« The strange world of book reviews | Main | Limbaugh's latest anti-dissent agitprop »

July 29, 2007


Read the actual poll and this "mystery" is cleared up:

"Many of those who said the invasion was correct made it clear, however, that they are no longer convinced the United States should remain there."


So, this is no indication whatsoever that support for the surge is rising, or that the public believes it will "succeed".

"But two-thirds of those polled said the United States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether. "

"The latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly."

...and this is with the right-wing blogosphere going full-tilt on it's "success in Iraq" line, and the Administration putting the pressure on generals to come up with good news or face the "Shinseki treatment".

The Times is beside itself. It will have to redouble its efforts to convince people it was a mistake to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

My guess is inspired in part by the Times review of the latest Iraq war film - the film seems to implicitly grant that invasion was plausible and the war was "winnable" until mistakes were made in the post-liberation reconstruction phase (e.g., disbanding the army, de-B'aathification, too few troops for security).

Presumably, others believe that the notion of a stable, democratic Iraq was never attainable, and the mistakes cited above just made a situation destined to be bad even worse.

But if Sundance film festival winners are promoting the view that Rumsfeld lost the war in May-June 2004, maybe the public will support the notion that the initial invasion and objective made sense.

Bonus Query - no reaction to the news that the Times sat on the first poll result while they puzzled it out? Why not report the first result with caveats and then re-poll?

Do we all believe that Times would have sat on a poll result that was unexpectedly negative towards Bush until they could carefully double-check it?

"With no significant evidence of progress in Iraq, why are poll numbers up for whether we made the right decision to invade? "

Uh, couldn't it be because there actually *is* "significant evidence of progress in Iraq" recently?

Everything I've read from people across the political spectrum who are actually witnessing things in Iraq are reporting that there is at least some progress in recent months, probably as a result of "the surge".


The comments to this entry are closed.