This morning I noticed a front page article in the paper edition of the Union Leader about the results of a poll. Troops are hurt by criticism, poll says.
Seventy percent of people said criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale while 21 percent say it helps morale.
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."
A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of circumstances.
There are a couple of interesting things about this. It originated with the Washington Post, written by Chris Cillizza and Peter Slevin, and tucked away on page A04 of the Saturday edition. The headline: Sympathetic Vibrations. Grabs your attention, doesn't it! In that same article, the opinion poll reporting was "balanced" by news of the disposition of campaign contributions from a Republican contributor who was indicted for campaign finance violations. The story said recipients were donating the questionable funding to charity. See? There's no bias at the Post. Although, it's funny how polls that show low approval of the President always make the front page. In the meantime five papers including the Union Leader picked up the story. These include the Buffalo News, the Bremerton Sun, the Canton Repository, and The Daily of the University of Washington-Seattle. That doesn't give the story much legs, but it's something.
My initial reaction to the story itself was very positive. I thought, an opinion poll is one thing the Democrats might pay attention to. Maybe now those traitorous bastards will stop delivering messages of encouragement to the insurgent terrorists who are setting off bombs and trying to kill our troops. I won't hold my breathe.
"those traitorous bastards will stop delivering messages of encouragement to the insurgent terrorists who are setting off bombs and trying to kill our troops"
nice Tom ... Real persuasive argumnetative skills on display there. If you want to debate the merits of war and patriotism I would highly suggest you refrain from crap statements like that. Otherwise just turn up the volume on FoxNews and keep up the mental masturbation.
Posted by: ny patriot | November 28, 2005 at 02:03 PM
Umm... Mister "Patriot"... You've confused a bit of bombast with argument. The argument was complete before the emotional punch line.
It's tough to watch the left wing daily demonize the war effort in their desperation to regain power. It's tough to watch the lockstep march of the dominant media culture in support of the same thought patterns that killed snd enslaved so many of my friends decades ago. I still mist over when I see the old film clips of the people who counted on us dangling from the skids of the helicopters as we abandoned them.
Why are you here? You should be home mentally rubbing yourself to a tape of Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy at their finest.
Posted by: PJ Smith | November 29, 2005 at 09:47 AM
Couldn't resist the jab ...
As for why I visit this site - contrary to what seems to be your narrow point of view, I seek out differing opinions from not only the left and the right, but from the center as well as the niche planks (libertarians) from within both party's rolls. It's better to understand both sides of the argument before making your own rational judgment than be spoon-fed the verbal diarrhea on Fox.
And what about you? Why are you here? What do you gain by only reading that which affirms your belief? An ego stroke? A sense of belonging?
As for demonizing the war - what the MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY doesn't like is the way the leadership is running it. I think the left, and the country in general, learned a valuable leasson from Vietnam - you can differeniate between questioning the leadership from supporting the troops. That is a point the right, obviously, has failed to grasp.
Posted by: ny patriot | November 29, 2005 at 11:17 AM
If I might, let me ask that we leave the references to self abuse out of the discussion.
Pat, I'll concede I have strong feelings about this particular topic, but I won't apologize for them. There's a reason terrorists stage their attacks for media prime time. When a civilian gets blown up by a terrorist bomb, it's not because the terrorist wanted that civilian to do something. The objective is to get some third party to take some kind of action. Third parties most often become aware of terrorist aims by way of the nightly news. Terrorists first become aware of third party responses by way of the nightly news.
In the case of the war in Iraq, the terrorists would like us to leave, to quit, before there is a chance for democratic reforms to take hold. Those in the House and Senate who call for our immediate withdrawal, or even a timetable for withdrawal, whether intentional or not send a signal that they agree with the terrorist aims. This tells the terrorists that their strategies are working. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the terrorists will seek to continue what they consider to be successful strategies. American troops are on the receiving end of those strategies. The Democratic leadership in the House and Senate know this.
Iraq is part of a larger strategy that we voted to continue when we re-elected Bush. Today's slanted opinion polls won't change that fact. As PJ says, it's remarkable and thoroughly enraging to watch the left demonize the war effort in a desperate bid to regain power. And you can be sure there's no other reason for it. It's about power. Unfortunately for the left, we will stick with our strategy and I predict it will be successful. Pat, if you haven't read this one, read it. I'll say once again, you've failed to grasp the lesson of Vietnam.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | November 29, 2005 at 11:35 AM
...what the MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY doesn't like is the way the war is portrayed. This is confused by many as the way the leadership is running it. I know several who are in or have been to Iraq and their account differs dramatically from what we hear on a daily basis from those with an agenda (both sides, too). Most of the country is pretty secure and extremely thankful to the U.S. Some isolated areas are going to take more time.
Posted by: Ol' BC | November 29, 2005 at 11:35 AM
Tom:
To that point - Iraq is part of a larger strategy that we voted to continue when we re-elected Bush - I will agree. But you must admit 2 points that seem to be linked to one another these days: 1) many of the same moderate and Rockefeller Republicans who voted for Bush in '04 would not do so again and 2) sooner or later, no matter what the policy that you choose, you have TO REASSESS your decision based on the facts of the day, NOT on the assumptions originally behind the decision-making process.
Was the rationale behind the decision to forecfully try to establish a democracy in the Arab Middle East and remove an irrational despotic threat to the U.S. (Saddam) a wrong one? Assuming the Iraqi people wanted this then No, this was not an irrational assumption. But the administration made a horrible miscalculation in assuming they were freeing "Iraq." There is no "Iraq." There is only a loose conglomeration of regional powers - fundamentalist Sunnis, separatist Kurds, oil-rich Shi'ites - who will act in their own self-interest. This was a major miscalucation made by Bush. And this harkens directly back to the Powell's Doctrine that "if you break it you own it." This country is broken. This campaign is going to require a very very deep military and financial committment for many years to come.
This is not what the country believes it originally signed up for.
Posted by: ny patriot | November 29, 2005 at 12:54 PM
Pat, to point one, I'll agree. Some Rockefeller Republicans who voted for Bush might choose to vote differently now. That doesn't gain them my admiration. To point two, I don't agree that you have to reassess your decisions every time you hit a speed bump. I don't agree with your assessment of the situation in Iraq, and neither does Senator Joe Lieberman who has been visiting the place on quite a regular basis. Rather than a miscalculation by Bush, there has been a miscalculation on the left and on your part. Understandable if you take your news filtered through CNN or the New York Times.
Iraq was the right choice after Afghanistan. When Zarqawi was wounded in Afghanistan he went directly to Baghdad for medical treatment. That choice would be instructive to an unbiased observer. Iraq will be a success.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | November 29, 2005 at 04:57 PM
just as a follow-up ...
if Iraq is, to paraphrase Doran, the place where the geo-political strategists have drawn the proverbial "line-in-the-sand" then why did the Dept. of Def. choose to do this war on the cheap, in terms of men, committment from allies, and subsequent cintual commitments to this cause?
Doran's assertion is very logical. However, it also very convenient for Bush apologists like yourself to explain why we are now bogged down in a campaign which was not about geopolitcal assertioons in the first place.
As I have maintained all along, the country has not lost in the cause, they have lost faith in the leadership that is running it. And with very good reason. You predict stability in Iraq by 2008. I doubt it.
Posted by: ny patriot | November 30, 2005 at 09:20 AM
I have seen nothing except anonymously sourced assertions (probably from retired generals, lately consulting for the Kerry campaign) that there aren't enough troops on the ground, while the Administration has repeatedly said, when the generals ask for troops they will get them.
Part of the rationale for keeping the number of troops down was to encourage the Iraqis to stand up. It's working. You're trying to make the case for disaster in Iraq, and it's a case that just can't be made. From both the military and political standpoints, more has been accomplished faster with fewer troops and fewer casualties than any war in history. Positive change is occurring throughout the Middle East as a result. You're entitled to air your doubts, but you're being unrealistic about it.
Words fail me when it comes to trying to describe the excellent performance of our troops. They are superb. One reason for it is the military leadership is superb, and that goes all the way to the top. The troops know their Commander-In-Chief is not going to pull the rug out from under them, as some others have proposed he do, and as was done to troops in the past - in Vietnam.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | November 30, 2005 at 10:23 AM