Opinion Of Iraq

The Democrats have been busy making statements about how not only the American public is fed up with Iraq, but so are America’s troops.  Yet it turns out that the only poll done of the troops’ opinions about the war, a Military Times effort much-touted by liberals, doesn’t quite support the left’s contentions.

Almost in passing, Sen. James Webb, Virginia Democrat, dropped what was intended to be a bombshell about the state of the American soldier in Iraq last Tuesday evening as he delivered his response to President Bush’s State of the Union address. Not only do the majority of Americans no longer support the way the war in Iraq is being fought, the terse and pro-withdrawal Mr. Webb told millions of viewers, but now, he said, “the majority of our military” also does not support the war.

The first half of that statement is true; poll after poll shows that the public now opposes the war in Iraq. But the latter half is at best a contortion of the evidence and quite possibly the opposite of the truth. The question of military support for the president’s war policies is a fascinating one, not least because service members are the people with the best firsthand knowledge of the war’s day-to-day conduct. They should know better than others what has worked and what hasn’t, what is likely to succeed and what isn’t. As befits a political speech delivered for high political effect, Mr. Webb has not done the subject justice.

The only non-anecdotal publicly available evidence for Mr. Webb’s case is a December poll of Military Times readers which shows that only 35 percent of readers support the president’s handling of the war, as opposed to 42 percent opposed. That’s down from 63 percent in favor in 2004 (in a poll which the editors stress “should not be read as representative of the military as a whole"). Interestingly, though, the seeming anti-war majority consists at least in part of people who think that President Bush has not been aggressive enough. Nearly half of this December poll’s respondents thought that the United States needed more troops in Iraq. That’s nearly half who want a deeper American commitment, not a withdrawal. How ironic for Mr. Webb, who tried to claim the troops for his own pro-withdrawal platform last week.

So yeah, the Military Times poll indicates that the troops don’t necessarily agree with the President’s policies in Iraq.  But a lot of them disagree with it not because they think we can’t win or that we should give up and withdraw (as the Dems would suggest) but rather because they feel we aren’t committed enough in Iraq.

Which is pretty much the polar opposite of the Democrat position.

Shame on Webb and the Democrats for this blatant, and clearly knowing misrepresentation.

Comments

Rob: I think this is simply the latest effort in the Dem’s Leninist strategy to divide and conquer.  The last election was proof that they have achieved a small measure of success in doing this, since the conservative majority in America has been divided by the lies, half-truths and fabrications about the war by the MSM.  Webb is just taking the latest move, in his outright lie about the American military and its will to win in Iraq.  If they can convince enough Americans with their lies, they can bring about our defeat against the terrorists, and grab political power at the same time.  They are doing the labor/management strategy, the haves/have-not’s strategy, and now they are trying to divide the military from the American people.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on January 29, 2007 at 06:45 pm
Avatar for WOOF

In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identi fied themselves as Republicans, which is about double the popula tion as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the mili tary respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a figure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.

WOOF on January 29, 2007 at 09:29 pm

WOOF,

Thank you for demonstrating what the rest of us have been saying since last November.  Namely that the Democrats did not win the off-year congressional election, the Republicans lost it.  And they did so precisely because they acted too much like Democrats.

Given the numbers you’ve presented here, no other conclusion is rationally possible.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on January 29, 2007 at 10:02 pm

And they did so precisely because they
acted too much like Democrats.

Not to mention the Dem candidates who masqueraded as Republicans by claiming to embrace what are considered to be Republican positions.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on January 29, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Geez, set the Way-back Machine to 1990 and Republican disgust for President George the First.  It seems being betrayed by the ‘read my lips no new taxes’ guy resulted in a general revulsion for the inside the beltway Republican manderin class.  ANY third party had a definite chance.  Perot actually was getting some serious polling numbers before he imploded and Jesse Ventura showed us that a third party could make it in to office.

Move the dial a tad closer to the present and we find, lo and behold, that the apple does not fall far from the tree and President George the Second has—like dad before him—screwed his constiuency on immigration, spending, Bigger Government and in every way out-democratting democrats.

Is it any surprise that if being Republican doesn’t mean what it used to mean, that fewer would identify themselves by that label?

The voters didn’t move Left to join the Democrat ranks, the Republican Party did—leaving their core voters out in the cold.


...for great justice

Move_Zig on January 29, 2007 at 10:19 pm

MZ: Even with all that, the Republicans lost because of the MSM’s relentless lies, half-truths and fabrications about the war in Iraq.  If the American people saw the truth, that this President is doing what is vitally necessary to the survival of our society and culture: standing up against the terrorists, they would still support him.  Another “inconvenient truth” is that even his spending programs work better than the Dem ones, and don’t go wildly over budget.  Another truth you won’t find in the MSM, either. What we have here is a very sophisticated and effective propaganda job by the lefties.  They are trying to lie us out of war, and into defeat.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on January 29, 2007 at 11:52 pm

R108,

We are in full agreement on that issue.  But with regard to George the Second, I am personally torn between supporting his Iraq-Afghanistan wars whole- heartedly and being livid at his treasonous SPP / Amnesty for Illegals thing. 

Question: if the Dims were to impeach Bush, as they have threatened so often, how would Cheney handle the Middle East situation and would he be more or less secure on our Mexican border?


...for great justice

Move_Zig on January 30, 2007 at 01:32 am

Question: if the Dims were to impeach Bush, as they have threatened so often, how would Cheney handle the Middle East situation and would he be more or less secure on our Mexican border?

MZ: Interesting question, but I doubt even the Dems are so stupid as to impeach the President without taking out the VP, as well.  IMO, that is what the entire “Plame” thing was, and is about.  The lefties have been about dismantling this administration since day one.
I concur wholeheartedly on the border issue.  No “program” of any type has any meaning without the ability to control the border, so that has to come first. One of the President’s many faults, but at least he hasn’t disgraced the Office of the President with his personal behavior.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on January 30, 2007 at 07:20 am
Avatar for armybrat#1

from the sounds of these said statemants that thare is more of a democratic republican debate but the situation at hand is the matter of do the U.S. soldiers support the war and does the U.S. itself support it? so my opinion on the matter is no the majority of the U.S. does not support the efforts of bush snd the war and there are a few soldiars who disagree with the pres. yes us soldiers are willing to fight but are we doing the right thing by fighting at all in the matter we killed those redponsible. Do we really need to stay at war just because they have the oil. we should be trying to make friends with this country or at least make peace with them. yes they have the oil and we need it but i dont believe we should take it by force.

armybrat#1 on February 6, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Do we really need to stay at war just because they have the oil. we should be trying to make friends with this country or at least make peace with them. yes they have the oil and we need it but i dont believe we should take it by force.

And right there, you lose any semblance of reality, rationality, and reasonability.

Where is the oil?

I ask again, because I’m really tired of hearing about this oil that we’re supposedly there to take - where is the oil?

Now stop playing stupid with us and get back when you’ve got some answers.

likwidshoe on February 6, 2007 at 01:02 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.