Mood Surge
Public opinion re Iraq on the upswing. MSNBC:
US public opinion on military progress in Iraq has improved sharply since the troops “surge” started in February but a majority of Americans still want soldiers brought home, according to a new poll.
Some 48 per cent of Americans now believe that the US military effort in Iraq is going well, compared with 30 per cent in February, according to the latest poll by the Pew Research Center.
To put it in perspective, because MSNBC doesn’t, that’s … let’s see … 18 points. Double-digit increase. That’s a 60 percent uptick from February’s numbers. Nearly half of all Americans think things are going well. OK.
But the poll found that the “rosier view of the military situation in Iraq has not translated into increased support for maintaining US forces in Iraq”. Some 54 per cent of Americans want the Pentagon to bring troops home, compared with 53 per cent in February.
Count me in that 54 percent. I want the troops to come home, too. After we win these wars. After their tours as part of the ongoing US-Iraqi strategic alliance are up. Much as troops come home every day from Germany, Japan and Korea. Who are these people who don’t want soldiers to be able to come home anyway?
Hang on. If that one-percent increase is such a big deal, how come this one-percent increase got buried?
But the Pew poll shows the improvement in Iraq has not increased the domestic appetite for the war. The number of respondents who believe the US will succeed in Iraq has risen from 47 per cent in February to 48 per cent now.
48 equals 47 + 1. Sounds like an increase to me. A poll worth governing by.
The improved perception of the situation in Iraq has also not translated into increased support for President George W. Bush, whose approval rating has dropped 3 percentage points from February to 30 per cent.
Congress numbers, please?
Here’s the Pew Iraq poll report. What’s interesting is that the dramatic upswing appears to have happened mainly between June and September. That was at a time when America’s leading news organizations were studiously ignoring what was happening in Iraq, and well before the change in tone of news coverage, when in fact concerted efforts were underway to disparage the surge and Petraeus.
Speaking of Iraq:
Crittenden at Pajamas re Bush-Maliki pact, A Dream of Iraq.
Blackfive: Left scrambles for cover as anti-war flicks tank at box office. Slightly off topic, ever notice how some of the people who squawk most about bringing the troops home think they’re all going to be crazy murderous suicidal basketcases when they get here?
This morning’s Hill-a-palooza continues as Clinton bashes Bush on same.
Bush meets al-Hakim in the Oval Office, apparently with a message for Hakim’s Iranian pals.
Welcome, Punditeers, Surberistas, CQ, Blackfive, Weekly Standardbearers, Salon, etal. Good to see you. Come on in. It’s fun with Bill and Hill. Quick, what’s slick, from Arkansas, and not even fooling his pals anymore? Fill in the blank: What’s sauce for the gander should be cooking her _______. More political fun: Conservatism is to conservation as liberalism is to _______.
OK, let’s rest our brains now and catch a good Bond spoof.
Topics: Iraq
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:25 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2007
37 Responses to “Mood Surge”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:28 am
[...] with 30 per cent in February, according to the latest poll by the Pew Research Center.” Jules Crittenden called it a mood surge. Gotta win the war at home as [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 10:40 am
[...] Jules Crittenden, we have this poll from MSNBC. The good news is that 48% of Americans now say the war in Iraq is [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Simply amazing. And the anti-Americanists tremble, shiver and whine.
As for Bill’s recent gaffe: It is the same old tired ill-advised nonsense to be for something before they detected that the winds may have been against it before they were actually for it before they could have been for something they were once against after the fact that they were before it while being before the after that was once before.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:29 am
The left just don’t get it. They just don’t get it. That bit about the latest crop of Hollywood losers is most telling. I’ve read every excuse under the sun except the right one: Americans are not going to pay to sit through a movie that spits in their faces.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
define winning.
and snooper ought to check out facts before he or she shoots off their mouth. maybe clintons stand at the beggining of the invasion and occupation didn’t fit onto a bumper sticker…so you couldn’t understand it. either make an effort to understand it or just shut the f’ up.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Leftists are typically clueless about this, like everything else. The problem is a pathological psychological neoteny and academic lobotomy that when combined with a destructive narcissism leaves them thoroughly dysfunctional.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
They did gather Congressional numbers (reminder: it’s only of Democratic leaders of Congress). From February it was a drop of 6% from 41 to 35. However, the 35% is a rise of 4% since October, whereas Bush’s remained the same at 30%.
I’m rather surprised they didn’t include this as it was an easily noticeable contrast and favorable to their biases. I chaulk it up to a low arithmatic overload quotient.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
You first jay-bird. Define losing. That’s been the mantra of a certain class of angry, whiney, privileged, protected, entitlement happy voter since it began. They ought to have to define it since they throw it around so much. And as the political heirs of the people who presided over Kasserine, the Bulge, Chosin, and Tet, it ought to be easy for them!
November 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Oh yeah, left out “Desert One”. Didn’t need it, but there it is…
November 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
“define winning.”
Smashing the Baathist government of Iraq and whacking out lot of terrorists.
We won a long time ago.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
[...] of posts this morning, I ran across an interesting post by Jules Crittenden. the post is entitled Mood Surge. Is it any wonder why that troll Olberman is eerily [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
vanguard…
losing is choosing to lose 4000 soldiers when there is absolutely no need to.
losing is choosing to spend over 2 trillion dollars when there is absolutely no need to.
losing is choosing to invade iraq, which posed no threat, and giving iran an opening to wield unprecedented influence where they did not before.
losing is choosing to spend resources where they are not needed, allowing afghanistan to backslide, and al queda to be resurgent.
losing is when the cheerleaders confuse strategy and tactics and convince themselves that, because of a single arguably successful play, the game is won.
losing is when the cheerleaders move the goal posts, and claim a win.
we lost, and iran won, the minute bush chose to undertake this mis-adventure.
and no amount of revisionist history, or wishful thinking, will change that.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
“we lost”
True. The Baathists and their leftoid de facto supporters in the West lost big time.
Tough luck.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“losing is when the cheerleaders move the goal posts, and claim a win.”
A better example is going from being an all-powerful dictator to a corpse swinging on the end of a rope, with a foreign invader running the nation you used to be the dictator of.
Ask Saddam Hussein about what losing is. He could tell you all about it…well, he could if he wasn’t dead.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Sure jaybird. If you can tell me why we lost frickin’ half a million men in Democrat led wars, including members of my family. We always thought those were morally correct actions.
Talk about revisionist history.
I guess that “pay any price, bear any burden” stuff was a bunch of hooey and the guy who said it was a liar, huh? Boy do I feel like a sap for believing that all my life.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Last Winter, when the political debate focused on authorizing the surge or defunding the war, I expected Hillary Clinton would use the dialogue to triangulate her opponents and move to the center. She could have met with the President, offered her support and admitted that cut and run was not an option. That move would have left Obama and Edwards trying to out-Kucinich Kucinich. She would appear mature, reasoned and intelligent - Presidential! Fortunately, I was wrong.
She took the MoveOn line and made a public statement about “suspending disbelief” of the US military’s expert on counterinsurgency. When a West Pointer with 35 years experience, a Princeton PhD in international relations, the man who wrote the US Army manual on fighting guerilla wars says something about COIN, calling him a liar is a very high risk act. Now that General Petraeus seems to have been 100% correct, Hillary’s judgment is in question.
Are we seeing a reaction to Hillary’s behavior in her polls? I hope we are.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
vanguard…
define winning.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
[...] at Captain’s Quarters & Jules Crittenden This entry is filed under Media Bias, Iraq War. You can follow any responses to this entry [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Lets see…
Virtually complete disruption of global terror networks and infrastructure, reducing their efforts to localized acts of depravity.
Death or capture of tens of thousands of terrorists.
No terror attacks on US soil.
Strategic positioning inside the lines of communication of terror sponsors Iran and Syria (if Iran thinks, as you do, that they “won” by having 150K of the best troops in the world in the next country, they are not playing with a full deck).
Bonus victories:
Terror sponsoring dictator with access to WMD and WMD programs (according to leading Democrats) doing the Baathist death dance on the end of a rope.
25 million people voting for the first time in an election that actually counted.
Redemption for bugging out on the Kurds in 1991.
Voluntary surrender of Libyan WMD program.
Exposure and prosecution of UN officials and some Western politicians who profitted from the in the $10 billion oil for food fraud.
Elimination of UN sanctions which were causing 5000 Iraqi children a month to die (this was was a lefty statistic as I recall, so I’m just quoting them).
Exposure of 49% of our political classes’ complete lack of seriousness of or qualification for the role of Commander in Chief.
I can go on, but its pretty embarrassing for the “we’ve lost” lobby.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Vanguard, I think you forgot a few items for defining winning.
Capture Bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda members - you know, the guys that actually planned and financed 9-11
Destroy the safe haven in Pakistan that the Pushtan tribes have been providing for Al Qaeda for the last 2 years
Stabilize the Afganistan government that has virtually no influence outside of Kabul
Destroy the Taliban in Afganistan that still controls the rural areas
Get the Iraqi government to pass one, just one, of the key benchmarks that Bush identified when he announced the surge earlier this year - you know, the whole purpose for the surge
Safe return of the 4 plus million Iraqis that were displaced since we initiated the Iraq war
Get public services in Bagdad (water, electricity, etc.) back up to pre-war levels
Get some oil production out of Iraq, any little drop, so they can start paying back the 2 trillion dollars we spent on this war so far
Political reconciliation among the Shites, Sunnis and Kurds
Weakening of the ties between Iran and the Shites in control of the Iraqi government
Hamas loses politcal control in Palestein - which they won after Bush pressured the Israelis and PLO to hold the elections despite their warnings that Hamas may actually win
Israel recovers from the disastorous military campaign in Lebanon - the one Bush urged the Israelis to do
Actually start taking care of our wounded soldiers by improving veteran health care and not demanding signing bonuses be paid back for wounded soldiers that couldn’t complete their duties due to their injuries
Exposure and prosecution of the all the no-bid contractors that overcharged the US and did deplorable work and the mercenaries (Blackwater) that are undermining General Petraus’ effrots to win the heart and minds of the Iraqis
November 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
She could have met with the President, offered her support and admitted that cut and run was not an option
She wanted all that phat moonbat cash.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Wow con, all you forgot was “eliminate world hunger”. If that’s your standard for the coming Democrat administration, I think you’re going to spend another 4 to 8 miserable years. Also, I thought we were talking about Iraq, but you seem by your comments to agree that it is part of the wider war on terror. So welcome to the club.
Just to take a few others, the reenlistment bonus for wounded vets has been fixed, immediately after the kind of statist bureaucrat you probably want running the country screwed it up. So you are about a week behind on that (and what does that have to do with winning the the war anyhow?).
Oh, and if you’ve ever been outside of whatever ideological bubble you’re in, you’d know we have the best military medical care in the world.
You do seem to hold the Iraqi parliament to a higher standard than the Democrat congress, but so do I. Harry and Nancy can’t pass anything either. So we are in agreement there
No bid contractors, agree with you there too. Next time the Clinton admin hires one like they did Haliburton, I expect you’ll be leading the righteous opposition.
Lets see, dropping political opponents into industrial paper shredders or public utilities? What to choose, what to choose…
Bush went out of his way to avoid meddling in Iraqi oil. If he only did so to jam it up the ass of the “no blood for oil” morons, more power to him.
Look con, I know I’m not going to change your mind. And Lord knows you’re not going to change mine. So nothing personal here. I just think you have taken some of these issues to an illogical, unrealistic extreme. It sounds like you acknowledge that Gen Petraeus is operating in good faith and on the right track, and thats a start, so good on ya.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“Get public services in Bagdad (water, electricity, etc.) back up to pre-war levels”
If the enemy capital suffers a shortage of electrical power that means we lost the war!
Leftys are cuckoo beyond belief.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Vanguard,
Wow, I didn’t realize that capturing Bin Ladin and ending safe havens for Al Qaeda is on par with ending world hunger. I thought that used to be the central policy of Republicans. I guess that was before Bush blew the chance to do so when we had them cornered in Tora Bora - now it is probably about as difficult as ending world hunger.
I also apologize for not realizing the scope was limited to Iraq. I guess I got confused when you mentioned Lybia, Iran and Syria - silly me, I thought those were countries, not Iraqi cities.
Kudos to Bush for correcting the mishap on the signing bonuses. I guess I’m just wondering when Bush is going to avoid massive errors or at least correct them before he is shamed into doing so when they become huge news stories.
As for medical care for our soldiers, we USED
November 28th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Sorry, I accidentally hit send before I finished.
What I was saying is that the medical care for our soldiers USED to be the best in the world, but no longer. Just ask the soldiers at Walter Reed hospital or the VA Secretary who was forced to resign for doing such a poor job.
I also guess accomplishing the goals that Bush himself set for Iraq aren’t important anymore either. I guess that is why Bush keeps changing the goals every time he fails to meet them.
I also agree that General Petraus has done a good job quelling the violence, but it won’t change things if Bush doesn’t capitalize on it by pushing for political successes as well.
You are right, we are not likely going to change one another’s minds about these issues. And I don’t expect you to believe that a Democrat will somehow swoop into the White House in 2008 and fix all of these problems. Even I know that won’t happen. What I can’t understand is why you don’t recognize how badly Bush has damaged our country, particularly from a foreign policy perspective. In fact, Bush has significantly damaged the Republican party - I think the Republicans will get killed in 2008 largely because of Bush’s failed policy. Yet Republicans continue to defend everything he does simply because he is a Republican.
I’m a Democrat, but I’m no partisan. I hope that Clinton doesn’t get elected. I’m frustrated as hell with the Democratic Congress. But neither could damage our country as much as Bush even if they tried. When are you going to stop feeding into the fear-mongering and judge Bush for what he is - a failure.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
OK con, I apologize, I was talking about Syria and Iran within the strategic context of Iraq. Didn’t mean to confuse you, and I certainly didn’t mean to take advantage of how easy that apparently is.
I believe the re-enlistment bonuses issue to be fixed at a much lower level than “Bush”, but what would I know, I only served for 22 years, so I am naive about military accountability and administration. (Ditto for whatever inane point you were trying to make about military medical care).
In any case I can’t wait for your folks to take over our country’s leadership so as to ensure that no bureaucratic underling ever makes a mistake. That will be a level of government perfection I anxiously await.
I believe I was asked by jaybird to define winning in Iraq, and I did so. If you have anything useful to add to that discussion which refutes my points I am all ears. If you think finding and rousting some dead or dying figurehead thug out of a cave will accomplish anything, please state what that goal is. If Iraq was such a bad idea, tell me why tens of thousands of terrorists disagree with you and flowed in there to do battle. You have all of academia and Hollywood, most of the media, and slightly more than half the politicians on your side, so it shouldn’t be that hard for you.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Only going to answer a few, as I’m damn tired tonight/today
Capture Bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda members - you know, the guys that actually planned and financed 9-11
This week, after more than four months of interrogations, the CIA transferred him to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Al-Iraqi joined 14 other designated high-value detainees, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
http://www.examiner.com/a-698843~Senior_al_Qaeda_commander_captured.html?cid=rss-Washington_DC
Destroy the safe haven in Pakistan that the Pushtan tribes have been providing for Al Qaeda for the last 2 years
You are suggesting an expansion of what you think is wrong?
Israel recovers from the disastorous military campaign in Lebanon - the one Bush urged the Israelis to do
You were present when “Bush Urged”?
Political reconciliation among the Shites, Sunnis and Kurds
Beginning to occur..you toss out the Democrat views with no links. I will toss the other side views with no links
Actually start taking care of our wounded soldiers by improving veteran health care and not demanding signing bonuses be paid back for wounded soldiers that couldn’t complete their duties due to their injuries
This is starting to crumble due to a harsh reaction, that the dumb bastards at the Pentagon, didn’t expect.
More to come…but not now..conman. Apt nic…really.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:11 am
The world’s tranzies insisted on multi-lateralism, so Bush essentially turned Afghanistan over to NATO. If you want to point fingers, do it at your own policies.
Those who’ve been around here for a while know what I think about how the war has been conducted. The difference is, my alternatives did not, and do not include surrendering to the enemy for any reason.
I’m sick to death of hearing about the problems facing the elected government of Iraq. When our own government, that hasn’t the excuse of trying to return to a sane world after 30 years of a brutal dictatorship, begins to function properly, I’ll listen. And when the leaders of our government don’t consistently and continually give the infant Iraqi government cause to think that they are going to be thrown to the wolves, I’ll listen. Otherwise, shut up.
And by the way, jaybird, you are behind in the news or you wouldn’t have put out half of your statements. In the military, we used to say that the situation was overtaken by events. Your situation has been overtaken by events, son.
One last word, because I’m sick to death of hearing this particular complaint: pre-war electricity in Baghdad was what it was because the power was diverted from the rest of the country, which was forced to do without. If things haven’t improved quickly enough in this area, how about blaming those who have constantly sabotaged the infrastructure?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:15 am
[...] Critteden details how MSNBC spins the Pew story in similar fashion, and observes: 18 points. Double-digit increase. [...]
November 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
sorry i left last night and missed vanguards list of items that qualifies winning. so much of it is exaggerated or just plain never happened that i can’t understand why he/she thinks we are winning anything. but i guess that’s what cheerleaders do.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
jaybird, if you want your country to fail so much, why don’t you just move to one that is already on the way, say Venezuela, or one that has already, say North Korea? That way you won’t be in the constant state of political anguish it sounds like you are in now, and you will finally have a reason to fret about the only country in the world that through its actions effectively confronts behavious that true liberals rightly abhor, because you’ll be on the receiving end of it at some point.
Your ad hominem calling someone who has served a “cheerleader” is case in point of what has been discussed here and elsewhere all along: the cheerleaders for defeat do not give a crap about those who serve other than to make them rhetorical suicide bombers for their own political ends.
Oh and one of the criteria for winning has not happened?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Thats “which one”. Sorry.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Vanguard,
First of all, I have a majority of the country on my side, not the select groups you mentioned. Close to 70% of the country still believes we should change our Iraqi policy and find a way to get out troops out of there. I guess a majority of the country turned into far-left liberals while you weren’t looking.
I did refute your point. I demonstrated that your definition of winning is simply a list of those things that Bush has actually (or you mistaken believe) accomplished. You ignore all of the problems that have not been adequately addressed or resolved. I know where you got your idea - Bush has been redefining success ever since we invaded Iraq in the same way. First it was to rid the world of a dangerous dictator with WMDs. Then it changed to spreading democracy. Then it changed to a country that can defend, sustain and govern itself. Now Bush doesn’t even care if the Iraqi government meets any of the benchmarks that Bush himself established as the whole purpose for the surge.
Your comparison between the US Congress and the Iraqi government misses one slightly important distinction - our soldiers are dying and our country is paying billions of dollars a month while the Iraqi government ignores our pleas to reconcile in some manner and form some type of functioning government! Can you explain to me why as a supposed conservative you have no problem with wasting American soldiers lives and our tax dollars for another country whose political leadership could care less about it?
Your comment that capturing Bin Laden and the senior Al Qaeda leadership is no longer important blows my mind. Did you forget that they were the ones who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks? Did you not read the latest NIE that concluded that Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself in Pakistan and has roughly the same capability as it had pre 9-11? It concluded that Al-Qaeda has “protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability” and that it possesses “safehaven in the Pakistani Federal Administered Tribal Areas.” If you don’t care about the leadership of the terrorist group that actually attacked our homeland, why the hell are you worried about terrorism at all?
As for your evidence that the Iraq War was a good idea, it is priceless. I thought all of those terrorist were there in the first place - isn’t that one of the reasons we went to war? I also don’t understand how tens of thousands of terrorist flooding into Iraq demonstrates that it was a good idea. They flooded into Iraq because they wanted to create chaos and pin our military down there for years. Isn’t it pretty clear that they have been successful at least up until now? Did you not know that this is precisely what Bin Laden was trying to achieve with 9-11 - his writings consistently talk about luring the US into a quagmire in the Middle East and turning the muslim world against the west. I’m also guessing that you have no problem with Iran’s increased power in the region (did you forget that we used to give Saddam military aid in order to serve as a counter-balance to Iran’s growing power?) and the fact that Iraq is now governed by Shite groups with close ties to Tehran. I guess we’ll just fix that problem with another poorly planned and managed invasion and occupation.
There are plenty of legitimate points of disagreement about how to fix Iraq. Whether or not the Iraq war was a good idea, we are there now. When, how and whether we remove our troops is a legitimate issue of discussion. But to suggest that we are winning in Iraq simply by redefining it as the meager things we have already accomplished is irresponsible.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“Whether or not the Iraq war was a good idea”
It’s a great idea if you want to smash the Baathist state and kill terrorists.
Works for me.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
OK, con, jaybird. I was wrong. Lets give up. Cuz frankly I don’t know where else to go with what you are giving me here. You keep telling me where the bad guys are(full credit, at least you admit they are bad) but we can’t go get ‘em, unless apparently its Obama’s idea or something. And if the bad guys come to us, that’s proof of strategic malfeasance or something. We did change course, and that looks to this layman like its working, but what do I know? So I will take my medals (just everyman stuff, I was not heroic) and throw them at the White House, rat out my comrades as rapists and criminals (because that’s apparently what good officers do) and join you all in a righteous celebration of the defeat of the real bad guy here: George Bush. Well done. Hope you’re proud.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
“Vanguard, I think you forgot a few items for defining winning.”
“Capture Bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda members - you know, the guys that actually planned and financed 9-11″
Guess that means we lost the Revolutionary War and WWI because we failed to capture King George and Kaiser Wilhelm.
As a matter of fact, by that standard we lost just about every war we ever fought.
That’s humbling.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“Safe return of the 4 plus million Iraqis that were displaced since we initiated the Iraq war”
Man, millons of Germans were displaced by the Allies in WWII (and also after WWII, come to that). Guess that means we lost that one too.
Drat, we lose no matter what.