Posted on 08/04/2006 8:32:21 AM PDT by LM_Guy
NEW YORK A new Gallup poll released today revealed another upward bump in the number of Amercians who now want a complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in the next 12 months.
That number now stands at 55%, with 19% supporting immediate withdrawal and another 36% wanting it done by August 2007.
"While the percentage of Americans who favor a withdrawal of all U.S. troops either now or within a year is not a supermajority, it is a majority, suggesting that the Democratic leadership is speaking to an issue that resonates with many Americans," Frank Newport, director of the Gallup Poll, writes today.
Another majority, 54%, now say that the U.S. invasion in 2003 was a "mistake."
The partisan divided remains wide on the withdrawal question, with 77% of Democrats wanting U.S. troops out in a year and only 28% of Republicans. Independents back a 12-month pullout at 56%.
Gallup polled 1,002 adult Americans at the very end of July.
Poll people who do not have televisions in their homes and watch the differerence.
55% Democrats polled again???
The public relations/communications effort of this White House is one of the worst ever, and I can't figure out why that's the case.
Probably more like 60%. These polls are just a load of biased cr*p.
I disagree the administration has said over and over that this would be a long drawn out battle.
the president does not control the media
which by the way have from day one called iraq a mistake and a quaqmire and act like the biggest threat that we face is bush listening to your phone call or seeing what book you took out of the libray and CO2
It's going to take the shock of an entire city being destroyed somewhere in th world to show people how serious is the threat of islamic terroism.
The clearest illustration of the mess seen by senior officers was that seven recently retired 3 & 4 star generals turned down an invitation the be Army Cheif of Staff until finally Gen. Shoomaker accepted. He was the eighth invitee to the ball. Those other seven didn't want to be thrown that ball of glue with Rumsfeld's mess stuck to it.
We had a window of opportunity to secure Iraq but Rumsfeld stood by and quipped that memorable axiom that sometimes democracy is messy - among others that avoided the scene on the ground.
There is no one other than the president and his people who are responsible for the current intractable situation, trying to casually pass it off to any previous administration is an admission of culpability and an exercise in futility.
I'll bet most of the people polled couldn't find Iraq on a map.
IB4TZ
That true of most americans about almost any country on the map, not just Iraq.
My brother just joined the Marines. It makes me sick when I read crap like this. Weak kneed politicians, and hand wringing citizens at home that only follow the war in the MSM are putting my brother and thousands of other troops Americans in danger.
Look at the way the White House functions and behaves. Do they give the impression that there's a war on? The fact that the president doesn't control the media is reason enough for them to be making the extra effort to be engaged in a continual communications strategy on Iraq. Watching the president, he gives the impression that even he's not convinced that his policy in Iraq is working. I'm talking perceptions here, not reality, but these perceptions influence public opinion. Everyone admits that Bush is not a great communicator, and the erosion of public support for the war on terror is the result of that.
George Gallup used to solve this by "filter" questions such as "do you feel knowledgeable enough to answer this ..." This really boosted the no opinion or don't know contingent.
Note also that the poll, such as it is, shows people trending to the middle rather than an abrupt withdrawal. This would reinforce the idea that people are making decisions on the basis of incomplete knowledge or emotionalism and hedge their bets by going to the middle.
Finally, far from their being pools of public opinion to tap out there on this or any subject, what happens is pundits and the elite by asking the question determine what is on the top of people's minds; hence, what is and is not current public opinion.
Smogger, I wish your brother well and will keep him in my prayers. I wish there was a way to eliminate all reporters from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. They do none of our soldiers any good and only provide the terrorists with the media coverage they crave. I was watching a segment on Fox News the other day about Fallujah and how it is now a place where people go to escape the violence of Baghdad. Then yesterday I read an article that the insurgents are looking to take it back. Then today I heard John Scott say Lebanon is "under siege." Personally I think he could have used better terminology, like the IDF is "liberating the country from the Hezbollah". The way he said it made it sound like Israel is the bad guy. It's gotten to the point where I don't even want to watch Fox News anymore.
No doubt. Let me clarify that I totally support Bush's policy in Iraq, and on the war on terror in general. The news media attack those policies daily, and clearly the White House doesn't have a sufficiently successful communications strategy to counteract the corrosive effect of the MSM's naysaying. We're having more success against the foreign enemies than we're having against our domestic enemies.
We are, in many ways, at that point in time relative to a major third world war, that the Spanish civil war represented in the second world war.
There is a terrible and deadly potential for much worse looming on the horizon. It is apparent, at least to me, that we cannot avoid all of it at this point as 911 and events since have already shown. But, unless we act decisively and, I might add, ruthlessly, against our avowed enemies (like we ended up having to do with the Nazis and Japanese Imperialists in World War II), we may be forced to experience far worse than what World War II brough upon this country.
Better to mitigate the difficulty now, than wait for it to become much worse in the future.
By the way, the wars you mention were ended by formal surrender, with the exception of the formal armistice in WWI. Do you really think that's how this one is going to end?
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.