Posted on 10/31/2007 1:45:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.
The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.
Democrats (63 percent) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51 percent) and Republicans (44 percent) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71 percent), than Democrats (41 percent) or independents (44 percent). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58 percent) are more likely than men (48 percent) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.
When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21 percent would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15 percent would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14 percent would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10 percent said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5 percent), Democrat John Edwards (4 percent) and Republican Mitt Romney (3 percent) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.
Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35 percent saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17 percent would prefer Obama and 7 percent view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28 percent), followed by McCain (21 percent) and Fred Thompson (9 percent). One in five independents chose Clinton (21 percent) over McCain (16 percent) and Giuliani (11 percent). Clinton was the top choice among women (24 percent), while 14 percent would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11 percent would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18 percent) to Clinton (17 percent) on this issue, while 15 percent said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran – 19 percent overall said they weren’t sure which candidate to choose.
There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23 percent would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29 percent said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20 percent were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37 percent) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15 percent) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28 percent).
As the possibility the U.S. my strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68 percent) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – of those, 27 percent believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31 percent) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22 percent said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15 percent said they don’t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9 percent believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.
So much for the theory that Bush had squandered support for a strike on Iran because of Iraq.
Which means 65% DON'T...................
*three days ago, my bad
Khomeini’s reign is mainly based on pain.
By Jove, I think you’ve got it!!
And you know they asked the question like this...”Should we bomb Iran before any diplomacy is undertaken?”
I’m sure the amount of people who don’t want Iran to have the bomb is a LOT higher.
Iranians’ pains come mainly from Khomeini!
That was my thought, too.
Hey Hillary, did you and the other bozo democratic candidates read this?
Dems and the MSM are finding out what a LAME Duck president can do while limping
Let’s hope Iran finds out also
And 65% understand that Iran will not listen to any woman......especially this one.
Iran is praying to allah for a democrat to win in ‘08. They know the dems will do nothing against them no matter what they do.
52% is not enough. It needs to be 80% plus to enable a pre-emptive strike.
” on October 28—that was Ahmadinejad’s birthday.”
OMG! I share a birthdate with a turd? This is awful news!
Before there is a strike on Iran, we need to consider another disturbing possibility. While Iran has drawn world attention to itself by it’s claims and it’s defiance, is it possible that the real nuclear threat is intended to come from somewhere else? Is it possible that Iran has outsourced it’s nuclear weapons threat to another country that has been able to keep a very low profile? The recent Israeli attack on Syria suggests that possibility.
Can you imagine the president of the most powerful country in the world being forced to cover her head when meeting with Islamic leaders?
“while Republican Fred Thompson (5 percent), Democrat John Edwards (4 percent) and Republican Mitt Romney (3 percent) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran.”
Wow! ! ! Fred Thompson has 166% more support as a Iranian bomb thrower than Mitt! This must mean something! !
(just some gratuitous nonsensical statistical noise posted to keep up with some other threads).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.