MyDD :: 58% Support Partial or Total Troop Withdrawal

58% Support Partial or Total Troop Withdrawal

by Chris Bowers, Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 04:10:09 AM EST

And it's not just Democrats. From CBS:

CBS News Poll. Sept. 6-7, 2005. N=725 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, or decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

	Increase   Same    Decrease   Remove All
All	   11	    23	    25	       33
Dems	   10	     9	    25	       50
Inds	   12	    25	    24	       33
Reps	   12	    38	    28	       14

First, I would like to thank CBS for not asking Bush's question on Iraq, as so many other polling firms have done. Second, I want to point out that nearly a majority of Republicans support at least partial withdrawal. This is a hugely popular position, one that the Democratic rank and file is clamoring for. If Democrats in D.C. get left holding the bag and never call for withdrawal in large enough numbers and with a loud enough voice before Republicans actually begin to scale back troops, they will have committed perhaps the greatest political miscalculation in a generation, and fail to make gains in 2006. Listen to the actual people who vote for you, congressional Democrats. They know where the country is headed a lot more than your consultants do.

Tags: World (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Bush (none / 0)

is the worst president in the nation's history. Of course, the Democratic party is also doing its best to screw up on the Iraq issue. "Oh, just don't talk about it" seems to be the new thing. In 2004, we could supposedly win with John Kerry taking a vague position on the war because people would be fed up. Kerry's failure to address the Iraq issue head-on cost him the election. His vacillation made him seem unprinicipled and weak. We risk the same thing in 2006. We need Democrats to say that the Iraqis need to stand on their own and it's time to get out. As Paul Hackett said, whether we get out now or stay there for years more, we'll still see the same result.

by dole4pineapple on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 04:31:37 AM EST

We are trading a future as a business leader for (none / 0)

an uncertain and debateably valuable future as 'global supercop'.

Why? Because we NEED to be spending a good chunk of the HUGE amount of money we spend on 'defense' on SCHOOLS or in ten or twenty years the US will be a has-been nation technologically. Right now, its as if we are just giving up on being a wealth producer in the future.. which means salaries here will continue to fall.. wage labor just doesn't have the bargaining power anymore as it is replaced by technology.. We need engineers and scientists and we need to force 'American' companies to hire and do their research here - or give up the 'American' label..

Being the global middleman won't work, as producers and consumers will want to deal directly..

Without jobs, consumption here will fall.. Many people now are just pushing information around.. Their jobs are scriptable and they will be replaced when it becomes possible to do so..

So we need that money to invest in our future, now.. instead of pouring it down the bottomless drain of defense spending..

The rest of the world is laughing at us..

Do we REALLY think that South Korea, Japan and Taiwan don't have nuclear weapons?

by ultraworld on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:39:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't see Bush doing (none / 0)

major troop withdrawl. I have a feeling that we'll still be in Iraq in 2008, but who knows. I remember in 2003, the kook Dick Morris was talking about how Bush was going to start bringing home the troops in 2004 and sew up his re-election. Instead, Bush "stayed the course" and refused to compromise on anything and came out with a win (which in large part was due to Kerry's incompetence) and Republican gains in Congress (mainly because so many southern Democrats in the Senate retired). He is probably too stubborn to think he can gain an advantage by bringing home the troops and is probably convinced he can trot out "flip-flopper" and "stay the course" and win another one. The only reason the Republicans have any chance of keeping the Senate is that we destroyed them in the 2000 election (picked off all of the '94 wingnut class). I think the House could be in play, but we have to get the DC Dems to get their act together on Iraq. They won't talk about Iraq because they are afraid it'll make them lose, but they'll keep losing if they don't talk about Iraq. How do we solve this one? As always, one of the DC Democrats biggest problems is themselves. I believe that when the history of this time period is written, it should be noted that the weak-kneed DC Democrats aided and abetted the Republicans at every step (tax cuts, Iraq, bankruptcy bill). No Biden (D-BoA, formerly MBNA), we still haven't forgot about that and yes I would vote for a sack of shit before I'd vote for you. And nothing more needs to be said about Joementum (R-CT).

by dole4pineapple on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 04:56:41 AM EST

I disagree on one point: (none / 0)

the Reeps have understood for a while that their fate was tied to getting out of Iraq. Remember Fallujah? The first time the military moved to "clear out" Fallujah, they were called off the moment the casualty reports started to come back. The Reeps knew that the consequences of that kind of offensive would wind up hurting them in the polls.

So when did they finally complete the operation? Why, they started it up while we were voting. When it was mentioned on television, it was in the context of US-forces-taking-out-terrorist-stronghold, I don't recall hearing about any casualties, and the light at the end of the tunnel was January, the transfer of sovereignty to the new Iraqi government, with gettin' the eff out soon to follow (it was assumed). Novak was out there writing columns about how the administration was getting ready to pull out, just didn't want to say so.

That was the context of November 2, 2004. They made withdrawal seem imminent, because they knew damn well that America wasn't going to put up with it indefinitely. They're going to try to do the same thing next year, do everything they can to make it seem like we're almost done, just a couple more things and we're outta there until the elections are over.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 05:50:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't see Bush doing (none / 0)

I think the clamor to REBUILD AMERICA FIRST is going to be too strong even for Bush. He will have to start bringing the Guard home by the end of this year, and scale back our operation next year in more or less the way that critics have been suggesting, that is, out of the populated areas. Rumsfeld seems belatedly to have realized that the Iraqis will NEVER take care of their own security as long as we are there, because each faction will be holding its militia back for the inevitable civil war.

That said, the Dem war hawks had better change their position quick, or Bush will outflank them, as I have been saying for a year. Katrina gives them a chance, as they can say that much as we would like to rebuild Iraq, we need more resources at home and the Iraqis will have to take more responsibility.

by Mimikatz on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 12:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The best course is still to win (none / 0)

This is what is known as a well sharpened axe to grind. You have posted here the one poll that reflects your personal world view.

In your prior post, you posted also one site metric for one day that you would offer , substantiates your views regarding your close friend.

Alexander loved only one. All others he mistrusted. His goal was to eradicate all resistance. Let us be more diligent. When all polls reflect the same truth you will have arrived. When only one poll reflects the truth you win a free t-shirt, nothing more.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 06:43:10 AM EST

Ultimately.. the rest of the world's problems are (none / 0)

theirs to solve.. not ours..

Thats the reason we need to JUST SAY NO...
to these exercizes in megalomania...

Since 1945 and the invention of atomic weapons, the world has changed..

Yes, nuclear terrorism is TERRIFYING but we cannot 'uninvent' nuclear weapons..

By abandoning the goal of eventual disarmament, as well as rejecting the idea of BINDING global standards - and courts - on human rights, the US has abandoned the two possible vehicles of moral justification for preventing new nations from aquiring WMD 'in defense'.

We are now stuck with the situation where we are telling nations not to develop nukes 'because we say so'. In my opinion, that makes our position far worse than it would have been otherwise..

Wouldn't it be far better to pull back from our posturing.. even if it meant accepting lower profits for 'US' multimationals and an increased risk that they might get burned once in a while.. to make the American people less of a target for terrorism.. in our arrogance and hubris?

We can't turn back the clock.. We have to live with a situation that is far less favorable to the 19th century imperialistic mindset than it was pre-1945. Do we really feel so strongly about being the boss of the world when it means that we will become a violent, poor nation at the same time.. Because we NEED to be spending a good chunk of that money on education, where we are PROFOUNDLY dropping the ball..

Old jobs - you know, the kinds that 90% of us have.. are disappearing.. The new jobs will take highly technical skills and we are NOT training people for them.. We need a national committment to education that will prevent this nation from becoming an economic wasteland in the next decade as automation replaces the scriptable jobs..and middle management as well..

No, we can't all be scientists.. But each of those jobs SHOULD pay enough to support an extended family.. UNLESS WE EXPORT THEM TO CHINA/INDIA/wherever...

A bitter, divided nation with nukes is NOT the future I want to see for us.. Do you?

by ultraworld on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ultimately.. the rest of the world's problems (none / 0)

nope. hey funny, I remember last night chris posted 55% and today its 58% - MOE?

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 12:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remarkable if true... (none / 0)

I'm always suspicious of poll results, and feel the left blogging community obsesses about them. Still they can be fun.

What really strikes me here is that for both the overall poll results, and the Independent results, the combined numbers of Increase/Same are only slightly higher than the Remove All numbers (34-33 overall, 37-33 Independents).

I'm not going to get too excited about poll numbers, but it is interesting.

by Kumar on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 12:58:13 PM EST

Re: Remarkable if true... (none / 0)

With a clear majority favoring the "start bringing them home method". Democrats have a huge path to victory in '06. That is why I liked Rep. Ford, running for Senate in Tennessee, airing a commercial months ago about how he will work to bring home the troops. Stake an early claim to the position, keep hammering away, and it will pay off because the majority of people agree with you.

by AC4508 on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 01:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The amazing part (none / 0)

is that many Democratic leaders are calling for INCREASED troops.

The Democratic Party leadership is embracing the LEAST POPULAR POSITION in America.

Amazing.

by progressivesouth on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 02:43:47 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.