Latest poll shows growing support for aspect of Iraq war policy

This is not supposed to happen.

 

One knows that a policy is in deep trouble when an improvement to only 31% is a cause for celebration among the warvangelicals and other pro-continuation of American involvement in the Iraqi civil war folks.

 

Yes, Ken, perhaps the cause for celebration is that ignorance is being replace by knowledge, reflected in a growing support for the defense of innocent life from terrorists.

I know being consistently prolife is not in your bag of tricks out there in Arkansas, but let's at least look at the facts.

Perhaps as people become more informed about the truth of the surge, they are more likely to support it. The "let people die" crowd lament that 31% are against them. They wish that more people supported the chaos and death values that they hold.

 

Now that is a very funny quote coming from someone from Michigan whose state prides itself on electing pro life candidates, and from my memory of past Presidential elections, is carried by the most liberal of Democrats on a consistant basis. Think about what you just said, someone from the north telling someone from the south about not being consistantly pro life. :BangHead:

 

Since "ignorance replaced by knowledge" comes from experience, why don't you give all of us a mini lesson on what it is like to be in combat, and the personal knowledge that led you to the above conclusion.

Amen, praise George Bush for his unending conservative leadership.

 

That's only because everyone doesn't vote like I do. BTW, I am from the south. I am a transplant, although these 90 degree days with high humidity remind me why I left the south.

I think Michigan's Senate delegation and most of our house delegation along with our presidential voting record is abominable. I am absolutely embarrassed by Levin and Stabenow. Shameful.

I don't have any knowledge of that. I don't know how that is relevant. All I was doing was demonstrating that there is another explanation for what Ken said. I am not sure why you felt the need to make this response.

I can't believe anyone would say something like this. I think Bush has been a very weak president. He is not a conservative. I certainly don't agree with you on this statement.

 

Maybe that is because the statement was sarcasm.

 

Hey, don't allow my opposition to the warvangelical position to detract from your glorying in the fact that 31% of your fellow Americans agree with your position on the continuation of American involvement in the Iraqi civil war.

 

Your opposition can't detract from something that doesn't exist. I find it appalling that 69% of the people are uninformed enough to think that the surge isn't helping. But that's what you get when people listen to the liberal media.

I don't glory in 31%. I don't care. But your point was flawed.

 

I see.

You believe that those who don't agree with your position on the surge are ignorant. You believe that no one can be opposed to your position on the surge through a reasoned, principled, thoughtful process.

I see.

 

Would you rather see the support drop?

 

Yep. I think it is the best position to take in regard to the surge. The surge was a bad idea when President Bush proposed it and it is still a bad idea. If someone can show me that by continuing to stay in Iraq on and on that a better situation will arrive to withdraw our troops I would be willing to reconsider my position. But with no way forward politically in Iraq in the foreseeable future I don't see a plausible reason for keeping our troops in Iraq any longer than is necessary to achieve a safe, orderly withdrawal.

 

Hey, when it's an administration with only a few people against almost the entire mainstream media propaganda machine, I'd say that 31% of the people seeing the truth is a good sign.

 

The 31% are wrong. And by January 1, 2008 - if the Congress still hasn't the guts to stand up to President Bush on the Iraq conflict and the surge has continued on - I expect the 31% will decline to a much lower number.

Anyone who thinks that there is a military solution that the United States government can impose to solve the Iraqi civil war is going to be disappointed.

And you know what? Some of the Sunnis may be helping our military fight against the small force of "al Qaeda in Iraq", but if "al Qaeda in Iraq" is run out of Iraq, guess who these same Sunnis will turn their weapons on then.

 

No, if you go back and read what I said I was doing, I was pointing out that there is another perfectly legitimate explanation for these numbers. You really should read closer Ken.

Personally, I am not sure if the surge was good or not. I tend to think it was, and I think the long loud cry by others on your side that we didn't have enough troops is proof that you guys used to think it was. But when Bush did it, you suddenly changed your mind which seems to show that it wasn't about numbers, but about opposing Bush. It does seem the the surge is working, at least when you look at the truth apart from political bias.

 

Please tell us, what other response to the Bush administration could any reasonable Christian have other than political bias after all that has transpired?

How would you know the surge is working? Latest news flash from NBC or Fox?

 

That actually is a pretty good question saturneptune. The poll results only say that 31% of Americans think the surge is "making the situation better." That is a bad poll any way you slice it. Is the surge working? Is it really making Iraq safer and stabler? Is it really protecting Americans by killing terrorists?

It seems to me we could track some kind of facts to make an objective opinion if it is working or not. American deaths or Iraqi deaths would not in my opinon be good measurements. If we are aggresively confronting the insurgents then casualties will go up. I also don't know about using dead insurgents as a measure. It would create a body count mentality. How should we measure progress in Iraq?

To me of course I think the surge is working. If you get more troops on the ground you can kill more bad guys. That makes the situation better. But the more important question is are we making permenant gains and establishing the infastructure we need in order to exit or is the surge helping the situation only as long as it lasts. The ultimate goal of both sides on this issue is for us to get out of Iraq. The difference between Bush and the Congressional Democrats is he wants to win first and establish a democratic nation in the middle east, they are happy to quit and loose.

 

Several things: One you have presented a biased question by presuming that a "reasonable Christian" would agree with you. That is not a good question. But the point I made was that many people were for a surge in troops while Bush was against it; then when Bush was for it, they were against it. That is simply bad, no matter how you cut it.

If more troops was good, then it is good still, given the state of affairs. The fact that some change sides show that they are making this about politics.

As for Bush, I think he is generally poor. I don't think that means every reasonable Christian has to attack him on everythign he does.

By looking at a variety of sources. We don't konw for sure, but the evidence seems in its favor. We will have to wait and see.