Even the BBC

iraqpoll.bmpEven the BBC
: Even the BBC is forced to admit that things are better in Iraq. The people of Iraq said so:

An opinion poll carried out in Iraq will make good reading for US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The poll suggests that Iraqis are happier than they were before the invasion, optimistic about the future and opposed to violence.

The poll, of more than 2,500 adults, was commissioned by the BBC in association with other international broadcasters.

It suggests that the reporting of the daily attacks on the occupying forces in Iraq could be obscuring another picture.

This opinion poll gives a glimpse into the real life of Iraqis, who appear to be overwhelmingly pre-occupied with bread and butter issues – whether the lights go on or not, and the restoration of the economy.

Seventy percent said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.

And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war.

Almost half (49%) believed the invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition was right, although 41% felt that the invasion “humiliated Iraq”.

More than three quarters (79%) want Iraq to remain united, and only 20% want it to become an Islamic state.

  • Reid

    Beat me to the punch. I was coming over to shove this in some nescient naysayers’ faces. Read it and weep, America haters.

  • http://www.bopnews.com MattS

    1) As someone with strong reservations about the war, I never hoped that things would go badly in Iraq. I am angry there wasn’t better planning, in fact, but I welcome good news.
    2) Why was the BBC ‘forced’ to do anything? Given your operating assumption that they are incredibly biased/incompetent, what in Iraq ‘forced’ them to talk about something they didn’t want to? Perhaps they were just trying to report the news.

  • http://www.bopnews.com MattS

    Besides, the BBC commissioned the poll that they are reporting on, which suggests that their biases may not be that strong.

  • Mike G

    “It suggests that the reporting of the daily attacks on the occupying forces in Iraq could be obscuring another picture.”
    Whoever could they be referring to? What Western beneficiary of the liberal tradition and the rights of freedom could possibly have sunk so low as to broadcast such abjectly fascist-sympathizing propaganda?

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    The poll is essentially meaninless because it doesn’t address any major point. It’s great the the Iraqis feel their lives are better but it doesn’t prove that invading Iraq was a beneficial move in the war on terror. Nor does it prove that stability has been or will be brought to the Middle East. Nor does it prove that democracy will flourish in Iraq. Nor does it prove any of the other major points against invading the country. All it does say is that Iraqis are happier now that they are not living under the rule of Saddam–which was never a contention to begin with.

  • Doctor Slack

    I wish the numbers were more impressive, frankly. It’s not news that Iraqis are sturdy and optimistic… but only 56% of them think life is better than before the war? Only 49% of them think the invasion was justified? 41% of them feel “humiliated” by it? How is any of that supposed to be good news for Bush and Blair? The occupations is supposed to be so self-evidently better than Saddam that no-one who had lived under him could question it. Why do Iraqis show up as pretty much evenly divided on those crucial questions?

  • Reid

    “Nor does it prove that stability has been or will be brought to the Middle East. Nor does it prove that democracy will flourish in Iraq.”
    Nor does it prove that the Cuckold Robert McClelland has anything but hollow space between his ears. However, the liberation of Iraq was sine qua non for these good things to happen.

  • Reid

    Oops… I meant Canuck.

  • Reid

    Slacker – because things are not yet settled. Had you polled the Germans and Japanese after WWII, you would have been astounded to get numbers like these. Things are moving very much in the right direction. In a few years, you are going to be very ashamed of the position you have taken here. Just remember I told you so.

  • Doctor Slack

    More detail on the poll. An interesting read.
    Had you polled the Germans and Japanese after WWII, you would have been astounded to get numbers like these.
    Ah, I was waiting for Germany&Japan to make an appearance. Basing that assertion on anything?

  • Mike G

    “The poll is essentially meaninless because it doesn’t address any major point” –Robert McClelland, judging that personal freedom is not a major point on behalf of the Iraqis.
    “The occupations is supposed to be so self-evidently better than Saddam that no-one who had lived under him could question it. Why do Iraqis show up as pretty much evenly divided on those crucial questions?” — Doctor Spin, er, Slack, deeply concerned
    Too funny to watch these two at work!

  • Doctor Slack

    Too funny to watch these two at work!
    If you had nothing to say, Mike, why did you bother?

  • http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/ BTD Greg

    I’ve got more on this survey over at Begging to Differ.

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >If you had nothing to say, Mike, why did you bother?
    Because he’s a freeper and that’s what freepers do.

  • http://www.whoman.net WhoMan

    I told you before that when one part of your house is on fire, you can make yourself busy with fixing a dripping tap. But apparently you can also say “look the tap is not dripping any more”. These statistics don’t prove if invasion to Iraq helped the actual war on terror.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    It’s great the the Iraqis feel their lives are better but it doesn’t prove that invading Iraq was a beneficial move in the war on terror. Nor does it prove that stability has been or will be brought to the Middle East. Nor does it prove that democracy will flourish in Iraq.
    It doesn’t prove Zorn’s Lemma or the Continuum Hypothesis either. In fact, the list of things it doesn’t prove could be extended arbitrarily.
    What it does prove is that the Iraqis are a lot happier about the results than you are, Robert. Which is a helluva big debit to your “moral authority” account.

  • http://rex.weblogs.com Rex Hammock

    Today at a Rotary meeting in Nashville, I had the opportunity of hearing a presentation by Major Gen David H. Petraeus, Commanding General 101st Airborne Division, the famed “Screaming Eagles” who recently returned to their home base at nearby Ft. Campbell after a year in Iraq. As I would expect, his description of the military accomplishments and courageous sacrifices of his soldiers was moving to the 300 business and civic leaders in the audience. However, what really drew our awe was his detailed explanation of the humanitarian and civic-reconstruction work the 101st has led since the country’s liberation. His before-and-after slides of schools and banks and infrastructure were impressive proof of the positive impact the U.S. has had on the people of Iraq and their villiages and cities.
    Much like the BBC survey you are pointing to shows the Iraqi people are optimistic one-year after the invasion, Gen. Petraeus’ presentation today impressed me once more with the wide disparity between what is really taking place and the typical media coverage of the war that focuses on suicide bombers and the cowardly acts of renegade terrorists. In much the same way local TV news typcially covers car wrecks, fires and controversies at the court house, the real story of what’s taking place in Iraq appears to be too boring to be news.

  • Reid

    Basing that assertion on anything?
    Yes, Slacker. Personal knowledge gleaned from reading reams of material on post-war Germany and Japan.
    Your side was wrong, Slacker. You were wrong about the supposedly overwhelming casualties we would sustain in Iraq, you were wrong about the “quagmire” you proclaimed after the first week of battle. You were wrong about the refugees and the famine that would break out as a result of the war. You were wrong about the Arab street erupting. You were wrong about the destabilization of friendly regimes in the area. You were wrong about the influence the action in Iraq would have in bringing other rogues in the region to heel. You were wrong about the indigenous resistance, as this poll helps demonstrate. You were wrong about the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And, you were wrong to think that Iraq could continue to exist as a slave nation bearing the brunt of punishing sanctions without any deleterious fallout on our national security.
    Was I wrong about the WMD? Not about the infrastructure and the clear intent to restart those programs when and if the sanctions were ever relaxed.
    As I say, in a few years, when these things are too abundantly clear even for you and your deaf, dumb and blind fellow imbeciles to deny, you will be embarrassed and ashamed that you stood foursquare for keeping Iraqis under the boot.

  • Mike G

    If you won’t learn from me how to make your points concisely, at least learn from Reid that your points are wrong…

  • Tonto

    Am disappointed that the poll conflates Sunnis and Shiites. Major weakness.

  • Doctor Slack

    Personal knowledge gleaned from reading reams of material on post-war Germany and Japan.
    Well, we’ve both read reams of material on post-war Germany and Japan — I studied military history back in the sweet vanished past — and I don’t agree with you. Can you do better than this?
    Your side was wrong, Slacker.
    Let’s take it point by point, S-factor. I’ll let pass your dishonest attempt to pretend you know what arguments I did or didn’t subscribe to, and just tackle these as general anti-war points:
    You were wrong about the supposedly overwhelming casualties we would sustain in Iraq
    Odd, this one. I don’t remember any anti-wars arguing the US would sustain overwhelming casualties. (Well, except the people who believed Bush’s WMD claims, the more fools they.)
    Many people, myself included, were concerned about the casualties the war would inflict on Iraqis. We don’t know yet how justified that concern was, because we don’t know how many people were killed in the war (civilian death is hazily estimated at between eight to ten thousand). Neither do you.
    you were wrong about the “quagmire” you proclaimed after the first week of battle
    Last time I checked, there was still an insurgency going in Iraq. I’m not fully convinced about using the “quagmire” term myself, but the truth is that no-one is in a position to rule it out at this point. The definition of a quagmire is a long-term running major conflict which keeps American troops tied to a country.
    You were wrong about the refugees and the famine that would break out as a result of the war.
    On this one, you’re correct. (And here, you actually hit on one of the points that came as a genuine surprise to me.)
    You were wrong about the Arab street erupting.
    On this one — and it’s a pretty big one — you’re dead wrong by 180 degrees. The predicted recruitment bonanza for al Qaeda came to pass in spades.
    You were wrong about the destabilization of friendly regimes in the area.
    That depends on how you define destabilization. If you cherry-pick the most extreme predictions, e.g. that the invasion would mean the fall of the House of Saud within a week, then fine — except then you’re not arguing against a widely-held anti-war position. If you’re arguing that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan et cetera aren’t under significantly greater threat of falling more fully under the sway of Wahhabism than they were pre-Iraq, you’re out to lunch.
    You were wrong about the influence the action in Iraq would have in bringing other rogues in the region to heel.
    Actually, much of the anti-war side was wrong about something much more fundamental connected to this. Many of us believed that Iraq was only the opening gambit in a rolling regional war that would proceed on to Syria and then Iran — the war the neocons were in fact pushing for. In believing this we overestimated the neocon influence in the Bush White House, and we underestimated just how embarrassing the occupation would become for them. Long story short, that agenda faltered and states like Syria and Iran shifted out of crisis mode.
    You were wrong about the indigenous resistance, as this poll helps demonstrate.
    The poll puts support for attacks on Coalition troops at 17% among Iraqis. That number is higher than I expected, not lower, and well above the number needed to support the indigenous insurgency which we well know to be happening.
    However, the poll does hold out hope for the US to circumvent the insurgency — basically by withdrawing its forces to isolated bases and isolating itself from the insurgents, much as it did in Afghanistan. According to that poll, there is virtually no support in Iraq for violence against Iraqi troops and police. So, provided sectarian conflict is avoided, that gambit would probably work.
    You were wrong about the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
    …of which your evidence is yet another White House flunky trying to save a little face? He’s just recycling talking points from Powell’s disgraced UN briefing, dude. This stuff doesn’t even pass the laugh test at this point; it’s right up there with Cheney and the “weapons lab” trailers.
    And, you were wrong to think that Iraq could continue to exist as a slave nation bearing the brunt of punishing sanctions without any deleterious fallout on our national security.
    I can’t make sense of what you think you’re arguing against here. The “slave nation” stuff I’ll chalk up to the usual bullsh*t self-righteousness of the war bloc (likewise your later ranting about “imbeciles” and you’re “you’ll all be sorry!” fantasizing), but what “deleterious fallout” was there to US national security from containing Saddam? Why do you think the sanctions had to be “punishing” — are you unaware of the distinction between military and economic sanctions?

  • Doctor Slack

    Am disappointed that the poll conflates Sunnis and Shiites. Major weakness.
    Can’t disagree with that.

  • http://seattleweekly.com Tim Appelo

    But if 56% of Iraqis think things are better, doesn’t that likely mean the Shiite majority is glad to have a chance to oppress the former Sunni-minority oppressors (and maintain the proud “national” tradition of crushing Kurds)? The majority doesn’t want an Islamic state in Iran either, but since Islamists are the only organized, unified voices in the quarrelsome cacophony, they prevail–as the Bushies do here. (It helps in both cases if you control the courts and manipulate elections, too.) The irritably simplistic thinking that bedevils our foreign policy and our black/white political dialogue at home is also found in the debate over this poll–and in this blog, and in blogs in general. Blogging is an epochal technology, but it’s not going to bring us together. It’s driving us further apart. Traditional news media are more fair-minded than the average voter (or blogger) today. We are all permanently screwed–not for simple reasons, for complex ones that nobody anymore has the patience to sort through and truly CONSIDER.

  • http://home.comcast.net/~incubus52/index.html IXLNXS

    Can’t an American love America while still hating liars in both political parties?
    Can’t we still love America and feel laws are being passed that are both repressive but dangerous to the American way of life?
    To brand anyone who disagrees with political parties as haters of America ignores they may wish to do for America as feverently as yourself, but in another way.

  • hen

    has anyone seen Doc Slacker and Bobby the mental midget together at the same time? like two sides of a useless coin…

  • Joe Peden

    “If you had nothing to say, Mike, why did you bother?
    Because he’s a freeper and that’s what freepers do.”
    Posted by Robert McClelland at March 15, 2004 11:55 PM
    Now McClelland argues that he is a Freeper.

  • Syl

    Sunni and Shia are NOT conflated. Instapundit has a link to the ABC report which has a link to a pdf of the whole poll.

  • Joe Peden

    Now Slack refers to “the indigenous insurgency which we well know to be happening”. Of course we know nothing of the kind, but I would like to hear evidence.
    Dean thought he knew things because they popped into his consciousness, his unconsciousness having worked upon them to assure their validity, he assumed, but could not know since everything he thought was unconscious until it popped into his mind, which then proved its validity by being there, he assumed. And so on.
    Kerry now knows things that never happened, except that they popped into his mind also, such as his recent meetings with European Leaders. Both Dean and Kerry claim Bush has created terrorists, which they can only know because the idea popped into their minds, unless they are keeping a running count of terrorists, which they would have to be getting from some kind of “intelligence”, which they both claim is totally unreliable, unless it is Sunday. Maybe they are channeling with terrorists or perhaps enlisting Shirley McClain for this purpose, unless Barbra Streisand or Paris Hilton has replaced her. Or maybe Dean and Kerry are merely reading each other’s minds, or are even the same person. Again, and so on.
    But I assume Slack at least admits that the Republican Guard has evaporated, having become but another member of the “sweet vanished past”, but not good news for Slack, which apparently necessitates the idea of an indigenous insurgency popping into his head, as did his definition of “quagmire”, which requires that Korea is a quagmire, as was our participation in Nato, so that now there are good quagmires and bad quagmires, something I never knew before. But if this popped into Slack’s head, it’s good enough for me. Thus, I retract my need to hear evidence. There isn’t any anyway.

  • capt joe

    The mutt and jeff stalkers of Jeff Jarvis’s blog are always active.
    Rob, we don’t need freepers here when we have you doing a much more vigorous job thatn they do.
    Robert is pissed at this poll because after all the effort he spent all fall and part of summer posting nasty messages to the Iraqi bloggers they still are moving against him. You guys should go back over the archives of Ali and the others and look for Robbie’s name. Very illuminating. When ever they said anything good about the coalition, he was there to tell them they did not know what they were talking about.

  • Doctor Slack

    Poor Joe. You may be in denial about the nature of the insurgency, but the US army isn’t. (That’s a link to a story on Maj. Gen. Odierno back in January, claiming to have reduced the “Baath remnants” northeast of Baghdad and predicting a shift towards a more nationalist insurgency.)
    Tim: Very well said.

  • Reid

    “On this one — and it’s a pretty big one — you’re dead wrong by 180 degrees. The predicted recruitment bonanza for al Qaeda came to pass in spades.”
    Source, please? During the 1990’s, we were getting a major attack on American assets every couple of years, including military housing and ships. We haven’t had that happen recently. Al Qaeda is reduced to attacking soft civilian targets. Al Qaeda has no place to train new recruits as we have denied them sanctuary in Afghanistan and in other places around the globe. You have absolutely zero evidence to support your fervent wish here.
    “what “deleterious fallout” was there to US national security from containing Saddam
    What deleterious fallout? WHAT DELETERIOUS FALLOUT? You aren’t even aware of the propaganda bonanza OBL was reaping from the sanctions? You aren’t aware of his EXPLICIT connection of the 9-11 attack to US policy in Iraq which he claimed, and which was widely accepted in the Arab world, to have killed over a million Iraqis who were denied crucial medicines and sanitation supplies (such as dual-use chlorine for purifying water)??? You aren’t aware of the unbelievable public relations blunder by Madeleine Halfbright when she was seen in a live interview on Arab TV to be cavalierly dismissing the suffering induced by the sanctions? Your ignorance is astounding. And you sit there pontificating about what should and shouldn’t be done and you have NO IDEA what is really going on in the region??? Man, oh man. I’m gonna’ just have to get up an walk away before I get banned for abuse. You sit at your computer screen, cherry picking your information, making specious arguments and tossing away Iraqi lives as if they weren’t worth your spit, and you don’t even have a clue. What a pissant SOB.

  • Doctor Slack

    Source, please?
    The Times. Article is behind a pay wall, now, unfortunately. The salient paragraphs, though (nod to Swopa):
    “. . . intelligence officials said they are troubled by evidence suggesting that more young militant men are becoming terrorists than ever before. The men are joining groups inspired by the occupation of Iraq and the exhortations to fight by Osama bin Laden, who is seen as a hero to many disaffected Muslims.”
    “These people have found a new motivation with the aggression of the United States against the brethren in an Arab country,” one official said. “If you follow what is being said on the Web sites and by other groups with similar goals to Al Qaeda, they are all trying to ride the wave and trying to raise new recruits through this motivation. And it’s working.”
    What deleterious fallout? [apopleptic, vein-popping rant deleted]
    And yes, Reid, I’m well aware that UBL was using the containment of Saddam for propaganda purposes. (That’s one reason I thought the economic sanctions were bad, the other being that they shored up Saddam.) But given that Iraq is clearly a worse situation in this regard, I’ll rephrase the question: what more deleterious fallout.

  • Doctor Slack

    Oh, and I was going to let this go, but on second thought:
    You sit at your computer screen, cherry picking your information, making specious arguments and tossing away Iraqi lives as if they weren’t worth your spit
    I had a good laugh at this. Projection, thy name is Reid. S-factor indeed.
    You won’t get banned for abuse though, it looks like Jeff’s comments civility policy doesn’t apply to war threads.

  • Joe Peden

    Slack, the link you provided says only that you have got some pop-ups off it, which Odierno did not say. Can’t you do better?

  • Doctor Slack

    Joe, are you saying the link isn’t working? If so, try cutting-and-apsting the URL into your browser: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_iraq_012304,00.html
    Here are the salient bits from Odierno:
    Odierno, whose troops are preparing to depart Iraq in several weeks, said that although the former Baath Party loyalists are no longer a major threat, the nature of the anti-American violence could shift, fueled by what he called a nationalistic motive to get U.S. troops to leave.
    He defined the nationalistic threat as being posed by “those that really just want Iraqis to run their own country,” and “elements that are going to try to use Iraqi nationalism to say we need to get the Americans and the coalition forces out of Iraq, and they will continue to attack us.”

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >Very illuminating. When ever they said anything good about the coalition, he was there to tell them they did not know what they were talking about.
    Well then, Capt Joe, why don’t you provide a link to one of those instances so everyone can see that you are not just full of hot air.

  • Sandy P.

    Dr. Slack posted this on a thread below and got me to thinking:
    –The poll which has barely half of Iraqis rating things better now than before the war?–
    So, if either W or the golddigger wins by about 56%, can either side use this for the next 4 years? After all, whoever wins will be by “barely 1/2″…Tho, 56/44ish seems kind of decisive to me, but math was never a strong point.
    Wondering minds want to know to set the terms for the next 4 years of debate.
    I’m getting really tired of the goal posts being moved.

  • Doctor Slack

    Oh, incidentally Joe, I missed this earlier:
    his definition of “quagmire”, which requires that Korea is a quagmire,
    Really? 1,000 or more people per year have been dying in Korea?
    So, if either W or the golddigger wins by about 56%, can either side use this for the next 4 years?
    Let me pose a related question. An early poll in February had Kerry beating Bush by a similar spread, 53% to 46%. In an election those numbers would be decisive, but in demographic terms do you think that shows a populace unambiguously in favour of Kerry? If so, why? If not, why not?

  • Doctor Slack

    In an election those numbers would be decisive
    … should say “those number could be decisive.”

  • Joe Peden

    Slack, obviously, you cannot read, even your own words. Therefore, I suspect you cannot read this.

  • Doctor Slack

    IOW, no response. No surprises there!

  • Joe Peden

    Slack, I’m sure 1000 or more people have been dying in Korea every year. Does this surprise you? But, as you cannot read, I await for McClelland. He might know how to read. But, I don’t know.

  • Doctor Slack

    Slack, I’m sure 1000 or more people have been dying in Korea every year.
    As. A. Result. Of. Armed. Conflict?
    Come on, you can’t really be this dense. I’m asking you if there is an insurgency in South Korea we haven’t been told about. Is there?

  • Joe Peden

    That’s what you said, and you said it was bad.

  • Sandy P.

    –I’m asking you if there is an insurgency in South Korea we haven’t been told about. Is there?–
    Yes, there’s an insurgency, but not using arms. And “we” as in the country like the country would pay attention or “we” who follow this in the blogosphere?

    I see your point if you break it down electorally. My poll showed W @ 58%, BTW.
    So, what would you consider “decisive” so “we” can discuss from the same standpoint?

  • Doctor Slack

    That’s what you said, and you said it was bad.
    I said there was an ongoing armed conflict with insurgents in South Korea? Where?
    Yes, there’s an insurgency, but not using arms.
    Sorry, what do you mean by this?
    So, what would you consider “decisive” so “we” can discuss from the same standpoint?
    It’s not clear whether you’re asking about the Kerry-Bush analogy or the Iraq poll at this point. Please clarify.

  • Doctor Slack

    Oh, and I meant: “we” who follow this in the blogosphere?

  • Reid

    “what more deleterious fallout”
    Slacker-moron:
    So, the WTC destroyed and 3000 American citizens dead (could’ve been 50,000) isn’t enough for you? You think invading Iraq is going to spawn more terrorists than the putative (and widely accepted in the Arab-Islamic world) deaths of millions due to sanctions?
    There is no use arguing with you. You revel in your ignorance. You don’t even know when you’ve been soundly thrashed in an argument. You are not worth any more of my time.

  • Doctor Slack

    So, the WTC destroyed and 3000 American citizens dead (could’ve been 50,000) isn’t enough for you?
    Do you think the WTC was enough for the terrorists?
    And this is intriguing in another way. You’re now arguing that the Iraq War was, in fact, capitulation to the terrorists? You’re arguing that now that the Iraq War has occurred, no terrorists could possibly be planning large-scale attacks on the States?
    Well, in a way, I think you’re right about the first point. Iraq shifted America’s political liabilities in the ME from “Israel + bases in Saudi Arabia” to “Israel + another occupied Arab state,” and it’s pretty clear (given the effect this has had on a burgeoning al Qaeda-inspired terrorist movement) which has been more damaging.
    On the second point, though, I can’t agree. Getting out of Saudi Arabia wasn’t a bad idea in itself… but IMO Bush pretty clearly played into their hands with Iraq, moving in exactly the wrong direction from the status quo. (And he has since spent how much on occupying that country, as opposed to how much on stabilizing Afghanistan, which still isn’t under Karzai’s control? And how much on untested missile systems, as opposed to how much on securing America’s ports?)
    You think invading Iraq is going to spawn more terrorists than the putative (and widely accepted in the Arab-Islamic world) deaths of millions due to sanctions?
    So, I take it you have no response to the Times article about terrorist recruitment. And you think there was absolutely no way to stop killing millions with sanctions without invading Iraq, which means you apparently don’t know what the difference was between economic and military sanctions. You know, you sit here pontificating, with apparently no clue as to what’s happening in the region… ;-)
    You don’t even know when you’ve been soundly thrashed in an argument.
    And you’re still thinking and acting like a 13-year old, more worried about posturing and about who’s kicking who’s a** in the argument than about learning anything from it. You’re going to have to grow out of that to be taken seriously, Reid. Hope you can manage it at some point. Until then… S-factor indeed.

  • Joe Peden

    I’ve got the Slack Boy. Let’s watch him squirm.

  • sagesource

    Watching Americans try to think is funny in a cruel way, like watching a retarded child try to grapple with nuclear physics. Has it occured to none of you that the results of the poll that started this whole argument are largely worthless?
    Iraqis grew up in a society where one word out of line about the Man meant you were in very, very bad trouble. Why do any of you think they’ll give accurate responses to a poll? People who grew up under a totalitarian regime won’t, period. I learned that living in China thirty-odd years ago. What a person says in public, and what they say in private, is radically different. You can be sure that a hefty chunk of those saying the invasion was a good thing think that killing Americans is a good thing too. Only they won’t be saying it to a pollster. Why should they?

  • Doctor Slack

    A fair point.

  • http://1stepahead.typepad.com Aaron

    2,500 in a country of “25 million”, that’s a pretty small sample. And what of the people that see no change or feel MORE unsafe? I wouldn’t mark this in the win column just yet. We