CNNTIME POLL: SUPPORT DROPPING FOR SENDING U.S. TROOPS TO IRAQ

Drudge Report ^ | 30 August 2002 | Matt Drudge

[Revolutionary]

Whenever they need to push an agenda, they roll out a bogus poll, then spin it to the hilt.

Every day we wait gives Sad-dam more time to prepare; which could mean more lives lost.

How to win with no or low casualties: Destroy his means to resist and lay a good old fashion seige on all of the major cities. No power, water, or food. Broadcast to the people the acceptable exit points where they will be screened, fed and housed until the dictator is removed from power.

By the way, the real reason the arab population is indoctrinated with hate for Isreal and the USA has very little to do with religion and everything to do with freedom and democracy on the door step of dictatorships. Gee, life is good in a country with freedom and life sucks in the arab countries with dictators. Obviously, it is all the fault of those with freedom, or so the dictators want them to think.

[Paleo Conservative]

It will go right back up when we start kicking butt.

[Ken H]

If Bush and his team decide that invading Iraq is in the best interest of the the United States, he will do it even if the polls only show 30% support.

I completely agree.

One way or another, the Islamists are going to get kicked hard in the nuts.

[faulkner]

America is already suffering from the war on terrorism through skyrocketing insurance premiums, higher energy costs, higher and entirely new security-related costs, which are all putting a huge strain on America's economy. The Mall of America's insurance premium has risen 1,000% in the last year. Pretty soon, America's economy will be as "healthy and vibrant" as Israel's.

[Texasforever]

One way or another, the Islamists are going to get kicked hard in the nuts.

There is just no other rational choice.

[BlackbirdSST]

The attack on Iraq should have been launched within a week of 9-11-01.Actually, the attack on iraq should have been launched a week after OKC. Blackbird.

[JohnHuang2]

Re: #44 - thanks.

By way of illustration, in a new Newsweek poll, 62% of respondents said they support military action to remove Saddam Hussein.

[JohnHuang2]

Here's the link to the Newsweek poll.

[VOA]

What a crock. CNN is brainwashing their viewers to take the liberal-pacifist view.

Just my cynical take...
but CNN (and most of the reptilian POS mainstream press) is knowingly hoping that
the US military won't be allowed to take out Sadaam, there will be nuclear/chemical/biological
exhanges that CNN can use to fill air-time and still be there when the US military
finishes the job.

To my personal feeling, CNN et al. are doing all they can to make sure they have lots
of tragedy to report on.

These b@stards prefer that to a clean, surgical, Sadaam-dead-and-gone-in-two-days campaign.
They remember that 100-hour campaigns just don't make the best television news report.

They all want to be as famous as Cronkite even if it means getting hundreds, thousands or
millions of extra innocents killed in the process.

[VOA]

Large majorities say that military action in Iraq would lead to higher oil prices (88%),
greater instability in the Middle East (74%), and an increased chance of terrorism
in the U.S. (77%).

Earth to Americans who wanted to fix the problem in the days after 9-11:

Once Sadaam has his three nuclear bombs, he will either use them to smoke three cities
in Israel OR use them to blackmail the planet so that he and his Republican Guard can
move with impunity.

Think killing off this madman first will cause higher oil prices, instability
and increase terrorism in the USA?
Give Sadaam a free hand for five more years and you'll get nothing but these outcomes
in bucket-loads.

Funny how we (collectively) have forgotten how in Fall 1990-Spring 1991 they were
tearing out seats in the buses in places like The Phillipines and people
were planting gardens because of fears about what would happen when Sadaam had "done his worst".
If we let him move freely, worse than that will happen.

And how do we know what Sadaam will do with his cherished three nuclear weapons?
It's what he told his "bomb-maker" who defected to the West and has testified
before Congress.
Unfortunately he's not photogenic or eloquent enough for our mainstream media to
run his story on the evening news enough for people to "get it".
And for anyone who doubts him should ask why so many Arab/Muslim countries are ready
to stand down from confronting Sadaam...they are quietly hoping Sadaam will be their
proxy and eventually destroy Israel...and if he turns on them, the USA will come to their
rescue.

Not a bad deal for the likes of the Saudis, Kuwaitis and the other medieval
sand-surfers.

[rintense]

You are correct. It's all about the ratings- and since CNN doesn't HAVE any...

[joyful1]

If they're still alive the morning after the next terrorist attack on America, I wonder what these people will say about their stupid opinions that allowed the death and destruction to happen.

[hflynn]

Large majorities say that military action in Iraq would lead to higher oil prices (88%), greater instability in the Middle East (74%), and an increased chance of terrorism in the U.S. (77%).

This poll is pure BS from beginning to end. The above poll results for example. Before these people (the 88%) were asked if military action in Iraq would lead to higher prices did anybody bother to tell them that in Desert Storm our attack on Iraq lead to the GREATLY lower oil prices?

Greater instability in the Middle East? Will someone tell me what is wrong with greater instability in the Middle East? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, the Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt had all better be aware that government as they know it is about to come to an end.

But nearly half (49%) say that action would lead to a long and costly war before the U.S. could claim victory. One in seven (15%) believe the U.S. would eventually have to withdraw from Iraq without a victory.

This is more BS. What would make anyone think that a far weaker Iraqi military than the one we faced in Desert Storm would be able to sustain a long and costly war against an American Military that is technologically far more lethal then it was in Desert Storm.

I heard Sam Donaldson on ABC radio this morning with the same bodybag BS he was spouting in 1991. Sam went on and on about Americans being unwillingly to accept the high casualty rate that fighting urban warfare in Baghdad would inflict upon the US. Excuse me Sam but who died and left you a Five Star General.

There isn't going to be urban warfare in Baghdad or any other city in Iraq. Maybe Sam should take out the WW II films of the Germans building grandstands outside of Warsaw and then watching the Luffwaffe obliterate the city from the air. Baghdad would be erased from the map in less than a week.

Come to think of it I like the idea of grandstands outside of Baghdad. Build them and fill them with military representatives from the rest of the Middle East. Talk about "Reality Shows".

[hflynn]

The poll also shows that 72% consider CNN to be a bogus network and a national security risk.

This result leads me to conclude your sample group contains at least 28% with IQ's well under 100.

[Miss Marple]

Well, the pundits are yammering on Fox again. Nothing more edifying than WALL STREET BROKERS discussing military strategy. Unbelievable.

I think I would like to have a show in which I can spout off MY opinion. I am just as well-informed. Bah!