Our opinions and advice to the world. Updated whenever we get around to it.


Not only do I hate The Globe And Mail but I've also come to hate their readership.

Today's poll question is:
Do you think the Bush administration's aggressive Middle East policies have had a net positive effect on the entire region?
The results so far are 34% saying yes with 66% saying no.

Are these people so blinded by their hatred of G.W. Bush and the United States that they would rather have the people of the Middle East live according to the whims of their local dictator?

They should be ashamed of themselves.


Anonymous said...

I think this disturbing poll points to a couple of things:
Short term it simply underlines that we have left-wing coverage of the ME events in the MSM.
Longer term we are experiencing the impact of years of left-wing groupthink in academia plus MSM, which I think shows up in this tilted survey in the 416 area code. These people haven’t even heard of the Western Standard. You can imagine what a survey in Quebec would show.

For a bit of perspective , remember in the US elections in Nov, 48% didn’t think much of Bush and his agenda. So maybe that’s the number that should be compared to the 70% in this survey who are still blinded by their anti-Americanism. The 52% that voted Republican had a leader who tried his best to explain things to them – we haven’t got that – yet.

Also , I was a bit shocked that Peter Mansbridge has written a column in McLean’s that hints that Bush might have been right. So some people can change when given a new set of facts.

We have to try and stay calm and just keep pushing the information through these Blog channels . It works , for example, I still think the Swift Boat Veterans had a significant impact through blogs by nailing Kerry for what he really is – their Mr Dithers. Americans came close to voting him into the White House – thank God they didn’t.


Hector said...

Hmm..well, I'd say it's difficult to say what the spillover effect has been.

I mean, America's best friends in the Region are Saudi Arabia and Egypt right? So, there no reform happening there.

The net effect on Iraq thus far seems to be worse.

Israel seems pretty content, but that may be the fence/wall they've build together with Bush's promise that the old line will have to be redrawn.

Everyone (CIA, CSIS, Mossad) is pretty much in agreement that it has created more terrorists and terrorism than it has stopped, so that's a big negative.

And if you look at how they handled Iraq, versus say North Korea, if I'm an Iranian Mullah I'm thinking the only thing that'll keep me safe from Bush is a nuclear warhead.

So, you know, on the balance of things, I lean towards worse, but give it another two years and maybe it will be different.

The Tiger said...

What matters is history's judgment. Do you think the same crowd would have had anything good to say about Reagan, as late as 1988? Doubtful.

Anonymous said...

“And if you look at how they handled Iraq, versus say North Korea, if I'm an Iranian Mullah I'm thinking the only thing that'll keep me safe from Bush is a nuclear warhead.”

Which pretty much proves the point – take out the despots as fast as we can before they can hold us to ransom. Clearly appeasement of SA and Egypt hasn’t worked. The falling price of WMD and the shrinking globe makes proliferation inevitable, particularly by failed regimes that have access to oil funds. We need to stop it. Any non-democratic country can’t be allowed to have its dictators have nuclear weapons. They either democratize or we’re going to have to take them down at the most opportune moment.