NewsMax: Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll

[Barrett808]

Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a solid plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.

Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post.

In stark contrast, 78 percent of Republicans said toppling the mass-murdering leader left everyone better off. Just 10 percent said they wished Saddam still ruled Iraq.

On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent of Democrats say he did.

Seventy-nine percent of Republicans disagreed, however -- saying that Bush gave the American people the best intelligence he had at the time.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/90042.shtml

[Lindacooks]

1. And just how many dems did they ask? I'll bet they faked the whole thing

After all, consider the source. Newsmax LIES.

[bbinacan]

8. Heres's the poll for what it's worth

in pdf. It contains the questions.http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_120105.pdf

[Aimah]

2. They're playing with context.

Iraq is worse off right now than it was under Sadaam but that doesn't mean that Sadaam was good for Iraq. It just means that Bush's plan was ill prepared. The situation could have been handled differently. Bush could have gotten support from the UN and had a much stronger coalition or let diplomacy take hold. He basically ran into a fire with gasoline pants on.

[kevinmc]

3. Newsmax Hates Christmas.........

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2005/12/bill-oreilly-writes-articles-for.html

[Canuckistanian]

4. Playing with words

The question asked was, "Do you think the world is better off with Saddam out of power", which is a loaded and misleading question to begin with.

Now, some Democrats, answering the question would assume that the question meant "Was it a good idea to attack and depose Saddam Hussein", so they'll vote no. Or at least some 40% took it that way.

Looking at it realistically, having Saddam IN power was better for the world in general. Why? Because he kept his own radicals under control and because of the sanctions and the bombing of his weapons facilities, he was not able to attack any other countries. And his power was actually weakening day by day.

Thus, to the world in general, he was no threat. Tough luck for the average Iraqi citizen, but no problem for the rest of the world.

And not even his neighbors considered him a threat either. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Turkey and Iran refused to get involved in the fighting. They had no problem with Saddam. At least not with any major security issues.

So, was the world better with Saddam in power? I'd have to say, on balance, yes.

[fearnobush]

5. Now or soon, Bush will have killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam.

Sad to say - So NewsCrapx who's the tyrant?

[NewHampshireDem]

6. Wait, wait ..

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Ah, let me catch my breath ... oh no!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Whew ... not again!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Now here's a credible news agency.

May as well be reported by Hannity or Limbaugh.

[DinahMoeHum]

9. Newsmax is a very questionable source, along with Capitol Hill Blue

and WorldNet Daily.

Take anything from these guys with several grains of salt.

:evilfrown: