Polls don't lie and there's one born every minute:
I see in a news story from Rasmussen that: "As the President prepares to make his case for sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, just 31% of American voters support that strategy. A national telephone poll of 800 Likely Voters conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that 56% think that we should be reducing the number of troops in Iraq. Just 26% believe that President Bush is doing a good or an excellent job handling the situation in Iraq."
I'm always wondering who these small number of people are. I think I have found one answer. Today in the LTTE section of the NYT, a "Bob Jack," a likely name, wrote this:
"The only way the war in Iraq will be won is through intensive, well-focused military operations led by United States military forces supported by Iraqi troops.
The proposed United States troop “surge” is essential to quelling the violence and killing off the insurgents and the forces of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The sooner we can get these troops there, the better.
Those in Congress who oppose the increase are doomed to defeat in their attempts to lose this war. This is a war that can be won.
We should be emboldened by the events in Somalia, where the Islamists are on the run and heavy casualties are being taken by Qaeda forces.
Assuming that the American military is unleashed in Iraq, we can have the same victorious results as in Somalia, and destroy the Iraqi incubation grounds for radical Islam.
I completely support the American troop buildup in Iraq and believe that our troops should be given the freedom to win the war."
The mind boggles.
"We should be emboldened by the events in Somalia?" Yeah, that's just like sending U.S. troops into Sadr City, with a population of 2 million Shiites armed to the teeth. ATC reported last ngiht that, "Announcements on Iraqi TV last night said that the cleric will force every man in Sadr City between 15 and 45 to join his militia. . . . The Mahdi Army is rumored to be distributing grenades to every family in Sadr City, a district already brimming with weapons."
You see, sending an AC-130 to blow the crap out of a bunch of Somalis and their camels is pretty much the same thing. USA! USA! USA!
I'm always wondering who these small number of people are. I think I have found one answer. Today in the LTTE section of the NYT, a "Bob Jack," a likely name, wrote this:
"The only way the war in Iraq will be won is through intensive, well-focused military operations led by United States military forces supported by Iraqi troops.
The proposed United States troop “surge” is essential to quelling the violence and killing off the insurgents and the forces of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The sooner we can get these troops there, the better.
Those in Congress who oppose the increase are doomed to defeat in their attempts to lose this war. This is a war that can be won.
We should be emboldened by the events in Somalia, where the Islamists are on the run and heavy casualties are being taken by Qaeda forces.
Assuming that the American military is unleashed in Iraq, we can have the same victorious results as in Somalia, and destroy the Iraqi incubation grounds for radical Islam.
I completely support the American troop buildup in Iraq and believe that our troops should be given the freedom to win the war."
The mind boggles.
"We should be emboldened by the events in Somalia?" Yeah, that's just like sending U.S. troops into Sadr City, with a population of 2 million Shiites armed to the teeth. ATC reported last ngiht that, "Announcements on Iraqi TV last night said that the cleric will force every man in Sadr City between 15 and 45 to join his militia. . . . The Mahdi Army is rumored to be distributing grenades to every family in Sadr City, a district already brimming with weapons."
You see, sending an AC-130 to blow the crap out of a bunch of Somalis and their camels is pretty much the same thing. USA! USA! USA!
posted by William Duane at 3:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home