Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War

[NoCalMike 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050608/...iew_of_iraq_war

 

Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane, Washington Post Staff Writers

Wed Jun 8, 1:00 AM ET

 

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

 

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

 

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

 

Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.

 

Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

 

There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

 

The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis died in May alone amid a rash of bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorists. By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.

 

The dissipating support for the Iraq war is of potential military concern, because, as Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis wrote in a note to his troops as he led them back into Iraq in February 2004, "our friendly strategic center of gravity is the will of the American people."

 

Some authorities on war and public opinion said the figures indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has reached a dangerous level. "It appears that Americans are coming to the realization that the war in Iraq is not being won and may well prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor at Boston University. "That conclusion bleeds over into a conviction that it may not have been necessary in the first place."

 

That is the view of poll respondent Margaret Boudreaux, 63, a casino worker living in Oakdale, La. "I don't think it's going well -- there's too much killing," she said, worrying that the Iraq invasion could move more enemies to violence. "I think that some of the people, if they could, would get revenge for what we've done."

 

"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden. I don't think he [bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . . He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse. "People are getting through airport security with things that are unbelievable. . . . I don't think he learned from 9/11."

 

While Bush has shelved his routine speeches about terrorism, and Congress has turned to domestic issues, fear of terrorism has receded from the public consciousness. Only 12 percent called it the nation's top priority, behind the economy, Iraq, health care and Social Security.

 

The drop in Bush's approval ratings on fighting terrorism came disproportionately from political independents. In March, 63 percent of independents approved of Bush's job combating terrorism. By April this had fallen to 54 percent. And in this weekend's survey, 40 percent gave him good marks.

 

The poll suggests that views on the Iraq war's impact also remain highly partisan. Three in four Republicans said the Iraq invasion has boosted domestic security, while three in four Democrats said it has not. Political independents lean negative on the issue: About six in 10 said the war has not made Americans safer.

 

Overall, Bush's 48 percent job approval rating was essentially unchanged from the 47 percent rating he received in a late-April poll. And there was growth in the proportion of people who said the economy was doing well: 44 percent, up from 37 percent in April.

 

But the public took a generally gloomy view of the White House and Congress. A plurality said Bush is doing worse in his second term than in his first, and 58 percent said he is not concentrating on the things that matter most to them -- the worst showing Bush has had in this measure in Post-ABC polls.

 

Congress fared no better. The proportion of the public disapproving of the legislative body was at its highest since late 1998, during President Bill Clinton's impeachment. More people said they would look at a candidate other than their sitting representative than at any point in nearly eight years. For the first time since April 2001, Democrats (46 percent) were trusted more than Republicans (41 percent) to cope with the nation's problems. But at the same time, favorability ratings for the Democratic Party, at 51 percent, tied their all-time low.

 

A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone June 2 to 5 for this Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

 

The poll also found disapproval or division when it came to Bush's performance on several other recent, high-profile issues. One-third of those surveyed approved of the way Bush is handling federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, while 55 percent disapproved. The public was divided on the president's handling of judicial nominations, with 46 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. And half said they were opposed to drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a proposal backed by Bush and being debated in Congress.

 

But the most striking trend identified by the survey was the spreading impatience over Iraq and national security matters. While six in 10 were confident that the United States was not violating the rights of detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Americans were more skeptical that the government is protecting the rights of U.S. citizens at home. Only half said Americans' rights were being adequately protected, down from 69 percent in September 2003.

 

James Burk, a sociologist at Texas A&M University, said disillusionment about Iraq may have grown to the point that policymakers will have difficulty reversing it. "People all across the country know people in Iraq [so] there's a direct connection to the war," he said. Burk sees a "disjuncture" between upbeat administration rhetoric and realities the public perceives. "These data suggest we will soon reach the point, if we haven't yet reached the point, where that kind of language will seem too out of touch."

 

Polling director Richard Morin contributed to this report.

 

* * *

 

Of course, all this means nothing if the Democrats don't show good opposition or any plans for the future, or are too scared to criticize the next time elections roll around, because quite frankly, if 2004 showed us anything, people will vote for someone with plans they don't necessarily like over someone who doesn't really have a plan.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

This would be a good time to start attacking people for being anti-american. Since the military is having a hard time rounding up new recruits this should be a good indicator of just how behind this war americans really are.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Of course, all this means nothing if the Democrats don't show good opposition or any plans for the future, or are too scared to criticize the next time elections roll around, because quite frankly, if 2004 showed us anything, people will vote for someone with plans they don't necessarily like over someone who doesn't really have a plan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course people don't vote for people who don't have alternatives. They just appear like they hate the status quo but provide no initiative to change it. I think the Dems are doomed for 2006 if they keep stonewalling Social Security reform, alternative energy reform, and Bolton's nomination. Hell, if I were Bush I'd let them filibuster everything and then run TONS of advertisements with the GOP's money in '06 to paint them all as obstructionists.

[NoCalMike 0]

This would be a good time to start attacking people for being anti-american. Since the military is having a hard time rounding up new recruits this should be a good indicator of just how behind this war americans really are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well except the fact that most polls show Americans on the Democrat's side of the fillibuster issue, and other buzz issues such as not sticking their noses in issues such as terry schiavo.

[SuperJerk 0]

Of course people don't vote for people who don't have alternatives.  They just appear like they hate the status quo but provide no initiative to change it.  I think the Dems are doomed for 2006 if they keep stonewalling Social Security reform, alternative energy reform, and Bolton's nomination.  Hell, if I were Bush I'd let them filibuster everything and then run TONS of advertisements with the GOP's money in '06 to paint them all as obstructionists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a very astute observation.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Bumping this thread up a bit but I wanted to hear an opposing view to what this guy had to say. The picture he is talking about is shown in the link.

 

 

http://eightballmagazine.com/diatribes/volume02/032/656.htm

 

 

 

Reality tends to freak Conservatives out

"I'm Juxtaposing" by Eightheadz, creator of 8BM.com

 

Reality tends to freak conservatives out. I don’t know why. I am not conservative. You would have to ask them.

This photograph appeared in the associated press yetserday, but the photo was posted on a message board I go to and the reader that posted this photograph also added this comment above it...

*** Warning, Graphic Content *** It would appear that the Associated Press editor who approved this photo wants to assist in the Terrorists’ goals in Iraq by releasing this photo from a Baghdad bombing. Is there another explanation?

This of course started a flame war with someone else adding that “Terrorists can not accomplish their objectives if nobody knows what they have done. They need the press to get their message out.”

Huh?

”Clearly the AP editor is a liberal who hates our soldiers,” another flamer posted.

So essentially they are saying that press coverage of terrorist acts advances the terrorist agenda. So our duty, as a free press in a free society is to not cover terrorist acts so that we can be responsibly ignorant of the particulars of war, and or the real dangers that they pose?

Conservatives said the same thing about Ted Koppel and ABC news when they read off the names of the soldiers that had given their lives defending this country in Iraq.

Naming off our dead was aiding the enemy.

When people questioned Dubya and Cheney about the suspect evidence they had against Saddam Hussein to justify this war against Iraq we learned from our conservative friends that being against the war is aiding the enemy.

We already know that not supporting Bush is aiding the enemy.

Criticizing Bush is aiding the enemy.

Even not voting for Bush was aiding the enemy.

Now showing pictures of war is aiding the enemy.

So my question is, what if, if anything are we allowed to know about the war that isn’t aiding the enemy?

We can’t know how many US soldiers are dying?

We can’t know any particulars about the war, and I am not even talking about things like strategic maneuvers and secret bases, I am just talking about even the most basic stuff like "how things are going". By the way, how long are we going to be over there?

I am sure they would have no problem about it telling us everything about Iraq if things were going well, but since they aren’t, well, I guess that is when knowing what is going on is aiding the enemy.

I guess we are supposed to be assured when Dubya tells us ”not a day goes by that I don’t think about Iraq.”

Well no shit asshole. We are in a war and as much as I regret having to acknowledge this fact, you are the commander and chief. I hope you do think about Iraq everyday. I assumed that you do asshole. That is what you are supposed to be doing.

It seems that the more conservative are the more censorship appeals to them.

I think one of the most dangerous and subversive tactics that the neo-cons have pushed on Americans is this idea that reality, in this case Americans thinking about the consequences of war is actually aiding terrorism somehow.

I’m not surprised that they would say that. These are the same people that believe that asking questions about religion is not showing faith in God so why wouldn’t they use that same logic that asking questions about the war or about the government is being a traitor to your country?

They will argue that terrorists want you to be afraid and knowing what they are doing is making you fear them so they are actually using our freedom of press to spread terror.

You don’t see that? What's wrong with you?

If you don’t see that its because you are a liberal dog that hates America.

No.

I don’t see that because I am not afraid. I am not naive. I understand that terrorist cells are here, they are planning attacks against us and that they want to make us afraid to live our lives.

But hey aren't the only ones that want us to fear them.

Bush has basically remained in power by keeping you afraid.

Neo-cons want us to fear terrorist so much that we willingly hand over our freedoms in order for our government to better protect us.

Neo-cons want us so afraid that we will relinquish our right to bear arms so that terrorist can’t arm themselves.

Neo-cons want us so afraid that we will relinquish our right to assembly so terrorist can’t hold meetings, our right to information so that terrorist can’t have access to books and schematics.

Neo-cons want us to give up our right to privacy so that terrorists can be bugged. Neo-cons want us so afraid that will hand over our rights to freedom of speech so that terrorist won’t be able to post terrorist propaganda and push terrorist agendas across the Internet.

That is how terrorists win.That is how the Neo-cons have won.

You are afraid of them.

And through your apathy, your ignorance and fear you are willingly giving them everything that they want.

Showing pictures like this doesn’t aid the enemy anymore than showing the skeletal remains of Auschwitz Jews aided the Nazi.

Showing emaciated Jews pissed people off. It hardened their resolve. It made them want to crush the Nazi.

The difference between that war and this war is that with this war you don’t have any clear cut moral or legal mandate behind it.

This war is perceived as a personal vendetta of one man against another and the reason you want to play this “aiding the enemy” card is that the more we know about this suspect war the less inclined we will be to continue fighting it.

 

same difference

 

What happened to All the Terror Alerts?

Evidently Terror alerts have served their purpose.

 

racism our number one defense against terrorism

The marshal had evidently been timing how long it should take a man of Middle Eastern decent to take a shit. AIn’t that a bitch?

web design qigong cannon beach movie

 

 

If giving up one of these freedoms could ensure your safety which one would you reliquish?

freedom of speech

freedom of press

right to privacy

right to trial by jury

 

 

Source: Iraqi car bombs kill 17, Rumsfeld stands firm, Reuters, Thursday June 23, 2005

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Interesting read, thanks for posting it.

 

I think the author had quite a few good things to say. I get tired of everyone going crazy over pictures from the war or Ted Koppel reading the names of deceased soldiers. If Koppel wants to spend his evening newscast doing it then he has every right to. I think security shouldn't be a partisan issue and disagreed with those that said that John Kerry would make America less safe.

 

However, I think the author's view on the neo-cons was a little misguided. The neo-cons are more a foreign policy wing than a domestic wing and their goal is to rebuild other nations like America. To them foreign policy is a zero sum game with us having people like us and because of those people are like us they will be our allies.

 

I'm not too troubled by the trial by jury arguement b/c I think that foreigners aren't entitled to US legal protection. These people are trying to bring our Constitution down so why should they get Constitutional rights? Now, if someone is an American citizen I think all Constitutional liberties apply to them even if they are suspected of terrorism but I have no problem going "open season" on foreign terrorists.

 

Nevertheless, interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Thanks for your input. I think both sides are pulling as many political strings as they can to try and make hay for themselves. Its disgusting. I'm not going to bother keeping score like some folks do. Its not worth it. Both sides do it. Not a whole lot of good comes from these PR power ploys regardless of how many good points their are. That Durbin guy is a moron for saying that shit. As is Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. But really, does it change anything? Anything important? Does it get us any closer to a solution to where we can get our troops home sooner? Shouldn't the media be making more of a big deal about a timeline rather than stupid remark by some ignoramous?

[Guest The Iron Yuppie]

Not a whole lot of good comes from these PR power ploys regardless of how many good points their are.

 

That's a large part of the problem. With the rhetoric from both sides, pertinent issues are often ignored, dismissed or completely lost while partisans prefer to focus on trivialities to score political points. Dick Durbin's comments are a prime example of this: while I have read many articles, opinion pieces and comments suggesting he was comparing the American troops to nazis (and referencing Nazis, Pol Pot etc in that kind of context is always going to be a red flag for those idealogues with an opposing view point) the subtletly of his speach was lost. As I understand it, Durbin's intent was to suggest that the abuses detailed in the FBI report are not those that are/should be associated with a country that has a belief in upholding and promoting human rights and dignity. Which in turn should raise the question and debate over what constitutes acceptable interrogation techniques (keeping in mind that many detainees at Guantanamo are not terrorists and have been released without any charge), and when terrorists are captured, what happens to them - how/where are they tried, etc. But that is lost with claims of "those comments are aiding the enemy".

 

Neo-cons dismissing, downplaying or ignoring criticism, dissenting viewpoints or information (such as the Dowling Street Minutes or critisisms of how detainees are treated) as treason or aiding the enemy is a large reason why so many are ignorant of the truth of the situation in Iraq (eg. the studies last year showing that a large proportion of Americans believe that WMDs had been found in Iraq, particularly amongst viewers of Fox News) or why large issues go unanswered (as with Durbin's issue of is what's going on at Guantanamo what one would expect to be done by Americans). At the same time liberals seemingly constantly appyling labels like nazis, comparisons to Hittler, and attempting to suggest that Bush should be tried as a war criminal or that the 2004 election was rigged or promoting the activities of Jeff Gannon or whatever doesn't really do much to convince conservatives when there *is* something that should be criticised or brought to the public's attention or when important issues need to be addressed.

[BruiserKC 0]

If giving up one of these freedoms could ensure your safety which one would you reliquish?

freedom of speech

freedom of press

right to privacy

right to trial by jury

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The answer is simple...I won't give up any of my freedoms, no matter what.

 

Now...my thoughts on the war.

 

To say I'm for the war is really not an accurate statement. I don't think there's anyone in their right mind that is really for war and cheers for war the way we cheer Ric Flair coming down the aisle. However...I think we have to fight this war with every ounce of our being and to hell with political correctness. That means let's not be worried about what the rest of the world thinks...we're at war with a faction that wants to destroy us...or something more sinister.

 

I compare what the Islamists (note they don't represent all Islam) to the Nazis pre and during World War II. They have some legit greivances with America for our involvement in the Middle East...the Nazis had some legit gripes over the way the British and French punished them and beat them down after World War I. However...both had some sinister motives also. For the Nazis...it was to re-take over their lands and then move on to eliminate Europe as a threat while killing off their enemies on the way...like Jews, Gypsies, Russians, etc. The Islamists don't want to see their lands enter the 21st century with Western influences...they want to remove all such influence from their lands that threatens them and their civilization.

 

Also...they want to eliminate those threats from returning once they've left...only way to do this is to resurrect the Crusades...pushing Israel into the sea and turning as many European nations (and eventually the US perhaps) into Islamic states. For those who think it couldn't happen...note the huge numbers of Arabs and Muslims pouring into Europe. No wonder the French are nervous...Chirac doesn't want buses blowing up all over Paris. And it's not about hating us for our freedoms...to them, our freedoms make us weak. Letting the dissenting voices speak their minds...giving the disenfranchised the means to survive, etc. It's a threat to their way of life...that's why to them the only way to eliminate that threat is to force conversion to Allah. Long shot I know...but I think that's their agenda.

 

So...the simple solution is this...fight the war all-out. We have a much stronger military...use it to crush the insurgency and spare no quarter in doing so. If that means turning Fallujah into a parking lot, so be it. If that means blowing up a shrine that houses insurgents using it for a fortress...let's do it. The second a place of worship, school, etc...is used for something other than its original purpose and becomes a place to make war from...it should no longer be given protection. The Germans used the cathedrals in Italy as fortresses as the Allies pushed towards Rome...they got taken out. Ditto with schools, etc. If we want to change their hearts and minds...first order of business needs to be to install in them the fear and the realization that we have the means and will absolutely crush them. When they see their cause is doomed, maybe they'll listen to reason.

 

As for being against the war...I have no problem with being against the war as long as you're against it because you hate war. That I can live with. Problem is...the libs who bash all of Bush's ideas just seem to be hating the war because one of their own isn't running the show. Plus...the libs and Dems seem to not have any solutions on how to make things better.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Good post Brusier, I agree with you.

 

It's actually part of Osama bin Laden's strategy to resurrect the Crusades. He's said that he has a three-tiered strategy of an Islamic takeover. The first stage sees the jihadis take over the Middle Eastern countries that are in cohots with the U.S. (ex. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.). The second stage sees the jihadis take over European nations with large Islamic populations (ex. Albania, emerging in Germany/France/Netherlands, the Balkans as a whole, etc.). The third stage then sees the jihadis go to war with the United States and defeat it, thus taking over the world. Sounds crazy I know but this is what this guy absolutley believes and we have to stop him ASAP.