MyDD :: Country Opposes the War; Support for Withdrawal Gaining

Country Opposes the War; Support for Withdrawal Gaining

by Chris Bowers, Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:10:35 PM EST

NAES and ABC, the two most recent polls, show a substantial majority of the country opposing the war:

National Annenberg Election Survey (PDF, 1202 Adults, 1/13-15):
All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?
No: 54 Yes: 40

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 12-16, 2005. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.:
"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"
Worth It: 44 Not Worth It: 56

Gallup, taken a week earlier, shows the country on the fence:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 7-9, 2005. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3:
"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"
Made a Mistake: 50 Did Not Make a Mistake: 48

Only Pew, in a poll now two weeks old, still shows majority support for the war:

Pew Research Center survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Jan. 5-9, 2005. N=1,503 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"
Right Decision: 51 Wrong Decision: 44

It is possible that January 30th will cause support of the war to increase briefly. However, even if that happens, January 30th will create another problem for hawks: the end of any justification to stay in Iraq. Already, the public is growing uneasy. Just look at this Fox push poll:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll Jan. 11-12, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you think it is more important for the United States to stay in Iraq to win the war or get out of Iraq to end the war?"
Stay / Win: 46 Get Out / End: 45

This poll really tries to make withdrawal sound terrible, and yet it still comes out in a dead heat with violent quagmire. With no WMD's, Hussein captured, Iraqis ostensibly in charge and elections ostensibly completed, the continued death of Americans will seem more and more pointless to the country at large. Following January 30th, support for withdrawal will only continue to increase.

How about this proposal for Democrats in the 2006 midterms: a promise to pass a concurrent resolution ending the President's authorization for the use of force in Iraq. I can only imagine how disgusted the country will be with the war in twenty-one months.

Then again, how about proposing such legislation in February?

Tags: World (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

we're getting out; only Q is when (none / 0)

Unless the violence stops support will continue to drop.

You know we're gonna withdraw when the GOP noise machine starts blaming liberals for the mess.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:18:54 PM EST

thats fox news (3.00 / 1)

that last question really primes the respondent to say yes. I wonder what the answer would be if you merely asked...should we continue the war in Iraq or should we withdraw...

What if they asked a biased the other way question, like... Should we continue taking casualties as we fight a foreign guerilla war in Iraq or should we let the soon to be democratic leaders of Iraq handle the situation as soon as possible?

lol, fox news cracks me up. The fact that most casual watchers don't see a bias is somewhat scary.

by srolle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:34:21 PM EST

The reason we have a Republic (none / 0)

People are quick to jump on the war bandwagon. They are quick to jump off. If Iraq becomes worse after we leave, then people (especially Iraqi Liberals) will be tempted to say that we should have had more patience. I for one don't give too much credence to what the average American thinks we should do.What pains me is that ignorance in ensconced in the Oval Office. We should have pulled out months ago, not because it would have been the best outcome for the Iraqis, but because I didn't sign up to build schools for the enemy. Let the world see how the Arabs handle their own affairs. It will be illuminating to those who think all cultures are equally worthy of respect.

by Paul Goodman on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:36:45 PM EST

Re: The reason we have a Republic (3.00 / 1)

If my memory of history class serves me well, we had a civil war once in this country. I seem to recall one general even burning down an entire city, maybe atlanta. Did our civil war prove to the rest of the world that we were unworthy culturally respect?

What will eliminating all power structures in a society and creating a power vaccuum prove? That Arabs are uniquely incapable of living peacefully in anarchy? That somehow arab people are particularly unsuited for a stable government?

I feel the racist undertones in your argument, and they make me sick.

Hindsight aside, the Iraq war was a mistake because Bush's preemption doctrine is fundamentally flawed, and democracy promotion by force never goes smoothly (or successfully?). But I agree, most americans are ignorant about foreign policy. But isn't the public's job merely to appraise results? The public can never be swayed against war beforehand. It's nice to see that people are starting to realize the debacle going on over there.

by srolle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Direction (none / 0)

I predict that Iraq will become three countries. There will be an Islamic state in Iran's sphere of influence in the south, a Kurdish state in the north and something that looks like Lebanon during the 80's in the middle. In the meantime Bush will declare victory and start to withdraw to the Kurdish area. Then what? It's a great opportunity for the Democrats to start talking about a bold new direction in the Middle East. I for one would like to see the obvious considered. The only reason we care about the Middle East is oil. Why not link this with National Security? How far would 250 billion dollars gone toward energy independence? It could appeal to "right leaning" Americans on several levels, our natural isolationist tendencies, the American self reliance myth and revenge. Get the Arabs back by not giving them anymore money. It would appeal to the left by saving the planet from global warming.

by CalvinR on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:40:32 PM EST

"The C Word" (none / 0)

You'd be amazed how much I have heard the words 'Civil War' immediately before or immediately after 'Iraqi Elections.' I was intrigued on this point:

We're so low on Iraqi police we're using Saddam's old guard units.
We're giving Saddam's old guard units assault weapons and armored trucks.
We're charging SADDAM'S OLD GUARD UNITS with protecting the right of Iraqis to vote.

In the words of John Stewart, "WHAAAAAAT?!?"

The New Democrat

by demburns on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:55:24 PM EST

Yikes (none / 0)

On that blog, this story was linked: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050118/D87MLPI00.html

In summary:

-Three canidates running in the election were shot and killed in three seperate attacks

-Four mortar rounds were fired at schools that would serve as polling places in Basra

-A car bomb exploded at a checkpoint leading to a Shiite political parties HQ, killing two plus the bomber, and wounding nine, including three policemen

-A Catholic archbishop was kidnapped and then released a day later

-A video showing eight kidnapped Chinese workers was released by the kidnappers

-Three Americans died in the Anbar province, possibly due to a suicide car bombing in Ramadi that resulted in US casualities-or maybe that was another incident entirely

It's like the Twelve Days of Christmas in Bizarro World (nine wounded Iraqis, eight kidnapped Chinese, seven crying widows, six car bombings, five drive by shootings, four mortar rounds, three dead US soilders, two weeks until the "election", one giiiiiigantic quagmire).

Oh, and there's this fun quote:

Falah Hassan al-Naqib, a Sunni, told reporters he expects Sunni insurgents to escalate attacks before the election, especially in the Baghdad area.

"If any group does not participate in the elections, it will constitute treason," al-Naqib said, adding that "boycotting the elections will not produce a National Assembly that represents the Iraqi people" but will cause "a civil war that will divide the country."

What, and this doesn't qualify?

Remember, all of the above was in ONE AP STORY!

by Geotpf on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:27:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Election Issue?? ...again... (none / 0)

Who would of thought that this war would not only be the top election issue for 3 election but still continuing for 3 election cycles?

We need to start compiling a list of (R) Sens & Reps that still believe and have recently made comments that the public backs the president in this war still, and nail 'em hard. Any up for re-election?

(Still going at a snail's pace but trying to keep up to date is senateblue.blogspot.com -- sorry for the plug, but would love help with posting.)

by schweiz8 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:08:37 PM EST

When something bad happens here... (none / 0)

...and more unconnected brown people who worship the wrong God have to suffer as a result, will we vent our rage on a new irrelevant third-rate power, or will we just do Iraq all over?

by Davis X Machina on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:48:19 PM EST

This is all as planned in Bush Co. (none / 0)

The neocons know this. All throughout the election campaign Bush was consistently "stay resolved / til the job is done". However, is it any surprise that despite the Sunni boycott, increasingly effective insurgency, and resulting dismal turnout expected, that the US and puppet Allawi refused to delay the elections to increase security? Or delay for any reason for that matter?

Why would Bush be so adamant that elections be held ASAP? Do we really buy that excuse that delays would only serve the interests of the insurgency? Please.

Free elections, no matter how much of a disaster they turn out to be -- low turnout, bombed polling places, assassinated candidates, Sunni boycott, lack of visible campaigning by 2000 candidates, etc -- finally give Bush a straw to grasp for declaring the invasion of success. "Look! Iraq has it's first freely elected government! We won!!"

This is nothing but political cover for beginning a phased withdrawal, "at the wish of the newly elected Iraqi regime" of course, just in time to remove a few of the largest obstacles to pursuing our new target: Iran.

The military option for Iran is no longer so impossible if the majority of troop strength in Iraq is withdrawn and we no longer have to worry about Iran fueling the insurgency in retaliation for a strike on its nuclear sites.

So sure, as expected public support for the war is waning, as it does for any war waged by a democratic nation. The people have only so much patience, even when they've been deceived. But this is still playing into the Administration's cards. Watch the propaganda campaign begin anew as people are prepared for accepting Iran intervention.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:36:16 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.