Maybe I’m nuts…
Published by Mike Stark March 23rd, 2006 in Hugh HewittI’ve got to provide some context for this one.
Immediately previous to taking my call, Hewitt ran some audio of Bush doing a town hall in West Virginia. He ran two clips: in the first George Bush talked about the wonderful job he and Congress was doing in providing the troops with everything they need… the second clip was audio of Bush talking about alternative media and their role in getting out the larger message. He said something about a free media being integral to the American way - that if we were to limit it, we’d be like the taliban…
The cynicism of his answers made me vomit in my mouth. You’ll hear why in the first part of my call. You’ll also notice that Hugh blew it off and engaged me elsewhere.
Anyway, you’ll hear that I DO think the Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are under occupation. I don’t think the evidence leaves any doubt… Sure, you will find certain populations that are happier without Saddam around to torment them and prevent them from forcing their women into the chador, but thet’s exactly the point, isn’t it? (OK, as Hugh astutely points out, the Kurds and the marsh Arabs maybe not so much… but that’s today - let’s see where we are in 2,3 or 10 years…)
Anyway, here’s some poll data:
From 2004: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22403-2004May12.html
From 2005: http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
Most striking data point (to me, at least):
- 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
I also use a Abraham Lincoln example in this call… Everyone is going to jump on me for making an argument of moral equivalency, but screw ‘em… I’m not defending rape rooms or torture - I’m defending the leader of a country that did what he had to do to keep his society from degenerating into civil war… I’m not sure Hussein had many choices when it came to putting down revolts.
My next post (a Hannity call) deals with similar substance, so I’m going to leave it here for now…
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Mike, (just wanted to say that I’m a dumbass…)
(As you noted, the first link indicates that) your poll is from 2004
Here are several other 2004 polls you ignored.
However, 61 percent of respondents said Saddam’s ouster made it worth the hardships they had endured.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/29/iraq.poll/
Optimism is strong that Iraq can make progress in rebuilding its country and economy, provided aid pledges are met
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3851153.stm
(Like I said, I’m a dumbass, so I can’t really explain why this link is relevant. Here’s the lede:
Jeez… it’s dark in here… kinda stinky… like half digested corn and peanuts… where the hell is my head?)
More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent,
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
I think you should use something more current than a 2 year old poll. But I dont really expect much from you Mike anyways. At least these other 2004 polls contradict your one 2004 poll which oddly enough “The new polling data, which have not been publicly released.” Still you try to make a point and use 2 year old data. Pretty sad. All I have done here is show that even using your two year old data, there are more polls that contradict your one polls findings.
Mike what law school let you in? Just curious.
The women are being forced back into the store? Or whatever you said?
Where is your source and reference for this?
“I can’t quote you where I have seen the report.”
Why the fuck should we believe anything you fucking say? I am tired of this crap. You should not be allowed on the air if this is the best you can do.
How about this story?
“The women — mothers, widows, divorcees and housewives — have joined the army despite death threats by insurgents and cultural taboos discouraging Muslim women from joining the military.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-07-24-iraq-women_x.htm
Life in Iraq for a Woman under Saddam
“Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of “Fedayeen Saddam,” the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam’s eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families’ doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim’s head on their outside fences for several days.”
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
I am sick and tired of your misinformation. YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT. OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE US ARMY AND US MARINES FIGHT AND DIE TO ALLOW YOU TO SIT YOUR UNEMPLOYED BUTT AT HOME AND SPEW LIES. WHAT A DISGRACE.
Mr. Stark,
Based upon your phone conservation with Professor Hewitt, I would like to pose several questions to you and fellow readers of this blog. During your conservation, you cited Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution (1) which, for the most part, states you put it, “no law can be any higher than Islamic Law.” I believe this is a quintessential question currently challenging Coalition and Iraqi and Afghani diplomats, lawmakers, religious leaders, etc. The challenge I refer to is the cultural and religious clash between Islamic societies centered on Islamic Law and western societies centered on democratic ideals which, to some degree, separate church and state. The War on Terror has brought considerable notice to this historical problem at home (in the United States and Great Britain) and abroad. Touching on this conflict, today, Dan Abrams, host of the Abrams Report on MSNBC, ran a story of man in Afghanistan facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity. (2) President Bush mentioned this dilemma and his concern over the matter in a recent speech discussing the War on Terror. (3) Is this clash between cultural and ideologies a potential source and/or foundation for the developing crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan?
With this mind Mr. Stark, you mentioned that you believe Iraq is in a worse predicament than when Saddam Hussein was in power (Correct me if my phraseology misrepresented your opinions). Do you feel my posed question is relevant to your feelings of despair concerning developments in Iraq and potentially Afghanistan? Or, did you intend your comment to serve as vehicle to critique the Bush Administration? Or, does the War on Terror offer a “mixed bag” of results brining freedom for Iraqi people, but unleashing culture tension that was dammed up during the reign of Saddam Hussein?
(1) Constitution: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450_pf.html
(2) Death Penalty (not Abram’s link): http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=622169
(3) International Pressure: http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/03/c2c596c8-d8fa-46cf-ba2b-30f63e3630e4.html
What the fuck?? (I still can’t see! Everything’s so brown and stinky… Head feels squeezed…)
Mike you have totally changed my first post. (Jeez, if I had any sense, I’d realize that when I play in somebody elses back yard, I shouldn’t be shitting in the shrubbery. Debate is fine, but acting like a dick has its consequences.)
You know, I have been an insincere whiny-ass titty-baby pretty much since I first showed up on this blog… When I’m not fondling little boys while wanking myself, disrupting the comments on this blog is my favorite activity.
Oops again…
man, I just can’t think straight… the I just reread my post about fondling little boys, and, well, it sent me all-a-dither… I’m gonna go rub one out for those MARINES I fetishize, but would never dare join…
I was a supporter of what you do Mike. I have been reading what chuck 2 has written and I thought some of it was over the line but that he did make some good points. I think it is very childish and disturbing what you are writing in chuck’s name. I know from chuck’s previous writing he would not write something like the above posts. I thought you were above such comments and actions.
(man, I really hope Mike doesn’t notice that this comment came from the same IP and host that all of Chuck’s comments came from!! But it’s my duty… Since I’m the little boy Chuck is always fondling, I must defend him… he’s promised me a fire truck if I’m a good boy and don’t tell…)
Here’s what the wingnuts want both ways:
25 million people freed in Iraq. Yet ignore that 1/3 of them (the Sunnis) weren’t really oppressed by Saddam and 1/3 had autonomy from Saddame (the Kurds).
Al-Zarqawi is an Al Queda operative allowed to operate freely in Iraq. Don’t mention that that area was northern area controlled by the autonomous Kurds.
Saddam was a brutal dictator, and jailed the innocent. Oh, but he let everyone out of the prisons to create chaos. Guess even brutal dictators have criminal elements that get locked up.
Saddam may have been the political equivalent of a bullet in the chest of Iraq. Yanking out the bullet with a pair of plyers may have done more damage than leaving it in for surgical removal later. We may have ended up killing whatever Iraq could have been. Turkey and Iran can now begin plans to annex those lands.
Mike:
I don’t know whether or not you are modifying the comments of “Chuck 2″, but if you are, it’s in bad taste.
He’s an ass, but please let everyone draw that conclusion themselves.
-Mick
PS-Love the site, the idea and the work.
Hugh Hewitt is having Ben Domenech edit his new book:
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/03/19-week/index.php#a001677
Next time you call Hugh, I would definitely ask him why he used a plagiarist as an editor. And, why would he associate himself, even professionally, with someone who obviously has seriously unresolved issues. Frankly, I see no distinction between Ben who palugerizes, Claude Allen, the White House aide who was arrested for felony theft, and a pathological liar like Bush and Cheney. There is a continuous course of conduct (personality disorder) between these people.
Thanks for the support Mick.