NationStates Jolt Archive

The New York Times presented (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070723_poll_results.pdf) this little gem, today. Support for the Iraq invasion is up from an all time low of 35% approval, in May, to a whopping 42%, last week. That increase of 7% is outside the poll's margin of error, but more significantly, it follows the Democratic circus of a all night debate on the topic, presumably to raise awareness of the issue.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/23/washington/0724-nat-POLL2.gif
What's more, the percentage of people that think the war is going very badly has dropped from 45% to 35% and the number that think it's going well has increased a few percent.

What could be causing this increase in support? Why good news from Iraq, of course. The Times Online reports (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2121006.ece) that Al Qaeda is facing rebellion in its ranks. Additional American troops make Iraqis feel safer. All this means that the Al Qaeda's days in Iraq are numbered.

This is the good news. With the upturn in support for our actions in Iraq, I'm sure the NYT can make up a few stories that will cause a sharp decline, after all good news from Iraq doesn't help the Democrats at all.

I don't know, that doesn't look indicative of a long term swing away from the downward trend. Not to the eye, anyway.

The New York Times presented (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070723_poll_results.pdf) this little gem, today. Support for the Iraq invasion is up from an all time low of 35% approval, in May, to a whopping 42%, last week. That increase of 7% is outside the poll's margin of error, but more significantly, it follows the Democratic circus of a all night debate on the topic, presumably to raise awareness of the issue.

It speaks volumes about the Iraq war that you can call a 42% approval rating "whopping' with a straight face.

I don't know, that doesn't look indicative of a long term swing away from the downward trend. Not to the eye, anyway.

Indeed. The graph shows that support for the war is erratic, but that it is falling steadily. These approval ratings are lower than the ratings in April/May of this year for every demographic except registered Democrats..

Well, the mainstream media (like the New York Times) likes to give credibility to stories like this at The New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070723&s=diarist072307

The "factual" nature of which has already been discredited by many soldiers who are present at FOB Falcon.

Compare the "mass grave" story there:

About six months into our deployment, we were assigned a new area to patrol, southwest of Baghdad. We spent a few weeks constructing a combat outpost, and, in the process, we did a lot of digging. At first, we found only household objects like silverware and cups. Then we dug deeper and found children’s clothes: sandals, sweatpants, sweaters. Like a strange archeological dig of the recent past, the deeper we went, the more personal the objects we discovered. And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children’s bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.

to this:

There was a children’s cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied.

and more on the ground under FOB Falcon:

Previous construction work at the Forward Operating Base Ferrin-Huggins [now called FOB Falcon] site had been done fast and cheap. Soldiers later were assigned with the renovation of a series of concrete housing facilities that had been previously hurriedly constructed by the Iraqis. They were constructed so fast, in fact, that the landfill they were built on had not been properly compacted and allowed settlement time. Subsequently, after the buildings went up and weathered the rainy season, the floors gave, breaking all the water systems. The soldiers had to replace those systems and as well as restore the buildings, with Army engineers also providing input to contracting. (emphasis added)

Obviously, a place built on a landfill, of which part was an abandoned cemetary. Not a ruthless genocide pit.

As to the treatment of this by the mainstream media, let's look at the New York Times, which changed its coverage of Franklin Foer's new blogger from:

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.

to this after editor Franklin Foer complained:

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows that he is, in fact, a soldier.

Then changed it back to the first one, after the NYT was caught with its pants down changing the story to help out an old friend.

Since the content of the links has changed over time, you'll probably have to go there again to see if the NYT feels like changing it one more time.

In any case, no mass grave, no bradleys, no disfigured woman in the chow hall, etc.

From the commander at FOB Falcon (gee, I wonder why no one in the mainstream media interviewed him about this...)

“We are aware of what was written under a pseudonym. Its writer is unknown as are his motives. We hold soldiers to the highest standards and the allegations made are completely inconsistent with those expectations. In the absence of any credible information or independent corroboration, we presently have no reason to believe it.”

V/r
MAJ Alston

That may be true, but lies, especially horrific lies, sell papers, Major Alston.

At the same time, they won't print stories like this one:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001497.html

Indeed. The graph shows that support for the war is erratic, but that it is falling steadily. These approval ratings are lower than the ratings in April/May of this year for every demographic except registered Democrats..

Interestingly, it's better numbers than the approval rating for the Democrats in Congress. Almost four times better.

Interestingly, it's better numbers than the approval rating for the Democrats in Congress. Almost four times better.

You know, I've got a strange sense of Deja Vu...

Just the usual ups and downs in what is a general holding pattern between 45% and 30% (or so). Nothing to get your panties in a bunch.

Just the usual ups and downs in what is a general holding pattern between 45% and 30% (or so). Nothing to get your panties in a bunch.

All you have to do is publish some more fake stories on The New Republic, and have the New York Times repeat them, and the numbers will quickly go down again.

All you have to do is publish some more fake stories on The New Republic, and have the New York Times repeat them, and the numbers will quickly go up again.

Fixed your spelling error.

That increase of 7%

Percentage units. Not percent. The difference in percent is 20.

/pet peeve.

Fixed your spelling error.

No, the numbers supporting the war will go down, because mainstream media believes in printing absolutely unbelievable shit nowadays.

They somehow believe an anonymous blogger - they believe his story that a dog can be run over by a Bradley fighting vehicle - when none are stationed at FOB Falcon - when the vehicle weight 25 tons - when the tracks are over 21 inches (533mm) wide - and that after being run over, the dog is neatly and cleanly cut in two...

Must be a really, really, really long bodied dog...

And that the driver, whose vision of the right hand side of the vehicle is blocked by the vehicle body (he sits low to the left) can see a dog walking slowly in from the right...

And that the driver, who is told not to run over things because they might be IEDs (yes, they've put them on live dogs and in dead dogs before), is going to intentionally run over a dog (and magically slice it in two without disturbing either half...)...

glitch or trend?

well, since two data points cannot show a trend...

well, since two data points cannot show a trend...

... and the rest of the data points show a trend counter to the two isolated data points...

glitch or trend?

well, since two data points cannot show a trend...

Pffft, you lefties and your scientific jargon. What has science ever done for anyone? Bupkiss, that's what. Besides, reality had a left-wing bias and this poll clearly doesn't take that into account.

It speaks volumes about the Iraq war that you can call a 42% approval rating "whopping' with a straight face.

Who says it was with a straight face?

It's interesting that support is up in both Democratic and Republican voters.

Pffft, you lefties and your scientific jargon. What has science ever done for anyone? Bupkiss, that's what. Besides, reality had a left-wing bias and this poll clearly doesn't take that into account.

Reality has people believing that a dog can be cut in half by a half-meter wide track on a 25 ton armored vehicle - and result in a cleanly birfurcated dog carcass...

Try that with a half-meter wide knife, and let me know how you do...

Reality has people believing that a dog can be cut in half by a half-meter wide track on a 25 ton armored vehicle - and result in a cleanly birfurcated dog carcass...

Try that with a half-meter wide knife, and let me know how you do...

Who's talking about a dog being cut in half? Is that all you can do? The American mainstream media doesn't have the guts to print real stories about the Iraq war, about all the people who die or are maimed, about how the country is falling apart. They're happy to print stories about soldiers handing out water, but they don't mention that most people go without running water. They don't mention that it's only about one bottle of water per family per day.

It speaks volumes about the Iraq war that you can call a 42% approval rating "whopping' with a straight face.

It speaks volumes about the Democrats in Congress when they think that with a 14% approval rating, they are doing better than Bush's 25%.

Hey, I was wondering if you can help me, I think I might be lost. I was looking for the neocon troll fap convention, is this the right place? *drops pants*

It speaks volumes about the Democrats in Congress when they think that with a 14% approval rating, they are doing better than Bush's 25%.

This is like beating something into someone's concrete skull with a wiffle ball bat.

It speaks volumes about the Democrats in Congress when they think that with a 14% approval rating, they are doing better than Bush's 25%.

That's a very disingenuous comment: 14% is the approval rating for Congress as a whole, not for the Democrats in it. Perhaps the American people are pissed off by the obstructionism of Republican Congressmen and women...

That's a very disingenuous comment: 14% is the approval rating for Congress as a whole, not for the Democrats in it. Perhaps the American people are pissed off by the obstructionism of Republican Congressmen and women...

Yeah, women piss me off too.

We all know the real reason support is up...

Iraq's in the finals of the Asian Cup! Everybody loves football!

You know, I really hope that there is real progress going on and it's reflected in this poll. Even if the war was a bad idea, the last thing I want is for that decision to get any worse; if Iraq turns out to be a total success, that would be the best possible thing to happen in the region for a long time.

That's a very disingenuous comment: 14% is the approval rating for Congress as a whole, not for the Democrats in it. Perhaps the American people are pissed off by the obstructionism of Republican Congressmen and women...

The poll numbers for Democrats alone are still lower than Bush's numbers for overall approval rating.

People seem to trust the Democrats more on the subject of how to end the war (they don't believe Bush will end it, and that's without a doubt true).

But that seems to be it.

You know, I really hope that there is real progress going on and it's reflected in this poll. Even if the war was a bad idea, the last thing I want is for that decision to get any worse; if Iraq turns out to be a total success, that would be the best possible thing to happen in the region for a long time.

1. I doubt it will be a total success.
2. When, rather than if, we leave is probably more of an indicator of how well Iraq does afterwards. The sooner we leave the worse it will be. I don't think it's possible to argue that everything will be fine if we get out completely in the next 90 days.
3. Even some of the Democratic candidates are not arguing for a complete pullout, but a scaling down, and a focus solely on training Iraqi troops. This is not a bad idea either.

1. I doubt it will be a total success.

Neither do I. But I'd rather it be more like postwar Germany than Vietnam.

2. When, rather than if, we leave is probably more of an indicator of how well Iraq does afterwards. The sooner we leave the worse it will be. I don't think it's possible to argue that everything will be fine if we get out completely in the next 90 days.

Joe Biden had a good quote about the impossibility of a sudden withdrawal from Iraq; it would take a long time and a lot of planning to pull it off without risking the death or injury of the 3,000+ civilians in the green zone.

3. Even some of the Democratic candidates are not arguing for a complete pullout, but a scaling down, and a focus solely on training Iraqi troops. This is not a bad idea either.

Personally, I would do that but keep the troops ready in the event that another "surge"-style deployment is needed to take action against a given enemy. I really think Gen. Petraeus will be able to handle this war far better than his predecessors.

Personally, I would do that but keep the troops ready in the event that another "surge"-style deployment is needed to take action against a given enemy. I really think Gen. Petraeus will be able to handle this war far better than his predecessors.

Who do I believe when I want to estimate the effect of the surge?

Do I want to believe Harry Reid, who has never been on the street in Iraq, who makes his judgment before the surge has actually begun?

Or do I believe several on the spot bloggers who are talking to the local Iraqis and photographing them, whose stories corroborate one another?

Bloggers who are NOT paid by any news organization - not paid by Fox News OR The New York Times?

Besides, reality had a left-wing bias and this poll clearly doesn't take that into account.

indeed, everyone knows that all data must be shifted at least 12 points to the right to account for the biased nature of reality.

Who says it was with a straight face?

It's interesting that support is up in both Democratic and Republican voters.

Hey, why don't you look at your own graph a little closer(Damn boy, you don't even need to look at it that closely)-It falls and gains for Republicans and Democrats roughly at the same time.

Not to mention the 42% is still abysmal.

Infact, if you look at the poll, it peaks and wanes several times. For a period, it gains, for another it falls.

The only real inference is that support has fallen since the beginning of the war. Which is a pretty easy inference from the graph.

The poll numbers for Democrats alone are still lower than Bush's numbers for overall approval rating.

People seem to trust the Democrats more on the subject of how to end the war (they don't believe Bush will end it, and that's without a doubt true).

But that seems to be it.

Still, that is the Party as a whole. Why don't you go by what people think of their individual Congressmen? Eh? Hell, Most people don't even know who 90% of the Congressmen in the two Houses are, nor what it is their job is.

As well, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with Congress being unable to end the current Iraq war, which is pretty much what the Majority of Americans want. Couldn't be the fact that Democrats in Congress simply don't have enough votes to overturn a veto by El Bushio the Simple, could it? No... couldn't be.

Seriously, Kimchi, get some new tricks. I'm tired of throwing the frisbee to you, and I think I may need to put you down for these masochistic sprees of yours.

Still, that is the Party as a whole. Why don't you go by what people think of their individual Congressmen? Eh? Hell, Most people don't even know who 90% of the Congressmen in the two Houses are, nor what it is their job is.

As well, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with Congress being unable to end the current Iraq war, which is pretty much what the Majority of Americans want. Couldn't be the fact that Democrats in Congress simply don't have enough votes to overturn a veto by El Bushio the Simple, could it? No... couldn't be.

Seriously, Kimchi, get some new tricks. I'm tired of throwing the frisbee to you, and I think I may need to put you down for these masochistic sprees of yours.

If they knew they wouldn't get a veto-proof majority, they shouldn't have made the promises.

Is that simple enough for you?

Neither do I. But I'd rather it be more like postwar Germany than Vietnam.


I'd rather it was like Vietnam.

United through a centuries old sense of nationhood and nationalism, a cause shared by the vast vast vast proportion of the population.

I'd rather it was like Vietnam.

United through a centuries old sense of nationhood and nationalism, a cause shared by the vast vast vast proportion of the population.

Yes, but it also cost us 50,000 dead soldiers and the Vietnamese at least a million before we realized our mistake.

If they knew they wouldn't get a veto-proof majority, they shouldn't have made the promises.

Is that simple enough for you?

Alright, it's this simple: they're politicians. Oh my god, a politician bullshitted in his campaign! Stop the presses, we have our new front page story! The gall! The audacity! The shit that happens every election!

Seriously though, why don't you show polls that show what people think of their own Congressmen? As well, there are a lot more Congressmen than there are Presidents, and people just don't know who the hell is in Congress. Thus, they have almost always have a low approval rating. Add to that the Iraq War fiasco(If El Bushio continues being a little twat about it, Democrats will easily have the Presidency in '08 as he will have destroyed the credibility of Republicans greatly), being ineffective against an uncompromising little twit, they really can't do much of anything.

Yes, but it also cost us 50,000 dead soldiers and the Vietnamese at least a million before we realized our mistake.

Well, I don't really care about US casualties to be honest. I was talking more from their point of view.

Alright, it's this simple: they're politicians. Oh my god, a politician bullshitted in his campaign! Stop the presses, we have our new front page story! The gall! The audacity! The shit that happens every election!

Hey, they said they weren't liars like the Republicans. If politics are supposed to truly work, then politicians of any ilk need to stop lying.

If I go around with the basic assumption that politicians lie whenever they open their pieholes, then we're at the fork in the road forever.

I noticed you didn't read my posts on the ridiculous bias on what's going on in Iraq. Shall I put you down as someone who believes The New Republic and the New York Times that a half-meter wide track on an armored vehicle can neatly cut a dog in two without squishing the dog?

Alright, it's this simple: they're politicians. Oh my god, a politician bullshitted in his campaign! Stop the presses, we have our new front page story! The gall! The audacity! The shit that happens every election!

Seriously though, why don't you show polls that show what people think of their own Congressmen? As well, there are a lot more Congressmen than there are Presidents, and people just don't know who the hell is in Congress. Thus, they have almost always have a low approval rating. Add to that the Iraq War fiasco(If El Bushio continues being a little twat about it, Democrats will easily have the Presidency in '08 as he will have destroyed the credibility of Republicans greatly), being ineffective against an uncompromising little twit, they really can't do much of anything.
The interesting part of what I posted wasn't the poll numbers, although we'll see soon enough if it's going to continue in this direction. No, it's the really good news that Al Qaeda is making its last stand in the "...sewage-filled streets of Doura..." It's also the good news that they're putting down internal rebellion and that their minions are tired of the violence. The troop surge is having beneficial effects and this can only improve everyone's lot in Iraq.

Well, I don't really care about US casualties to be honest. I was talking more from their point of view.

From that point of view, it's even worse. Vietnam is still suffering from the devastation wrought by that war, and even the effects of French imperialist rule over half a century since Dien Bien Phu.

At least Germany successfully transitioned from fascism to federal democracy (and Communism in the East, but that was still far better than Nazi rule) and from the devastation of war in to one of the world's largest economies which offered one of its highest standards of living.

From that point of view, it's even worse. Vietnam is still suffering from the devastation wrought by that war, and even the effects of French imperialist rule over half a century since Dien Bien Phu.

Compare the effects of Communist government on East Germany and Vietnam against the effects of capitalism on West Germany on the recuperative powers of each system....

Since when is a trend a difference in two data points?

Hey, they said they weren't liars like the Republicans. If politics are supposed to truly work, then politicians of any ilk need to stop lying.

And the Republicans have done the same. Honestly, it's the usual among politics. Say whatever you can to elected, regardless of whether you can actually make good on it.


If I go around with the basic assumption that politicians lie whenever they open their pieholes, then we're at the fork in the road forever.

The best you can do is hope that the given candidate can make good on his promises. Not all of the promises can, or will be met, of course.


I noticed you didn't read my posts on the ridiculous bias on what's going on in Iraq. Shall I put you down as someone who believes The New Republic and the New York Times that a half-meter wide track on an armored vehicle can neatly cut a dog in two without squishing the dog?

Because that's an idiotic story, that has no bearing on anything. As well as being completely implausible.

Because that's an idiotic story, that has no bearing on anything. As well as being completely implausible.

The New York Times and The New Republic think it's a great, credible, real story.

The New York Times and The New Republic think it's a great, credible, real story.

I don't get my news from them. I prefer more credible sources, that don't try to run up a profit margin.

It's called an "outlier", Myrm. They happen all the time. That's why there's one poll that shows Obama over Clinton, but the rest have them 12 points apart.

I don't get my news from them. I prefer more credible sources, that don't try to run up a profit margin.

I'm just making the point that mainstream media are prone to believe this sort of unbelievable story - purely from the reason of bias.

I'm just making the point that mainstream media are prone to believe this sort of unbelievable story - purely from the reason of bias.

It's not that the mainstream media believes it's true, necessarily, they simply report stories that will get them readers.

As Goebbels stated, the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Report an unbelievable story, the more people are interested in reading said story. It is likely there is a *grain* of truth in the dog story you stated, but it's also very likely, if not completely true, that it was embelished into a better, more unbelievable, more marketable story.

It's all about marketing. Every news source is guilty of it(Fox News, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc), but even more so the ones that are solely there to make money. You will find a bit of bias in any news source, and that's simply to be more marketable.

Compare the effects of Communist government on East Germany and Vietnam against the effects of capitalism on West Germany on the recuperative powers of each system....

Considering that the GDR had a population size of only 16-17m compared to the FRG's 63-64m (at the end of 1990), that the GDR infrastructure was removed to a much greater extent than in the FRG and it was unable to export to most of the world due to both the government and other countries' governments it would be a bit hard for it to have rebuilt as fast as the FRG.

From that point of view, it's even worse. Vietnam is still suffering from the devastation wrought by that war, and even the effects of French imperialist rule over half a century since Dien Bien Phu.

Countries struggling against occupying powers (global ones at that) for hundreds of years don't tend to come out of it with a shiny economy.

At least Germany successfully transitioned from fascism to federal democracy (and Communism in the East, but that was still far better than Nazi rule) and from the devastation of war in to one of the world's largest economies which offered one of its highest standards of living.

Germany had the Marshall Plan. Vietnam got the pittance from the USSR. I'm not saying Communism was or is better. I'm saying the people in Vietnam wanted their home to be unified more.