Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Petraeus, Bush unable to sway negative Iraq war opinions
Yahoo! News ^ | September 18, 2007 | AP

Posted on 09/18/2007 3:47:54 PM PDT by backtothestreets

Polls: Distaste for Iraq war unchanged

WASHINGTON - Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress and President Bush's nationally televised address have had little impact on Americans' distaste for the Iraq war and their desire to withdraw U.S. troops, polls show.

Fifty-four percent still favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible, a measurement that has not changed in months, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. And despite slight improvements in peoples' views of military progress, more said the U.S. will likely fail in Iraq than succeed by 47 percent to 42 percent, about the same margin as in July.

Nearly half, or 49 percent, said Bush should remove more troops than he announced he would last week, when he said he would withdraw some forces but leave at least 130,000 in Iraq at least until next summer. Thirty-eight percent said Bush's plan goes far enough.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 110th; elections; libmedia; libthinktanks; military; patraeusreport; pew; politics; poll; pollsoniraq; war
I might draw some flak for posting this, but I am posting it for a reason. I know people don't like polls that don't reflect their views. That goes for people on all sides of any issue. Something is brewing among voters. Everyone had better learn what it is.

No matter how one perceives polls concerning war, one fact remains. Americans hold our military in deep regard, and this is primarily because they have such deep regard for the individual members that comprise our military. Of all public institutions, the military received the highest confidence ratings, better than business, churches, and far, far better than the political institutions.

The last elections were much concerned with the progress of the war in Iraq. The elections of 2008 are poised to hinge on one concern. How long will our troops be exposed to a situation the voters are not pleased with?

Like FDR in 1942, GW Bush realized a loss of support in Congress in 2006 when voters where not pleased with the progress of war.

Two recent presidents won their first terms in office with a promise to bring our troops home from wars of their times, Eisenhower and Nixon. The nation is poised to see a third such president in 2008. It is the only protection Americans feel they can offer those that protect us. Their hearts are in the right place, and should not be faulted for that. Their votes will be cast with a hope for immediate results, not a long term vision.

This is merely my opinion, but I do base my opinion on American history. The history of the relationship between the voters and military members. Americans are going to do what they feel they can for the troops regardless of political affiliation.

1 posted on 09/18/2007 3:47:56 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

More negative AP wish-fulfillment crap. We’re used to it by now.


2 posted on 09/18/2007 3:50:58 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
LOL, most Americans also want to protect the caribou, and then bitch about high gas prices, most want Hillary Care,but will whine about bad health care and high taxes, most complain about lobbying, but want their “group” to influence a rep, ie, most are idiots.
3 posted on 09/18/2007 3:56:07 PM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

Of course, “more likely to fail than to succeed” is not actually a measure of support. If, say, a third of those who answered that way did so because they expected Congressional betrayal of the war effort to eventually bring about our defeat, and disapproved of that (in their judgement) likelihood, they, added to the optomists, might indicate majority support for the war.

Wittaker Chambers thought he was joining the losing side (albeit the right side) when he foresook Communism and became an American patriot. His gloomy view of our prospects in the Cold War didn’t mean he didn’t support our efforts.


4 posted on 09/18/2007 3:57:02 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
"but I do base my opinion on American history"

The past don't hold true to the present any longer. Things have changed so much here in the US. So basically history has been erased practically from the majority of American memories. If you don't believe me, try peeking into the public schools and the anti-USA universities! It speaks volumes!

5 posted on 09/18/2007 4:03:03 PM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
Fifty-four percent still favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible..

Gee, who is the 46 percent that wants them to stay as long as possible?

6 posted on 09/18/2007 4:04:27 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
7 posted on 09/18/2007 4:07:45 PM PDT by rfp1234 (Nothing is better than eternal happiness. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
LOL, most Americans also want to protect the caribou, and then bitch about high gas prices...

Likewise, huge percentages of Americans probably have NO IDEA that Iraq is bordered by Iran.

After our hypothetical cut-and-run withdrawal they'd whine about why we didn't stop the Mullahs from Finlandizing the Middle East and sending gasoline to $12 per gallon...

8 posted on 09/18/2007 4:16:40 PM PDT by rfp1234 (Nothing is better than eternal happiness. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
No. The elections of 06 were much more about our base being upset over immigration than to do with Iraq. We lost because our base did not turn out as expected (within many GOP models).

National security, the WOT (which includes Iraq) are still strong GOP issues if taken to the American public in a coherent and strong way.

Victory sells very well to the American public. Furthermore, where in Iraq/WOT played a role in 06...it was where the GOP DID NOT stand up and take credit for all our successes in this WOT. Did not stand up and point out how we are safer at home (we didn't want to play "politics" with the war.....we just let the MSM & DEMs do that....Which is BS).

9 posted on 09/18/2007 4:26:22 PM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1898421/posts

Funny you say that, the above thread was posted today.

Our colleges are not teaching!


10 posted on 09/18/2007 4:27:12 PM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
A push poll. Its garbage. If THAT was all true, the troops would be out of there already. AP lies with damned statistics.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

11 posted on 09/18/2007 4:28:26 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
It's not the job of "Petraeus" or "Bush" "to sway negative Iraq war opinions."

And nearly half of all Americans want us to take care of business in Iran.

S. Korea, U.S. verifying reports on test of new N.K. missile in Iran: source
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834307/posts
(4,000 kilometer range—will reach London and the Vatican—May 16th, 2007)

But that's alright. Let's take all of our military forces out of the Middle East.

Israel: 'Arrow now gives full protection against Iran'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809063/posts

I'll watch the exciting consequences of cut-and-run policy and appeasements from my remote place in two or three years.
12 posted on 09/18/2007 4:41:12 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been, will write Duncan Hunter in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DevSix
No. The elections of 06 were much more about our base being upset over immigration than to do with Iraq. We lost because our base did not turn out as expected (within many GOP models).

You nailed it !

13 posted on 09/18/2007 4:43:37 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
And despite slight improvements in peoples' views of military progress, more said the U.S. will likely fail in Iraq than succeed by 47 percent to 42 percent, about the same margin as in July.

Thanks Lame Stream Media... if you treasonous pricks would spend a quarter of as much time trying to support America, our ideals, and our troops, your skewed polls would be reversed. Thank God you weren't around in WWII.

14 posted on 09/18/2007 4:50:58 PM PDT by Toadman ((molon labe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
54% still favor bring home the troops as soon as possible. So what? what does that mean? I’m in favor of “bring home the troops as soon as possible,” as I’m sure most Freepers do. But we have a different idea of what “ as soon a possible” means. I take it literally. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE does NOT mean tomorrow to me. It means as soon after things are under control as possible. These polls never ask “Do you want America to lose and come home with our tails between our legs?
15 posted on 09/18/2007 5:19:01 PM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Union work: comparable value for twice the price.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
GW Bush realized a loss of support in Congress in 2006 when voters where not pleased with the progress of war.

I don't agree that the war was the main reason the Republicans lost Congress. There was an awful lot of press about corruption on the part of Republicans, and a couple of Congressmen up for re-election were tainted with sex scandals that made big splashy headlines.

I'm not saying that the war didn't have some part in it, but I don't think it was the lynchpin issue.

16 posted on 09/18/2007 9:32:56 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson