Posted on 04/11/2004 4:02:55 PM PDT by AntiGuv
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US support for the conflict in Iraq is eroding, according to the latest CNN/Time survey, which found, amid a new Iraqi insurgency against US troops, that 57 percent of Americans think US military goals will fail unless a tougher stance is taken.
Approval of US President George W. Bush and his administration's handling of Iraq was down to 44 percent of Americans, according to the poll, new elements of which were released Sunday, down from 51 percent surveyed March 26-28.
Meanwhile, Bush's overall approval rating had sunk to a record low of 49 percent since CNN/Time started polling the earliest days of the Bush presidency in 2001.
Surveyed after insurgents backing rebel Shiite Muslim leader Moqtada al-Sadr launched their onslaught against the US-led occupation last weekend, 57 percent said more intense US military efforts were needed to combat the rebels' action.
But some 36 percent said the recent attacks showed the United States, due to hand over power to Iraqis on June 30, is unlikely to achieve its goals in Iraq and needs to begin reducing its military efforts there.
A majority say the United States should hand power to the Iraqis on June 30 -- a date Bush says is "fixed" -- while 38 percent think it should keep power beyond that date.
A hefty 87 percent of those surveyed believe that creating a stable democratic government in Iraq will be either somewhat or very difficult, according to the poll.
Just over half the respondents, or 51 percent, disapproved of the president's management of Iraq, according to the poll which was conducted April 8.
Overall, 47 percent said they disapproved of the way Bush is handling his job as president.
However, public perception of Bush as a strong fighter of terrorism remained robust, a majority of 55 percent backed Bush in this regard against 39 percent who disapproved.
On the economy -- which consistently ranks amongst the public's highest concerns -- a minority of 41 percent expressed satisfation with Bush while 54 percent disapproved of his economic management of the country.
The telephone poll canvassed 1,005 adults. The margin of error was three percent.
Okay. What I wrote is insensitive...allow me to make a correction:
Bill Schneider is a shill for Islamist terrorism.
I think that's more accurate, and he's still a despicable human being.
Boy, after THAT from CNN, I'm losing sight of the definition survey copulation!
Me, personally? I would have us put 100,000 more troops in Iraq.
Where would you divert trained soldiers from?
In that sense it's like Vietnam: the "elites" wanted to pussyfoot, while the "silent majority" was for victory (which by the way we virtually had by 1971).
Plain and simple, the "elites" are at it again and for the same reason: they're afraid.
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. seems to be using registered voters and so does FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll.
As such I've come to the opinion that shilling for the Dems is shilling for Islamist terrorism.
And that is as it should he. But he must also be aware that in an election fight such as this, with his approval falling among the independents, this is not a good time to be bogged down. Many might argue that the events of the past 2 weeks were not part of any war plans, and may well have not even been considered by the operations planners.
I would much rather have Dubya calling the shots after January 20th than Kerry. I'm sure he knows that the future often depends on factors outside of his control. Johnson and Bush 41 found out that the Americans are very short sighted and fickle when it comes to wars.
And where exactly would you get 100,000 combat soldiers?
For the most part, it doesn't matter what major metropolitan area they conduct the poll in, it will be biased left. If there is no effort made to get a genuine poll of America, then they will likely always bias left:
Baghdad Bob must be working a desk job at Time-Life-Warner-Turner.
President Johnson also knew a few things about how to keep the media from running negative stories. Let's go ahead and include this blast from the past (where President Johnson got editorial/news backup from the Chronicle in exchange for a bank merger):
http://archives.cjr.org/year/98/3/books-beschloss.asp
He knew, too, how to pull on the pursestrings. Pressed by financial backer George Brown, chairman of Brown & Root, to approve a merger of two Houston banks sought by John Jones, president of the Houston Chronicle, Johnson proposes a quid pro quo: "I want John Jones to write me a letter . . . saying, 'Mr. President . . . I just want you to know that we're making arrangements for special coverage in Washington for the Chronicle . . . and that so far as I'm personally concerned and the paper's concerned, it's going to support your administration as long as you're there. Sincerely, your friend, John Jones.'" When Johnson gets the letter he wants, he phones Jones. "From here on out," he tells him, "we're partners." "Thank you," Jones replies. "Sure are." (Five days later, the merger went through.)
That's the idea. Overwhelm them with stability and security until they can get it together and handle things on their own. :) As they bring their own forces into service, the troops would get drawn down accordingly.
It's not as if Wurzburg, Germany or Jacksonville, North Carolina are in any dire threat of invasion right at the moment...
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.