This is how dumb Simpson thinks the public is.
In January, British and American officials relied on a widespread lack of understanding about Iraq's situation by emphasising the big turn-out of Shia and Kurdish voters (who had everything to gain from a new political deal) and trying to ignore the boycott by Sunnis (who had everything to lose).
Get real John. Everybody on the planet was talking about the effect the Sunni boycott might have, a quick Google search proves that.
Far from relying on a lack of understanding, Bush pushed for the vote to go ahead despite the possible boycott.
Windbag Simpson tries to pour cold water on one of the most momentous occasions in the Middle East.
No one doubts the courage and determination of ordinary people to come out and vote; what's in question is the quality of the politicians they've elected.
Terrorist loving Simpson wants you to forget that the Iraqis haven't had any politicians since the dictator Saddam took over. If we're talking about a question of quality here, look no further than you own George Galloway, Simpson.
And here something to keep an eye on. Have you ever noticed that Simpson always uses a certain left wing US professor to try and bolster his case?
"The American academic Dr Juan Cole draws a comparison with the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland: they used both the Armalite rifle and the ballot-box in their campaign."
One look at Cole's background shows why you shouldn't trust anything John Simpson says.
If you think Simpson can't go any further over the edge, read this:
"The idea that voting necessarily drives out the men of violence is deeply questionable."
Well gee John, don't tell that to the voters of Afghanistan.
Not only is Simpson clueless about Iraq, he's clueless about America as well.
6. Can the US withdraw its troops from Iraq soon?
It will have to, with the mid-term elections coming up in Washington next November.
Not according to the American Public Simpson.
Secondly, it would seem the vast majority of Americans agree with President Bush.
WASHINGTON - A solid majority of Americans oppose immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, citing as a main reason the desire to finish the job of stabilizing the country, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found.
About 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized, while 36 percent favor an immediate troop withdrawal. A year ago, 71 percent of respondents favored keeping troops in Iraq until it was stabilized.
The AP is being a little coy with the numbers here, for further down we read:
In the poll, when people were asked in an open-ended question the main reason the United States should keep troops in Iraq, 32 percent said to stabilize the country and 26 percent said to finish the rebuilding job under way.
Only one in 10 said they wanted to stay in Iraq to fight terrorism; just 3 percent said to protect U.S. national security.
And as someone pointed out:
#1 32 percent said to stabilize the country
26 percent said to finish the rebuilding job
one in 10 [10 percent]said to fight terrorism
3 percent said to protect U.S. national security
*drumroll* So the internals reveal that actually 71% of those questioned see important reasons to remain engaged in Iraq, ie no change since a year ago. Good!
Hmmm. So what's the Democrats policy on Iraq? They don't have any. Hey, those are not my words but Pelosi herself talking.
"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
But that's not true Nancy and you know it. Twice now you Democrats have voted overwhelmingly to keep our troops in Iraq.
Taken together with last month's House vote against immediate withdrawal, the two resolutions were meant to show the troops they have the support of Congress and to force Democrats to take a position.
Pelsoi's response? We have no position.
Now, if both the Republicans and the Democrats don't want to pull the troops out, how in the hell does Simpson come up with "it will have to" pull them out?
Simpson then goes on to wonder if Bush can get his support back.
Once public opinion turns decisively against a war, it never seems to turn back.
First off, public opinion wouldn't have turned against the war if it wasn't for the lying liberal media epitomized by the BBC and the rest of the media faking stories.
Secondly, it would seem Simpson is unaware of the latest polls in America.
Specifically, belief that the United States is making significant progress toward establishing a democratic government in Iraq has jumped dramatically, by 18 points, to 65 percent. A sense of progress in establishing civil order similarly is up, by 16 points, to 60 percent. Each is its best since these questions first were asked in the spring of 2004.
Moreover — in a view held by majorities across party lines — 71 percent of Americans believe the Iraqi elections have moved the United States closer to the day U.S. forces can be withdrawn. Fifty-four percent express optimism about Iraq in the year ahead, eight points more than at this time last year. And 56 percent think the United States is winning the war, a recent theme of the president's, up slightly from 51 percent in August.
And finally, Simpson offers up the most absurd thing I think I've heard him say.
The Iraqi election was a big success for the Iraqi people. Whether it will be a success for President Bush is a great deal less certain.
Where do you start?
If it's a big success for the Iraqi people, who in the hell cares if it's a success for Bush?!? Democracy has been brought to 25 million people who just two years ago were enslaved! Further, this new democracy is in the heart of the Middle East, something unheard of, something that almost everyone said couldn't be done - except George Bush.
Hey John. I thought you said this was Bush's war? If that' your stance and the war is a success, it follows that it's a success for Bush.
Why does anyone listen to this moron and why do we have to pay the BBC to hire him?