Gallup: 61% oppose surge; Update: “Put ‘em on the glass”
posted at 6:52 pm on January 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Including 30% of Republicans. Although if you squint, you can make out some good-ish news:
Gallup plays up how modest the increase in support for a surge has been, but isn’t the real story there the remarkable stability of the numbers during a period when the country began to deterioriate in earnest? Plus, 48% still think the U.S. can achieve its goals (23% by sending more troops, 25% with the current number) versus 47% who say it’s impossible. That’s probably all the political cover Bush needs.
Iraqslogger says open civil war has been going on in western Baghdad since last Thursday. The Iraqi army launched an operation on Haifa Street today to clear out Sunni jihadis, but U.S. troops and jets had to be called in for support. Says CBS:
“What is particularly interesting about this is that for two years the U.S. military has held the street up as a part of their success in Baghdad,” reports CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan. “There was much violence along Haifa Street two years ago, and a deal was made between the Iraqis and insurgents living there to keep everything quiet as long as they didn’t attack in that area. That deal now seems to be off.”
Why Haifa Street and why now? The Telegraph answers:
Saddam Hussein’s execution has inspired a gruesome cycle of revenge, with scores of Shia Muslims found hanged from lampposts in Baghdad.
The residents of the city’s Haifa Street will long remember the events of Sunday morning. As shop owners raised their shutters and stall holders set out their stock, three minibuses roared to a halt.
Gunmen jumped out and pulled blindfolded prisoners on to the street. Ropes were tied to lampposts and electricity poles. Those hostages who resisted were shot. Others who were still alive had nooses tied around their necks and were then suspended in mid air to choke to death…
“We watched as all these blindfolded men were hung up and some were shot in the head,” Imad Atwan, a supermarket worker said.
“Altogether there were 23 bodies. We are all Sunni people here so we supported the gunmen. Some of them are the guards of our neighbourhood.
They recovered 102 Shiite corpses total around Baghdad, said one Iraqi officer, 90% of whom they believe were revenge for Saddam.
Update: CNN gets a scoop: Bush wants a full Iraqi takeover by November.
Update: Ace wants the Democrats to do what he knows they can’t and mustn’t, namely, take a clear, committed position on the surge. They don’t want to support it or else they’ll antagonize the nuts, but they don’t want to oppose it either just in case Bush pulls a rabbit out of the hat in the next six months. So they’ll end up taking the Reid/Biden approach — there’s nothing we can do, our hands are tied, and here’s a non-binding resolution expressing our deepest misgivings about the surge plus a check granting you almost everything you’ve asked for just in case you end up winning.
Congressional leadership, baby. It’s back.
Update: At Slate, John Dickerson joins the calls for Democrats to put ‘em on the glass:
Senate Democratic leaders say they are merely being sensible. They don’t want an effort to stop funding for the new strategy to be misinterpreted as a lack of support for American troops. In two days of reporting on the House and Senate side, it is clear that Democratic leaders are more worried about being tagged as anti-G.I. than being penalized by liberals for not doing all they can to end the war. Their posture may change, but for now, what seems likely is that the Democrats will do no more than put together a nonbinding resolution that would show disapproval.
There are reasons for Democrats to be cautious in challenging the president on Iraq. As Sen. Joe Biden argues, the president has the authority to conduct his war, so why provoke an ugly fight that the Democrats would lose and that would also expose them to easy caricature? Polls show that Democrats do still have to convince the country that they can be stewards of America’s national-security interests. The tepid measure also could fracture the GOP. By promoting the less confrontational nonbinding resolution, Democrats can corral uneasy Republicans like Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, and Richard Lugar, who have said they are against a surge. A bipartisan piece of weak legislation would make more of a public statement than a partisan effort to limit funding.
These arguments will not sit well with the liberal activists who are planning to deluge their Democratic representatives in the coming days with petitions, rallies, and phone calls demanding a strong against the troop increase.
If Reid and Pelosi cave, the nutroots is going to go berserk.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I aint buying it..
davy on January 9, 2007 at 6:56 PM
And how many of those people have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect American from all enemies Foreign and
In CongressDomestic?How many of them are Generals in charge of troops?
… and how many are just whiny, nutless, cowardly, morons with no perspective on the future consequences of retreat.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 9, 2007 at 6:58 PM
I am against it, too, if they aren’t going to be allowed to “Ethiopia-ize” the islamic terrorists.
SouthernGent on January 9, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Media polls are mathematical garbage and are designed and implemented to confirm some pre-determined notion or position. Polls should inform but unfortunately the media uses them to influence attitudes and opinions. This one is no different.
rplat on January 9, 2007 at 7:30 PM
SouthernGent … like your “Ethiopia-ize”. That should be the new standard for nutbag islamist eradication. “An AC-130 “Ethiopia-ized” an al_Qaeda stronghold today” …
darwin on January 9, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Oh yeah – let’s prosecute a war for the survival of western civilization based on Gallup polls. Oh, how SMART the LLL’s must feeeeel!
BTW – What part of “Commander in Chief” do Pelosi, Kennedy and Shrillary not understand? Pulleez GWB, grow some cajones and slap these little midgets down!
Benthoven on January 9, 2007 at 7:31 PM
GWB has changed the meaning of CIC from commander-in-chief to commander-in-check.
Editor on January 9, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Beautifully put. Did anyone else notice that on Drudge the headline is “Bush Blocked?” Is that supposed to be some cute reference to being “C*ck Blocked” or am I just being juvenile?
NTWR on January 9, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Gallup: 61% oppose surge
Anonymous: 99% oppose Gallup polling on surge
rplat, dead-on
fogw on January 9, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Don’t you mean more berserk? Imagine how many moonbat circle-jerks we’ll get to make fun of if that happens.
ReubenJCogburn on January 9, 2007 at 7:48 PM
This is a letter I wrote to a fellow blogger. I thought the readership here might be interested:
I am writing today to tell you that I have lost hope on the situation in the Middle East. Surge, no surge, I think the situation is lost for us (and the reasonable people that are still in Iraq) no matter what we do.
I base this conclusion not on the performance of our fighting men/women in theatre of which I have the greatest respect. No, I base this conclusion on ancillary information that I have collected from adjacent countries and the “educated opinions” there in. I refer to several blog sites that I have followed for several years out of the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia. I recently had an exchange with some commenters on the U.A.E. site “Tainted Female” and “Secret Arabian Journal” that absolutely floored me. It literally rocked my world.
In short, the summation of the comments were as follows:
The U.S. only invaded Iraq to steal the oil (this is an absolute given)
Saddam was “murdered” to shut him up. Straight out of the Robert Fisk play book, Saddam was receiving aid from the U.S. up to the point that we dragged him out of his hidey hole…
The U.S. State Dept. tried to blow up oil pipelines in Venezuela to destabilize the Chavez regime.
The U.S. State Dept. staged a failed coup in Venezuela in 2003 and that is why Chavez and “the Venezuelan people” hate us.
The U.S. drug companies send pharmaceutical aid to African nations so they can experiment on ignorant Africans. When I countered that the U.S. gov’t initiated the greatest medical humanitarian effort in the history of the world in regard to Africa, no response.
Nothing the U.S. gov’t does is for humanitarian purposes. When I countered our relief efforts in Ache Indonesia it is met with crickets chirping. In the minds of those that read these blogs there are only two reasons why any U.S. concern would intervene in the world. They are: power and greed.
Conversly, when I bring up Darfur, no one wants to talk about it. I think the most honest response I have gotten to the slaughter was one of the bloggers, Tainted In UAE, admitting to me that there is almost nothing in their media regarding the issue. Consequently, she knows nothing about it. In addition, I have to tell you that the bloggers and their commenters out of the U.A.E. are the most racist people I have ever interacted with. We, here in the U.S., have been absolutely programmed against the type of thinking that they regularly employ. Expats from lesser countries like Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are no more than animals. They enter the country to work, have their passports taken away from them by their employers and, are regularly abused by their employers and their government. This is to be expected because they are so much like the animals that are herded or used as beasts of burden.
Expats from western countries, advising on energy production or finance are ignorant cultural slobs not willing to conform to the cultural norms of their country, are constantly “whining” and, consequently tainting the country’s culture by their presence. I do remember an account by the wife of an oil worker from the U.S. stationed in the KSA saying that she would wear the skimpiest gym clothes under her burka when going outside the American compound in protest…
Missionaries are to be regarded with extreme suspicion. There is a hospital run in the U.A.E. by some Christian missionary service. This hospital has been in operation for decades. Recently, it was revealed that there is a small Christian shrine within the hospital (pictures included). This was met with tremendous outrage… One of the bloggers on “Secret Arabian” is particularly phobic about Christians trying to take over his country by “feeding poor people” and, as a result, converting them to Christianity…
In light of the current rather heated debate about immigration in our country, the U.A.E. naturalizes almost no one. If you are an expat living in the country for 30 years, you are still not entitled to apply for U.A.E. citizenship. If you are born in the U.A.E. to expat parents you are NOT a citizen of the U.A.E. This is absolutely okay with the bloggers I read as these “foreign elements” will subvert their culture…
What does this have to do with our efforts in Iraq? It is my conclusion that the entire Middle East culture is beyond our help. The sites above are frequented by “educated” individuals (as I was so roundly admonished on the Tainted site when I stated that I refused to engage in a conversation with an individual that thought western drug companies were using Africans as guinea pigs and that we tried to blow up the oil pipelines in Venezuela). Surely, since the sites are in the English language, the people remarking on them are at least bi-lingual. These are not ignorant people and, I would dare to say, many of them have been educated in the west for some portion of their upper education. In fact, the site moderator of Tainted Female is a Canadian by birth from a rather wealthy family. She chose to convert to Islam and currently resides in the U.A.E.
Let me reiterate; these people don’t give a damn about what is going on in Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, Tibet, Kashmir or even Iraq as far as life and liberation of innocent people are concerned. Their only driving forces are to see the U.S. fail, to humiliate the western world, and to see their way of life as supreme (as viewed from their TV sets and internet connections; which are purely western inventions.) The fact that they are doing this on the internet, with their cell phones while plugged into their I-pods means nothing to them. I think one of the most telling comments I ever read was a man claiming that there is no way a democracy could be established within a country of two Islamic religions… He claimed that they would continue to fight and kill each other off until one became dominant over the other. Hard to argue with but, on the other hand, a rather stunning confession.
We are asked repeatedly to listen to what the opposition is saying (in regard to Osama et al) Well, I have finally heard what the opposition is saying. There is no way for the United States to bring peace to the Middle East because the people of the Middle East are very willing to put up with the slaughter and oppression under which they currently reside. This state of events only reinforces their belief that their way of life is superior to others (as the commenters are currently on the receiving end of the largess from the societal structure and able to buy their way out of whatever difficulties they might personally encounter). This cultural view is being stated by the educated middle class and I believe them.
I just read a paper
Iraq: The Logic of Disengagement
Edward N. Luttwak
From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2005
The one thing this man doesn’t seem to discuss is how many will be slaughtered based on his scenario. Will it be 2 million like what happened in Cambodia after the pull out of troops in Vietnam? Will it be more or less? Does he care? Does anyone care in the Middle East? I now think not.
Babs on January 9, 2007 at 7:50 PM
The whole surge thing was brought on by Democrats and anti-Bush Republicans who wanted to appear tough while at the same time staying true to the “war is a disaster” template.
One good reason for going with the surge plan is it would invest a few of these characters into a positive outcome and make them less of an undermining element. But they can always say “Bush mismanaged the surge” as an excuse to start undermining the war effort again.
No matter what happens, come 2008 they will all be undermining the war again. The Democrats aren’t going to abandon a strategy that finally gave them an election day victory in 06. Every KIA soldier will once again become every American’s younger brother.
Perchant on January 9, 2007 at 8:20 PM
This isn’t just an Arab/Muslim thing: Ask ‘guest workers’ in Germany or Switzerland…
jic on January 9, 2007 at 8:21 PM
I highly doubt the average U.S. citizen is qualified to make military decisions in teh first place.
Seriously, are we to base our military decisions on polls?
The U.S. military can accomplish any objective if we let them. Politicians and weak willed sheeple at home have always been the weak link. Vietnam proved that once and I’d perfer if we didn’t let that happen again.
Yakko77 on January 9, 2007 at 8:26 PM
I second that.
PRCalDude on January 9, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Did anyone just notice how much ass was kicked by Babs just now?
The nail has been hit on the head: No more wussing out–time to end foreign aid and start flattening cities.
Heck, I thought “put ‘em on the glass” had a nuclear tinge to it and if anything a Democrat-controlled Congress’ war plan would be absolutely brutal and get a pass on it from Olby and his ilk.
ScottMcC on January 9, 2007 at 8:27 PM
The poll is garbage. If it said 1)withdraw immediatly, 2)surge or 3)keep the same number of troops then that would at least be a fair way to ask the question.
How can you have a poll with varios options some of which are about what should we do now and other awnsers represent what are we going to do in the future? More over how can “take as many years as needed” be called a “withdraw”. Total nonsense
Resolute on January 9, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Thanks Scott.
Didn’t think I was “kicking ass” just thought I was bringing the mind set of edicated Arabs to the table. Kind of depressing…
Babs on January 9, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Yeah? Which cities do you suggest we flatten?
Allahpundit on January 9, 2007 at 8:53 PM
If someone could convince me that Bush has any clue as to what he is doing, maybe I would support a surge. This is too little, way too late.
WisCon on January 9, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Hey Scott, you have gained Allah’s attention!
Babs on January 9, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Thanks Scott.
Didn’t think I was “kicking ass” just thought I was bringing the mind set of edicated Arabs to the table. Kind of depressing…
Sorry Allah, typo… “educated”…
Babs on January 9, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Unfortunately, where and how our military fights is now not the most important part of this story.
The Democrat’s attempt to have it both ways should be a major news story nationwide. If the Republicans attempted to take such a non-stand during a Democratic president’s term, they would be labeled cowards.
A non-binding resolution that says “Our politics demands that we disagree with what you’re going to do, but since it might be right we aren’t going to commit political suicide by stopping you” is proof that these people do not represent Americans, in spite of being elected to do just that.
If a congressman believes his constituents would favor the surge, they should support it, unless their conscience strongly opposes it. And in that case, they should be utterly unequivocal in their opposition. This fence-straddling is an attempt to look good no matter what happens, but it has no value to this nation, and once again proves that these bedwetters fail their oath of office.
Freelancer on January 9, 2007 at 9:09 PM
here’s hoping they cave and their base eats them with some farver beans and a nice kiante’
One Angry Christian on January 9, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Robert Spencer argues for simply pulling up stakes and leaving. Unless our troops are actually allowed to fight, why not? The Sunnis and Shia will expend tons of resources fighting one another. Why not?
PRCalDude on January 9, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Does America even have the will to fight?
spmat on January 9, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Bush is lost. We need him out, let VP Cheney take over. I have never been so disappointed in a President as I am with Bush and I have been a strong backer of his until the past 2 years. He is no longer a leader. No action in Iraq, no action on our borders. His inactivity is shameful.
Wade on January 9, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I’m totally against a surge. Why? Because the PC minded chickens**ts in charge of the country won’t change the ROE so we can win. Why send our boys into the PC meat grinder at this point?
Come to think of it, I was against the war before it even started because I KNEW our boys wouldn’t be allowed to fight. I remember saying this again and again back before the invasion. And whaddya know? My prediction came true.
The elites in this country need to go. Now.
jaleach on January 9, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Too many, maybe even a small majority do not have the will I’m afraid to say. That’s why I find these polls about the war to be useless because a bunch of unqualified sheeple shouldn’t have a say in military matters IMO.
Either go in Gen. Patton style and kick some ass or pull out. Either we kill fanatical Muslims (terrorists) ourselves or we pull out and let the fanatical Muslims kill each other. Half assing it only gets more of our troops killed in the long run IMO.
Heck, I’m no general either (being a former E-4 in the Navy hardly makes me a leader) and maybe I’m about as unqualified as they come but that’s how I see it.
Yakko77 on January 10, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Either go in to win, or don’t go in.
The Commander-In-Chief went in to… promote democracy? With a religiously-divided tribal people who would only use the vote to establish a tyranny of the dominant?
The failure was restraining the military, -was not using utterly overwhelming force (to put the fear of God into the populace and any outside jihadists thinking of joining the fray), -was to allow embedded reporters to undermine morale with short-sighted, sensationlistic/defeatest hyperbole, -was to not control the chaos at the outset, and was to allow a Constitution to be written by the conquered people- who essentially smuggled in Sharia Law- and not by the conquerors based on our own Bill of Rights and secular-leaning Constitution.
At this point, without a re-determination to destroy the terrorists- from the Baathist “insurgents” and their foreign jihadist allies, to the Sadr Mehdi Army militia- this will only be a face-saving stalling move …to make an exit down the road look less like a shameful “redeployment” (AKA “retreat“) and more like a “hand-over of control to the newly-established Iraqi government forces“.
The failure was the Administration’s inarticulate inability to explain the historical stakes, to name the global enemy, and to explicitly spell out the looming disaster that anything but an annihilation of the jihadists- everywhere- will result in for our threatened Civilization.
We need a Churchill; we got a Mosquepit.
profitsbeard on January 10, 2007 at 12:49 AM
So? They’ll cry and whine like they always do. But on election day, they’ll still vote Democrat.
BacaDog on January 10, 2007 at 7:24 AM
Like Babs, I also read middle-eastern blogs. Enjoy most of them, but she’s right-they can enjoy the fruits of technology but will not understand or figure out how to repair them.
tormod on January 10, 2007 at 9:08 AM
This whole thing has taken on an Orwellian quality, so you tend not to really respond to anything you hear anymore. I was however taken aback this morning listening to Imus and eating my Cheerios. Mary Matalin (Matlin??) was on and of course talking about the “New Way Forward”–like I said, straight from Orwell–anyway she made the comment that “Maliki has undergone a sea-change” in his attitude toward the war and our involvement.
Is that right? Well hell, let’s hang our hat on that, what could possibly go wrong?
honora on January 10, 2007 at 9:57 AM
To be in Congress is to have won a popularity contest. That’s all that gets them there-how popular they are. Both sides of the aisle. Kennedy doesn’t keep getting re-elected because he’s an able Statesman-he is popular. This was pointed up in the confirmation hearings for Roberts and Alito-idiots tossing idiotic questions at scholars as if they were all equal.
The Congress needs Statesmen, not fools with good smiles who can make speeches. I’ve posted it here before, but for the first time this year:
Term Limits
Term Limits
Term Limits
Doug on January 10, 2007 at 10:52 AM
I read Muslim blogs occasionally. I find completely schizophrenic thinking by the moderators and commentors there. That’s what we’re dealing with, people who are as schizophrenic as the qur’an.
PRCalDude on January 10, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Adding more troops now just means they’ll be more targets for Islamic terrorists to kill. If they wanted to add more troops they should have done in…oh I don’t know…..2003! The incompetence behind invading a country slightly larger than California with a force of under 100,000, is beyond reason. Besides, its not like the additional troops and the troops already there will be given the go ahead from Republicans or Democrats to win the war. America has been afraid to do what it takes to win a war since the 1960s.
matthewbit07 on January 10, 2007 at 12:27 PM
What pisses me off the most is that we are going to lose in Iraq. Not because we can’t win, but because our brave troops will never be allowed to do what it takes to rid the country of the terrorists scumbags once and for all.
As I’ve said before, the road to peace leads through Damascus and ends in Tehran.
Scorched_Earth on January 10, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Comment pages: