How awesome would it be if they didn't arrest her, just left her there.
See how long it takes her to get so sore from not moving that she has to untie herself.

Let me be the first to wish you a very merry Fitzmas!

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops

And see here.

And here:

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country . . . .

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
* Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
* 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
* less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
* 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
* 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
* 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq . . . .

[The reconstruction effort] appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.

Too true, lauraw. I'm guessing she has the attention span of a ground squirrel.

I suspect she and her followers would make an increasing amount of ruckus until the authorities felt obliged to arrest her, but at least that would mar her turn on the stage (this time).

Tubino! That's unusually and impolitely off-topic for you. I don't think I've seen you take a dump at the beginning of a totally unrelated thread before.

Up all night trying to catch a glimpse of Fitzy Claus, were we?

What next for ms sheehan and her weird bunch its just like what happened back during the vietnam war someone who lived in our northern calfornia community was going to protest the war by going up on MT SHASTA but did,nt know what kind of weather are generated on these moutians why dont she sit on the train tracks outside some munitions plant like that idiot who had his legs cut off by a train did a few years back

" I'm guessing she has the attention span of a ground squirrel."

Whether you agree with her or not, she has already shown a longer political commitment to the war- opposed or supporting -- than most Americans.

I think she has a longer attention span than Bush. Regarding Osama bin Laden, how long did it take for him to go from Dead or Alive to "I don't think about him much"?

Tubino:

If you're going to continue to spew lengthy, off-topic comments all over innocent threads, I'm going to call for your banning. It's rude and unproductive.

geoff, you just can't DEAL WITH REALITY.

I'm not the least convinced her commitment has anything to do with the war, or her son. At least, it may have begun in sincerity, but it has become something else again. Her interview with Ira "This Guy's a Dick" Flatow spent the last of my sympathies.

"That's unusually and impolitely off-topic for you."

Arg, I meant to put in a TIE-IN with Sheehan, which wouldn't be hard to do with either the Fitzmas bit or that we still get so little of the truth about Iraq... I'm sure you all can fill in.

No, I don't agree with everything Sheehan says, but isn't it interesting that when a significant portion of the country opposes the war (and always did if no WMD), there is virtually no representation for them in the MSM? Besides Howard Dean, and a handful of Bush 1 -era conservatives, who on the US political stage has consistently opposed the war?

I second the bannination of tubino if he's going to go off-topic right off the bat with one of his million-word "Chimpy is Evil!" screeds.

tubino, here's a thought: post this shit on your own blog, and just hyperlink it. Do us (and Ace's bandwidth) a favor. Otherwise...well, it's up to Ace to say, but you're treading upon dangerous ground. You may yet enjoy the fruits of bannination.

No, no...you can't banninate tubino until after Fitzmas.

Golly gee, what an outright shocker that "Tubino" showed up almost the same hour Cedarford got banned. And goodness gracious, he just won't shut up no matter how foolish he looks.

Yes yes, what a REAAAALLL coincidence.

No matter which name he posts under, he's easily enough ignored.

Arg, I meant to put in a TIE-IN with Sheehan, which wouldn't be hard to do with either the Fitzmas bit or that we still get so little of the truth about Iraq

That's part of the problem - your comments relate everything to everything in some grand conspiratorial synthesis. Impossible to discuss produtively. Sheehan is quite adequate as a standalone topic, without bringing in Plamegate or Iraqi polls.

geoff,
One place I think Sheehan is right is that we were lied into this war. I think it just might turn out that Fitzgerald uncovers some of this. (And here's a reminder from TWO YEARS AGO that Judith Miller and the NYT failed to confront their own fabrications.)

I think the unpopularity of the US in Iraq is something predictable from US mishandling of the occupation, but I wonder if it could ever have worked, too, given the foundation of lies. You know my take on the $$$ side. ;)

bbeck, I don't think an anti-Semite of Cedarford's intensity would be able to keep it in check for this long. tubino seems much, much, much calmer and saner.

tubino and Cedarford = not the same person. If you ask me.

You have got to be some fantastic kind of idiot to think we were "lied" into this war.

Judith Miller was not the source of WMD intel (an assertion so stupid I feel stupid having to refute it), and WMD were never the sole justification for the war in the first place.

http://instapundit.com/archives/022447.php

"That's part of the problem - your comments relate everything to everything in some grand conspiratorial synthesis."

If I want to make the case that Sheehan's claim (lied into war) is right, then it inevitably involves the MSM's role in pushing out the WH line -- and there we go again, with uranium claims, Judith Miller...

It's not about a conspiracy. But I'm sorry that it appears I was dumping stuff off-topic. I will try hard not to do it anymore.

Knemon, I disagree. To me it's Same $hit, Different Topics. Either way, it's doesn't matter. Even accepting your posistion, he's an idiot, too.

She vows that this time photos of her being hauled away by beefy stripper/cops will reveal her crotchless panties

Ooh. Just what I want to see, fifty year old crotch.

Tubino:

1. Your source does not say that Judith Miller fabricated anything.

2. Not very many people here particularly care what appeared in the NYT - it has been no friend to conservatives. Since shortly after 9/11, conservatives have had more of propensity to mock the NYT than use it as a source.

3. I would think that after the release of the Downing Street Memos, the left would finally have given up on the "Bush lied" meme. I'd actually be willing to discuss the "Bush was incompetent" meme if it wasn't so often a cover for the "Bush liked" meme.

4. The real story here is not whether Sheehan contributes anything to the debate on the justification for the war - she obviously does not. The interest from our perspective is: a) how low is she willing to stoop, and b) when will the left wake up and defrock her?

benjamin says,
Judith Miller was not the source of WMD intel

not the source, but the best mouthpiece.

WMD were never the sole justification for the war in the first place.

Never said it was, but Wolfowitz said it was the justification most thought could be used. It ws the justification that the polls said the public could get behind. And it was the justification that was PUSHED HARD. smoking gun = mushroom cloud???

http://instapundit.com/archives/022447.php

Ah yes, a fine fine point made there. In order to promote democracy, the US played UN hardball to try to get democratically elected politicians to act in defiance of the majority will of their country. That's the spirit!

The Bush admin heaped praise on those politicians (e.g. Spain) who did in fact defy the will of their country.

Jeez. What kind of pro-democracy action is that?

The US actions in Iraq are not consistent with promoting democracy there either.

The MSM's sole role in pushing out the WH line was focusing on the WMDs and ignoring the UN resolutions and Iraqi democracy components from the get-go.

The MSM is responsible for "dumbing down" the pre-war justification from the beginning. That includes obsessing on the WMD angle, as well as the mythical Saddam-Osama link.

"Fitzmas?"

Once again, the left cannot seem to tell the difference between someone else's misfortune and their own popularity. It's not a zero-sum game. Bush's unpopularity doesn't automatically translate into luuuv for the Dems.

Especially when you come up with stupid shit like "fitzmas."

Judith Miller was not the source of WMD intel

not the source, but the best mouthpiece

Meanwhile, the rest of us who don't read the NYT were probably more convinced by this:

http://kurdistan.org/Multimedia/Iraq.jpg

Bean-O:

Let me break it down for you this way.

Let's say that you have a cute sister whom I'd like to bang like a bongo drum (Iraq). I tell you that she has expressed a desire to get rogered by me (as far as I know, it's the truth). I happen to know for a fact that your sister puts out because she has in the past (Saddam gassed the Kurds and has been bragging about his chem/bio/nuc plans for years). I am the horny swain who wants to bang your sister (the United States does not want Saddam to have WMD for all kinds of reasons),a nd you are the protective brother (the UN).

Now, we both know your sister is a slut. But you, as a protective brother, are embarassed both by her whore-like ways and by your own inability to stop her. So it is in your own interests to stand up for her honor and prevent me from nailing her -- not because of her best interests, but because you don't want to look foolish.

Now, let's say I ignore your objections and put the blocks to your slut of a sister anyhow. It turns out that although she talked about spreading for me to all her friends and neighbors, she wasn't serious about it. She just neglected to tell anyone about her intentions, so as far as anyone knew, she was waiting for my Love Missile. And once I arrived with my Stand-Up Man all afluster, she as overcome with joy and spread for me anyway.

She got what she wanted (Iraq got rid of a muderous dictator and a repressive regime). I got what I wanted (the US made sure that Iraq will not obtain WMD's). The only person who didn't get what they wanted is you (the UN was shown to be, well, worthless). And the only reason you're pissed is because you're embarassed and your own ineffectiveness.

Have I explained the situation in terms you can understand, Bean-O?

geoff said: "The interest from our perspective is: a) how low is she willing to stoop, and b) when will the left wake up and defrock her?"

geoff, guess what: Sheehan filled a vacuum, at least for a while, and for better or worse gave a face and voice to the antiwar crowd where there was no face or voice.

She's a distraught mom who lost her kid. When the right got through sliming her, there were still a few tens of million more ordinary people who still opposed the war, and there still are. I don't find her fascinating, the best spokesperson, or someone to defrock.

She's an ordinary person who is against the war. There are millions and millions of people who share that trait. Some might be better spokespersons in some regards.

I shouldn't have said Judith fabricated. She herself admitted she saw her role as transmitting the points made by her sources, and it seems increasingly likely those sources were in WHIG.

I am not shocked to learn that conservatives have trouble recognizing the role the NYT played in promoting the war. Well tough shit. The NYT promoted the war, and was way out front with the WMD stories. Judy couldn't have done it without her editors. Deal with it.

No one knows how far the WH payment-to-journalist program went. For all I know that might come out too in the Fitzgerald investigation. It certainly appears that a high number of stories were placed to switch the official story from "Iraq is contained" to "Iraq poses a deadly threat," and it was only because a significant portion of the US populace was convinced of that, that the invasion had the support it did.

And last I heard, a majority still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11. That doesn't happen by accident.

geoff, guess what: Sheehan filled a vacuum, at least for a while, and for better or worse gave a face and voice to the antiwar crowd where there was no face or voice.

Let's examine Cindy's voice:

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. "

"When I was growing up, it was 'Communists'. Now it's 'Terrorists'. So you always have to have somebody to fight and be afraid of, so the war machine can build more bombs, guns, and bullets and everything. "

"And I know I don't look like I'm outraged, I'm always so calm and everything, that's because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop til it was dead."

"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power."

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel"

So you're saying these statements accurately capture the opinions of those who are against the war?

That includes obsessing on the WMD angle, as well as the mythical Saddam-Osama link.

You mean the "mythical" Saddam-9/11 link.

There was definitely a link between Osama and Saddam. On the second page of the above link:

We do know, however, that there was [a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.] We know about this relationship not from Bush administration assertions but from internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents recovered in Iraq after the war--documents that have been authenticated by a U.S. intelligence community long hostile to the very idea that any such relationship exists.

We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

There's lots more there, and I have links to at least three more articles like this. I even have New York Times article excerpts about a Saddam-Osama link from the Clinton years, when the NYT wasn't interested in trying to oust a President.

There is no overwhelming proof of a Saddam-9/11 link, but a federal judge decided that there was a proponderance of evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Enough to win a lawsuit, which isn't saying much these days.

"preponderance"

Pardon me.

Sue, Stephen Hayes is a fraud. Give it up. Even President Bush admitted there is no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. Got it? You're citing a crank.

Murrow asks, "So you're saying these statements accurately capture the opinions of those who are against the war?"

Talking to me? I already addressed it:

"No, I don't agree with everything Sheehan says..."

and later

"She's an ordinary person who is against the war. There are millions and millions of people who share that trait. Some might be better spokespersons in some regards."

She an ordinary person, not a professional spokesperson. Maybe she cheats at bingo. Who cares. I'm glad she galvanized a portion of the country, but she's still just one very committed passionate person, not a saint.

Monty's cute little analogy concludes that "She [Iraq] got what she wanted".

Please see my first post about the poll in Iraq.

See what the MSM has done to you? You can't even look at evidence and register it.

Or in the terms of your analogy, My sister wants to kill you and force you out of her house, and you're still kidding yourself that she's happy because of what you did when you busted up her house and started a family feud.

Have I explained it in terms you can understand?

Bean-O:

We have already established that your sister is a slut. We have also established that she has put out in the past, and craves my attentions now (or at least: she has told everyone she does, whether she really meant it or not). I can only go by her past behavior and what she says; I'm not a mind reader.

And you seem only to care what the Sunnis say, in terms of liberation. Don't the Kurds count? How about the Shi'a? Worst case, tens of millions of people are free now who weren't before we invaded; if the Sunnis want to piss and moan about it, you're free to join them.

In a like mannger: Saddam had chem/bio weapons because he used them against the Kurds. We had no reason to doubt him when he bragged that he still had them. His boasts about nuclear power were likewise received with a (perhaps too willing) ear. If we erred, it was in simply believing what he said.

You (and the Left more broadly) are embarassed that you could not prevent this act, nor impose your own will prior to it. You are ineffectual and morally bankrupt, which explains a lot of the shrillness you exhibit now.

And since you are so morally bankrupt, I have spoken my last words to you (at least directly). On the day of your bannination, I will break bread and give thanks.

Res ipsa loquitur.

See what the MSM has done to you?

I'm going to keep repeating this mantra like a fucking parakeet.

Smarten up, sheeple!

Tubino or not tubino? That is the question.

"when you busted up her house and started a family feud."

Isn't a better analogy breaking into the house to rescue his sister from an abusive husband?

We thought the husband had a gun, turns out it was a bar of soap colored black with shoe polish and carved to look like a gun.

She's pissed at us because we killed her husband - sure, he beat the shit out of her, but just because he was scared of losing her, you know? And, in the confusion, we also killed one of her children, and someone -no one's admitting responsibility - broke all her tchotckes (the ones the husband hadn't gotten around to breaking yet) and took a dump on the carpet.

I'm with Monty. Tubino is dead to me.
All he does is link to other asshole's blogs and say "see, see? na na nana na."

He links to the most hardcore, Bush-hating, self-loathing, PETA-loving, Chomsky-worshiping, Ward Churchill apologist, left-wing, joo-despising, blogs on the internet.

It's not funny, anymore. I've heard his tune long enough. Time to change the station.

This will be the last time I ever -- and I mean it this time -- ever, speak to or about that boob.

Tubino,

Methinks you have been reading the wrong sources. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we are over there, are glad that we took out Saddam.

Do you really believe the Iraqis prefer subjugation over liberation?

The only Iraqis complaining are the ones who held the reigns under the old regime.

Do yourself a favor, stop reading the NYT for a couple days. Read some real correspondence from people who are not sitting in the Green Zone. How many military blogs have you read? Do you believe that they are all delusional?

Apparently, you Tubino -- all knowing, all seeing, -- can discern the truth without the benefit of input from actual Iraqis or frontline correspondents.

I suggest that you read Omar, over at Iraq the Model. Not only to get informed opinion on the Iraqi situation (from an actual Iraqi) but also because he discusses the poll you mentioned above.

Try reading Michael Yon's postings from Iraq.

Cindy's next stunt:
Mailing herself to Gen. Tommy Franks' house.

Forget about burning bodies. Cindy's crotchless panties will smoke out the Taliban, and make them beg for forgiveness...

Forget about burning bodies. Cindy's crotchless panties will smoke out the Taliban, and make them beg for forgiveness...

Whoever posted at 7:06pm hit the nail on the head.
When I saw tubinotroll's first post, I was going to link 'Iraq The Model' as well.
The tubinotroll has popped up from under its troll bridge on Ace's site lately, spewing all sorts of lefty propaganda and venom.
But don't ban it yet.
It offers itself as a good punching bag.

Several years ago some protesters came to the town where I work as a police officer, the Chief of Police was away at a conference and a weak kneed liberal was acting in his stead. The protest organizers dictated to him the terms of arrest, that is who would be arrested and how they would be treated. When the time came, the media was alerted and the protesters were gently placed on gurneys and wheeled to a staging area where they were booked and released.
When the "real" Chief returned he was outraged.
As would be expected the protest organizers decided that this was the best place to go for their cause. They got great publicity and they weren't manhandled. (The same group was in New York and found out the hard way that the police are in charge)
The organizers soon made it known that they would be returning. Well this time there were no gurneys, no pre-planning as to who would be arrested. This time there were lots of handcuffs,fingerprinting and photographing and real charges. There were a lot of people staying overnight at the posh jail cells.
These folks have not darkened our doorways since.
The point of this story is that as long as "Mother Sheehan" is gently carried away and treated as a "special case" she will return over and over.
I am not saying that she needs to be mistreated just that she needs to be treated as any other criminal. Book her, charge her, and make her go to court. I am sure that this reality will sink in and she will slink away into oblivion.

It offers itself as a good punching bag.

Bean-O reminds me of the crows the line the barbed-wire fences hereabouts during the winter. They come only to gloat and croak, and to feed off the dead.

He can lurk on Kos or TPM and swim in the bloody water all he wants. I'm sick of him.

Tubino! That's unusually and impolitely off-topic for you.

Weasel:

In a perverse way, I'm looking forward to you having to be polite to Tubby when those obstruction of justice indictments come out.

Only problem for the left is, those indictments won't change the fact that they have no agenda other than "we're not Bush" and "boy, look at those crooked Rethuglicans."

Uh... maybe some of you don't understand the idea of a "poll" or "survey".

People are asked questions, and the answers are tabulated. I linked to the Telegraph's story (which means Bart was wrong when he said "All he does is link to other asshole's blogs") about the poll or survey commissioned by the British military, and conducted by Iraqis. The ones conducting the survey were NOT told it was for the CPA, which was thought to taint the results, IIRC.

You can go read it for yourself. It's not a blog.

It's a news story about a survey. Why is that hard to comprehend?

Here:

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

[...]

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces.

------------------

You don't have to believe it, but to try to refute it by mentioning a blog is kinda silly, you know? Plural of anecote isn't data, or something...

Don't you peasants know that I'm the only person who can try to refute or prove facts by using a blog?

Are you too dimwitted to realize that?

Merry fucking Fitzmas!

I'm with Monty. Tubino is dead to me.

This is my third such vow - I think I need an intervention. I enjoy having assumptions challenged and having foils in discussions, but in this case it has never proven productive.

I, too, am done.

Special for geoff: As I said earlier in your "debunking" of Media Matters, it looks like Wilson was probably right about Cheney.

Not a good idea to take on the CIA, Dick. And you testified under oath last summer to Fitzgerald, Dick. And now Libby's notes...

I read the Iraq The Model blog on the survey. Basically in the absence of details he assumes it was not done scientifically, which allows him to start off by saying he doesn't want to credit or disbelieve it entirely, and then to end by saying to ignore it.

Yet it is entirely possible that the Brits and Iraqis conducted the survey in a solid scientific way. Maybe they knew what they were doing. I don't see any reason to reject that out of hand.

Do you?

And can someone tell me why conservatives are such thin-skinned crybabies? You get confronted with some data and you go bananas. Sheesh. Just GROW UP, will ya?

And can someone tell me why conservatives are such thin-skinned crybabies? You get confronted with some data and you go bananas. Sheesh. Just GROW UP, will ya?

You first.

Yeah, guys, stop going bananas and hijacking every conversation that people might be having about other things. It's like you live in this tiny echo chamber and can't stand the sight of other people getting their way. My name is tubino and I project like a mother fucking AV geek!

A soldiers perspective ...

"Firebrand" is one grunt who is mad as hell over reservists in the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) who refuse to show up for duty.

http://reality-speak.blogspot.com/2005/10/this-hits-too-close-to-home.html

http://reality-speak.blogspot.com/2005/10/i-just-realized-how-serious-this-is.html