| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:52 pm Poll: Fewer than half think U.S. will win in Iraq |
|
| Quote: |
Poll: Fewer than half think U.S. will win in Iraq
More than half say country should speed up withdrawal
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday indicated fewer than half of Americans believe the United States will win the Iraq war, and 55 percent of those surveyed said it should speed up withdrawal plans.
Only 21 percent said the United States definitely would win the war in Iraq, which began when a U.S.-led coalition invaded in 2003 to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Another 22 percent said they thought the United States probably would win.
Twenty percent of respondents said the United States was capable of winning in Iraq -- but probably would not. And 34 percent said they considered the war unwinnable.
The survey of 818 adults was conducted Friday through Sunday and had a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The results followed others this week that found only 32 percent of those interviewed supported President Bush's handling of the war, 63 percent supported a full or partial withdrawal and and 54 percent favored cutting spending on the conflict to pay for rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. (Full story)
With a large anti-war demonstration planned outside the White House this weekend, Bush said Thursday the United States can lose in Iraq only "if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission."
"Some Americans want us to withdraw our troops so that we can escape the violence," Bush said. "I recognize their good intentions, but their position is wrong. Withdrawing our troops would make the world more dangerous and make America less safe." (Full story)
More than 1,900 American troops have been killed since March 2003, most of them battling a persistent insurgency that followed the collapse of Saddam's government.
With the number of deaths nearing 2,000, 55 percent of those surveyed said they wanted to see the United States intensify efforts to withdraw from Iraq, while 41 percent said they wanted no change in policy.
The increased support for an American withdrawal from Iraq contrasts with the more than two-thirds of those polled who said they believed U.S. troops would leave behind a chaotic situation -- or even civil war.
Only 27 percent said they believed Iraq's fledgling government would be able to maintain order after a U.S. withdrawal, while 68 percent said they believed chaos or civil war would result.
By comparison, as the U.S. death toll in Iraq neared 1,000 in August 2004, only 37 percent favored an expedited withdrawal, and 58 percent supported staying the course.
On Thursday, Bush tried again to portray Iraq as a front on the global war on terrorism that began with the attacks of September 11, 2001, saying a U.S. withdrawal would only embolden terrorists.
He said the United States would pull its troops out only when Iraqi forces were capable of taking control of their own country.
The number of people who said they understood what Americans are fighting for in Iraq has remained nearly steady in the past year.
Of those polled, 67 percent said they understood what the war was all about, and 33 percent said they did not.
The last time the question was asked, in October 2004, 70 percent said they understood what was at stake in the conflict while 28 percent said they did not.
Bush and other officials argued that the invasion was necessary to strip Iraq of chemical and biological weapons and efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.
U.S. inspectors later concluded Baghdad had disarmed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, as required by U.N. resolutions that ended the conflict, though it had concealed some weapons-related research from U.N. monitors.
The president and his allies now argue that U.S. troops are needed to foster the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq and keep the country from becoming a haven for terrorism.
"Together, we'll help Iraq become a strong democracy that protects the rights of its people and is a key ally in the war on terror," Bush said.
A report issued this month by a United Nations panel established to monitor al Qaeda and its associates said the terrorist group is exploiting the situation in Iraq, bringing in recruits from around the world and training them in urban warfare, bomb-making and other terrorist skills. (Full story)
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/22/iraq.poll/index.html
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
|
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:59 pm |
|
Personally I am not surprised. The Bush adminstration fumbled with Katrina (and before anyone argues, I think the enterie government, local and federal, messed up) and now people are taking a second, slightly harsher look at what is happening in Iraq.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:19 pm |
|
This is a prime example of the improper use of polling and statistics.
Where was "winning the war" or "losing the war" defined?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:34 pm |
|
^Statistics are certainly not a great way to convey fact. However, it does strike me that the country is loosing faith in Bush (And I do know that that is a very broad and generalized statement).
I will also admit to the fact that I didn't read the entire article.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:46 pm |
|
| TrekkieMage wrote: | ^Statistics are certainly not a great way to convey fact. However, it does strike me that the country is loosing faith in Bush (And I do know that that is a very broad and generalized statement).
I will also admit to the fact that I didn't read the entire article. |
I don't think that they're losing faith in Bush. I think that it's that they have cautions about the way the Iraq war is going and all the hurricanes, that's all. I think that his poll numbers will actually go up, thanks to his great speech last week.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:39 pm |
|
The war in Iraq is definatly a big point in Bush's polls, as is his administration's reaction to the hurricane. As for his speech, that's just words. All I care about is whether or not he backs those words up with the appropriate actions.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:41 pm |
|
Words change people's minds. 
Plus, the federal government was hardly responsible for the slow response to the hurricane.
Bush is a racist.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:57 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
Bush is a racist. |
^
Words definatly help, but I think a lot of people are a little disenchanted with words and want something actually done.
And the federal government wasn't the only group at fault. The entire government, local and federal, failed the people during Katrina. But, hindsight is 20/20.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:05 pm |
|
He's being sarcastic.
Anyhow, we live in a society of whiners.
I'd hate to see how the public today would've held up during World War 2. I can't just hear it "We need to pull out of Germany.", "Hitler didn't have that much to do with Pearl Harbor.", "You're sending our boys to die for nothing.", "Whaaa Whaa"...
The anti-war crowd really just needs to stuff it, sacrafices need to be made. Too many americans today are impatient, loud mouthed, crybabies. (And Cindy Sheehan is at the front of them!)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:14 pm |
|
^I agree fully. My guess is that that is EXACTLY what they would have done. "Hitler wasn't responsible for Pearl Harbor."  They can just, to use Theresa Heinz Kerry's phrase, "stuff it."
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:09 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | The anti-war crowd really just needs to stuff it, sacrafices need to be made. Too many americans today are impatient, loud mouthed, crybabies. (And Cindy Sheehan is at the front of them!) |
I'm not whining. I just don't like the way the country I'm living in is being handled. Besides, WWII is a entirely different thing. It was also before Vietnam- different era.
Also, on a global basis, the rest of the world was practically begging us to help during WWII. Take a look at the global reaction to Iraq. Black and white.
I really am trying to be fair here. I'm not saying this is all Bush's fault, or that we shouldn't be doing something. I just don't agree with the way our entire government has handled the past six years.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:31 am |
|
Do you disagree with removing the Taliban as the "government" of Afghanistan? Do you disagree with the tax cut package which rescued our economy after 9/11? I don't like many of the things the Bush (Jr.) administration has done, but it's oversimplifying to to say "the entire country" has been mis-handled for 6 years.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:06 pm |
|
I know it is a broad statement, and thus I am likely to be missing a few good points in the Bush administration's term. And I will admit that we have done some decent things. But by and large I don't like how things have turned out.
Most of what I am saying when I talk abou the 'entire government' is that I don't like the fact that all three branches of our government are conservative. I also wouldn't like it if all three of them were liberal. They are designed as checks and balances, and now that they are all tilted to one side of the political spectrum, it makes me really uneasy.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:26 pm |
|
The court's still liberal.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:30 pm |
|
The people are stupid, because the war has already been won... 
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:57 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | The court's still liberal. |
I've been trying to find out more information on the political slant of the current Justices. Here's what I found:
Liberal tilt: 3
Conservative tilt: 1
Centrist: 1
Unknown: 2
Open: 1
Keep in mind that Sandra Day O'Connor (centrist) is planning on retiring soon, which opens up another spot. If all unaccounted for political opinions took a liberal stance it would be
Liberal: 7
Conservative: 2
If they took a conservative stance:
Liberal: 3
Conservative: 6
So yeah. It could go either way right now. Which still makes me nervous.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:00 pm |
|
Well, a Conservative originalist court iss better than a liberal activist one.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:01 pm |
|
Not if both the Executive and Legislative brances are also conservative. Our government is designed to be a system of checks and balances, not one large clump of people from one view point (no matter what that view point is).
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:03 pm |
|
Our government is meant to reflect the votes and views of the people, and the people are in favor of conservatives right now.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:05 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | Our government is meant to reflect the votes and views of the people, and the people are in favor of conservatives right now. |
You are right. And consider this, Trekkie. If, during the next term, a Democrat comes in office, and nominates a person for the court, THEY get a candidate that's lifetime. It's a lifetime thing, not a one-term thing, and so it's really rather irrelivant whether or not all three branches are conservative, because, God forbid, a democrat could get put into office and nominate a liberal.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:11 pm |
|
Yes, I do realize that. And I'm not blaming anyone for the current situation with the three branches. All I'm noting is that the system is not designed to have all three with a majority of the same beliefs. And Bush will more than likely get the opportunity to nominate at least two Justices.
As for the people's choice, I do agree, however the Senate and the Supreme Court are positions you must be nominated for, not voted into.
I'm not saying it's a permement situation, it's just scary to me that we've put ourselves in this situation. And it's not because it's the conservatives, I'd be just as concerned if the liberal's got this much control.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 pm |
|
Uh, no. The Senate and Representatives in the house ARE voted on by the people. The judges are the unelected and unnacountable branch, and conservatives are more originalist, which means that a conservative court is better than an activist liberal court. And again, the balance of power WILL chance over time.
And I don't find it scary. Nor do I find that it was unintended by the Founders.
And besides, Roberts isn't that conservative.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:19 pm |
|
I would prefer a court that isn't considered either conservative, or liberal . I don't like the idea of judges having a political agenda no matter what it may be.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:06 pm |
|
In that case, you want conservative judges.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:11 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | I would prefer a court that isn't considered either conservative, or liberal . I don't like the idea of judges having a political agenda no matter what it may be. |
Same. But inevitably, a pattern will emerge in how certain judges vote. Personally I like Sandra Day O'Connor's approach the best. She is very meticulus (spelling?) about how she votes.
RM- The Senate is voted on by the Representatives. The people don't vote for them. At least that's what I thought I saw in my textbook. There is a chance that I might be remebering it wrong. And I know that the balance of power will change. I just hope it changes to even out, rather than tilt more to one side of the political spectrum.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
