Posted on 12/12/2006 10:15:06 PM PST by Esther Ruth
Agreed.
I'd like to see how the question/questions were asked myself because I can't believe that 2/3 of the US public are complete idiots...
river rat wrote: "Behave or become extinct"..
Now THAT would be some realpolitik! I like it!
When 70 percent of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, I didn't hear the Drive-by Media pressing for an invasion (in fact, most of the Lefty "talking heads" thought that only an ignoramus would believe something like that). I wonder how many of the 2/3s who favor direct talks with Iran remember that the last two times we tried that led to the "Arms for Hostages" Iran-Contra affair, and the humiliation of having our Embassy in Tehran seized.
Because 2/3 of Americans don't understand anything but the perverted form of truth out of Iraq.
I'd love to see any of the members of the MSM have to spend even a week in Iraq embedded with any unit and explain to them how they are 'losing' and how Iraq is 'lost' and they should be asking Iran and Syria for permission to retreat.
Luger, Wesson and SK..Of course, they were "loaded" when the vote was taken, so perhaps should not be taken seriously.
A perfect example of why the President needs to LEAD. Americans are, on average, good people. However, there is no way your average American is going to educate themselves on the goings on of each individual country of the world unless its brought to their attention in a clear and consice way.
We all wish our compatriots would read and listen more to what the world is doing, but they simply don't care unless someone paints the picture for them.
It shouldn't be that way...but it is.
And they wouldn't know any more about AlQaeda or Hezbollah than Silvestre Reyes does.
Not always. Some pollsters will hand pick the demographics from which they obtain the poll data, and therefore manipulate the results in favor of their outcome of design. That way they can use questions which seem reasonable, but knowing that their population will give them the results they wanted to obtain. As someone said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
"Almost two-thirds of Americans favor the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendation for direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, according to a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll."
This just in...2/3 of Americans probably couldn't identify Iraq (or Syria and Iran) on a map of the globe if their lives depended on it! When did we start letting polls determine our warfighting strategies?
It is hard to imagine a much more desperate (and counterproductive) act than this. As a quid pro quo, Syria could have the carcass of Lebanon, Iran could have unencumbered access to nukes, and America could have...well, the humiliation of begging for help from these rogue states.
Thankfully, President Bush has already nixed this idea.
[N]early two-thirds [of Americans] said they view Iraq as being involved in a civil war...
Well, to a certain extent, it is a civil war. But it is not just a civil war (i.e. Sunni on Shiite violence, and vice-versa). There is also the mayhem directed at American and coalition forces by outsiders, such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.
In any case, even if we were to define the bloodshed as a civil war, that would not automatically make it none of America's business. As others have pointed out, Afghanistan is a civil war. And Korea, about a half-century ago, was a civil war. But would any serious person try to advance the idea that the internecine nature of these conflicts vitiates America's national interests in their outcome?
"There are now XXX Americans. Of these, 3% (or whatever) participated in this poll. Slightly more than half of the 3% polled want a fixed timetable to take out American soldiers from Iraq, and nearly two-thirds of the 3% polled said they view Iraq as being involved in a civil war, a view that American President George W. Bush has denied.
Ok. They can put in their little jab, as long as they're honest about actual numbers, and where they came from.... Seattle? Detroit? Chicago?.... Once again, fat chance!
"After weeks of being spoon fed what the media wants the sheople to hear, someone then does a poll to try to show that the sheople has this or that opinion, which is always based on no actual knowledge of what is the best thing to do."
It's all about power, my friend, and the MSM is using theirs to try and shape the way the war is fought (or lost). Have no doubt, the majority of journalists are anti-war socialists to start with. They were against the war from day one and see every act of violence as further evidence we are losing. They KNOW the power of the press is quite formidable, and they intend to use it.
So? People in ice water want hell.
Most Americans would probably support the other options if Rumsfeld had thought securing Iraq's borders was a high priority. That would have prevented Al Qaeda and the Syrian and Iranian intelligence and paramilitary units from saturating Iraq.
I don't see why anyone has a problem with us talking to Iran and Syria. Negotiating does not mean we have to give them anything and it would give us a better understanding of what they are doing.
We negotiated with the USSR even when it was led by Stalin, who was a far greater threat than Iran and Syria could ever hope to be and possibly was responsible for killing more people than anybody in the history of the world. We also negotiate with Cuba, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Pakistan, and Palestine.
Iraq should be pacified by now and the media wouldn't have anything to talk about if it was.
When was the last time people called for changes in Afghanistan?
What Americans?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.