FOX News Poll Gives Interesting Insights

The latest Opinion Dymics poll commissioned by FOX News has some good news for President Bush, but more importantly the details in the poll provide some insight into the political opposition in America.

The poll shows that 52% of those polled responded that the world would be worse off and 59% responded that Iraq would be worse off if Saddam were still in power. Look into the numbers, however, and a startling number jumps out: 41% of Democrats believe the world would be BETTER OFF with Saddam in power (interestingly, only 29% of Democrats believe that Iraq would be better off). The time has come for Republicans and supporters of this military action to challenge Democrats on this belief. If (1) Saddam did not possess WMD, (2) the U.S. was unjustified in going into Iraq to remove Saddam, and (3) the world would be better off with Saddam in power, then the people who believe this should be called on to demand the only logical remedy: the U.S. should leave Iraq and reinstate Saddam to power immediately. Perhaps a vote on a Congressional resolution is now in order:

It is the sense of the House of Representatives and the Senate that (1) the Iraqi government under the regime of Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD, (2) the United States was mistaken and unjustified in taking military action against the Iraqi regime and (3) the world would be better off with the regime of Saddam Hussein in power, and therefore, the deployment of United States forces in Iraq should be terminated and the regime of Saddam Hussein reinstated to power as soon as practical.

With Saddam's continued insistence on his rightful claim to the Iraqi presidency and the constant complaints from the left about the justifications for and consequences of the war, this should be an easy vote for Congress.

UPDATE: I suggest we replace number (3), which is only supported by 41% of Dems, with "80% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq."

Jimmy Breslin to Hillary: Send Your Daughter to Iraq

Okay, I admit that this drives me crazy.

Jimmy Breslin has a column in New York Newsday in which he attacks Hillary Clinton (rightly) from the left, but the points he makes are surely familiar to us on the right (e.g., she is avoiding staking out a clear position or trying to have it both ways on Iraq). Breslin, like so many others on the left, cannot help tossing in the usual nonsensical, anti-war challenge: "If Hillary Clinton wants this war to go on, then she should send her daughter to fight in Iraq."

Once again, I ask, how would Hillary Clinton go about doing this, anyway? As I and many others have previously pointed out, Breslin's challenge is patently ridiculous:

The left seems to have missed that post-draft we have an all-volunteer armed force, so I do not have the ability to send my son or anyone else anywhere. Nor does any other parent. My son can decide to go or not go by volunteering for service, but I cannot send him or stop him from going if he so chooses. That is what an all-volunteer armed force means. All persons wishing to test this should try thinking about how they would "send" or "take" their adult son or daughter ANYWHERE (e.g., college, a concert or even the barber) against their will. Is that really so hard to understand for Mrs. Sheehan and the left? Perhaps they prefer the old mentality that people in the army are forced to be there, and those who are not were saved from forced conscription by their families. A large portion of the left appears to be unable to side with those in the military unless they are first reduced to victim status. I do not believe that most enlisted men and women see themselves as victims.

Perhaps one day, someone will be able to explain this to the left.