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.
More negative AP wish-fulfillment crap. We’re used to it by now.
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.
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!
Gee, who is the 46 percent that wants them to stay as long as possible?
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).
"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
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.
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.