Latest poll: 59% of Americans want withdrawal from Iraq ASAP

[welshTerrier2]

the clueless Democratic Party thinks they're going to find votes in the center ... well, here's a poll that says they're out of touch with 59% of Americans, and probably a much higher percentage among Democrats, on a very critical issue ...

The latest NY Times / CBS poll shows the percentage of Americans calling for withdrawal from Iraq ASAP, even if stability is not achieved, has risen from 52% last month to 59% this month ... won't it be a sunny day when elected Democrats finally catch on to what we Americans want ???

here's the poll (sorry about the formatting - column 1 is: "Stay", column 2 is: "Leave ASAP", column 3 is: Unsure)

source: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (scroll down to this poll)

"Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?"
(Note: Prior to 6/04: "Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if that takes a long time, or should U.S. troops turn over control to Iraqis as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?")

Stay as
Long as
It Takes Leave ASAP Unsure
% % %
ALL adults 36 59 5
Republicans 61 36 3
Democrats 24 73 3
Independents 29 62 9

Trend:
9/9-13/05 42 52 6
2/24-28/05 55 40 5
1/14-18/05 51 42 7
9/04 54 39 7
6/23-27/04 54 40 6
5/20-23/04 45 49 6
5/11/04 38 55 7
4/23-27/04 46 46 8
12/14-15/03 56 35 9
11/10-12/03 49 43 8

[bluestateguy]

1. I don't like how that poll is worded

Somebody could have answered "ASAP", who believes that "ASAP" means to stay another 2 or 3 years. That is basically an occupationist position. Well, that's not very useful, and this poll doesn't tell us how many truly anti-Iraq war people are out there.

[Erika]

2. Hillary and the rest of the Dems need to bail out

It was bad enough that they voted to let W go in. Get the Hell out of there as soon as possible.

[sandnsea]

8. Intentionally vague, I agree

The only people who wouldn't want to leave "as soon as possible" are the idiots who still think "we're fightin' 'em over there". This poll doesn't differentiate between right now and a timeframe that wouldn't result in some group of Iraqis being slaughtered. Keeping in mind that I think we ought to stop all military action in Iraq NOW.

[wisteria]

3. What this tells me is the Dem's better begin to be a lot more vocal

about this war. Now is the time to offer reasonable opposition, strategies and opinions. The public is looking for leadership. The Dem's need to lead.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "the Dems need to lead"

truer words were never spoken ...

[welshTerrier2]

5. Clinton, Kerry, Bayh, Warner, Edwards, Clark, and Dean ...

out of touch with the American people on this issue?

you say "no"? why is that ???

it sure looks like they are to me !!

[ticapnews]

6. Define "as soon as possible"

Tomorrow?
Six months?
Two years?

The pollster left it up to individuals to define rather than setting a timeframe. While I agree that we should get out, I think "as soon as possible" isn't a very helpful definition.

[welshTerrier2]

7. "the fastest possible withdrawal that would not endanger American troops"

that would be my definition ...

while i might have preferred other wording, that's how the survey was conducted ...

what it does tell us is that a majority of Americans, with a rapid trend of increase, do not accept "stability" as a worthy objective ... this seems contrary to the position taken by most elected Democrats ...

the bottom line here is that the Democratic Party, and i don't argue they have no position, has failed to capture the attention of Americans with their ideas ... they will be given no credit for leadership ... and they are ultimately out of touch with the majority in calling for a "success-based" strategy in Iraq ...

if we want to focus solely on electoral politics, the current path they've chosen is not the way ...

fwiw, my definition of ASAP would mean "the fastest possible withdrawal that would not endanger American troops" ...

[sandnsea]

9. It's not the polls definition

So don't go pretending you "know" what the American people are saying in this poll based on what YOU think on the topic.

[welshTerrier2]

10. read the damned post before making bullshit accusations

i couldn't have been clearer in stating i didn't like the poll's wording ... and i couldn't have been clearer in stating that the definition i provided was "my definition"; not how others interpreted the poll question ... "my definition" means how i would define the term "ASAP"; not how others might define it !! when i say i want withdrawal ASAP, that's how i would define the term ...

instead of jumping on me with your bullshit accusations, why don't you read what i wrote ...

here's what i wrote:

that would be my definition ...

while i might have preferred other wording, that's how the survey was conducted ...

do you see the words "my definition" ... what part of that phrase do you think suggests i'm "pretending to "know" how poll respondents interpreted the question???

do you see the words "i might have preferred other wording" ??? what you failed to point out is that i more than acknowledged the lack of clarity in the poll wording ...

here is the only place i drew conclusions about interpreting the poll results and the meaning of the poll:

"what it does tell us is that a majority of Americans, with a rapid trend of increase, do not accept "stability" as a worthy objective ... this seems contrary to the position taken by most elected Democrats ...

the bottom line here is that the Democratic Party, and i don't argue they have no position, has failed to capture the attention of Americans with their ideas ... they will be given no credit for leadership ... and they are ultimately out of touch with the majority in calling for a "success-based" strategy in Iraq ..."

of course, you had no comment whatsoever on that ...

[sandnsea]

11. Your last statement

Of course, the Democratic Party does have a position, and the "success" strategy is it. For those of us who listen to the Party and not the media, we know there is leadership on the issue. I can't help what the media does and I can't help that the Party is split on Iraq, which gives the Party the appearance of indecision. Despite your definition of "ASAP", and your belief that it makes the Democratic Party "out of touch with the majority", the poll really doesn't reflect that. So making claims about whether the Democratic Party is "out of touch" would seem to imply you think you "know" something that perhaps you don't.

[welshTerrier2]

13. and your last statement ...

"So making claims about whether the Democratic Party is "out of touch" would seem to imply you think you "know" something that perhaps you don't."

what you are calling "knowing", i call an opinion ... look at the contradiction in your own words ... i think you "know" it's an opinion ...

here's what "you" said: "Despite your definition of "ASAP", and your belief that it makes the Democratic Party "out of touch with the majority", the poll really doesn't reflect that."

you've hit the nail on the head but just won't admit it ... what i stated was "MY BELIEF" ... you acknowledged that the point i was making was what I BELIEVE ... and you are absolutely correct ... is it even possible to "KNOW" that the Democratic Party is "out of touch" ... isn't the statement, by definition, an "OPINION" ...

it would be helpful if you would stop implying that i "KNOW" anything ... i don't purport to have any knowledge whatsoever ... what i do have is my opinion ... if you want to disagree, i have no problem with that ... when you allege that i am asserting facts without supporting them, you distort my statements ...

yesterday i was challenged to produce a source for the poll results i cited ... i provided a link ... i didn't write the poll question nor did i mispresent it ... in fact, i was critical of the wording of the question ... also, i clearly said the poll showed 59% want "withdrawal ASAP" ... i was careful to not say "unconditional immediate withdrawal" which is my preferred position ... i take great care to fairly represent the facts ... but i am entitled to interpret the facts and provide my opinion ... again, i expect there will always be differences of opinion and interpretation ... but i don't like to be accused of lying or misrepresentation ... at that, i will always take offense ...

[sandnsea]

14. That is EXCELLENT!

You FINALLY see the difference between "knowing" and an opinion. Just like you, and everybody else, didn't "know" anything about the WMD in Iraq. It was an opinion.

[welshTerrier2]

15. nice try ... opinions can reflect both good and bad judgment

my "opinion" was that bush was lying and had fabricated evidence to support his case ...

the gullible Democrats who voted for the IWR failed to use good judgment when they trusted bush to tell them the truth ...

those who accepted the evidence bush sold them as FACT were fools ...

the reality is, there were no facts about WMD and nothing was known ...

[sandnsea]

16. All opinions were based on facts

All world leaders came to the same opinion based on the facts, the opposite opinion of yours. The facts that were known; the facts that the aluminum tubes existed, the drone existed, the missiles existed, previous bio/chem facilities had been rebuilt; should not have been exaggerated or manipulated. It does not change the FACT that these are definite FACTS. The UN agreed on these facts as well. The purpose of these items is what was NOT KNOWN, not by you or anybody else, which is why some voted for the IWR, and later the UN Resolution, in order to find out the rest of the facts. You can have the opinion that the facts didn't justify taking any action against Saddam, but you can't say that you "knew" anything different about the facts than what anybody else did. Because you just didn't. And you could have just as easily been wrong in your opinion too.

[welshTerrier2]

17. All world leaders?

really? did they all think the US should invade Iraq? would we consider those Democrats who voted against the idea to be world leaders or do you mean only heads of state? and did all heads of state support the invasion of Iraq? i don't think your FACTS are correct there ...

and you've done a fair amount of twisting of the FACTS you presented ... i AGREE that "aluminum tubes existed" BUT the IAEA said it was extremely unlikely they were being used to develop nuclear weapons as bush maintained ... and yes, drones existed ... these drones did not have the capability to reach the US and there was no evidence, unless you would like to provide some, that these drones could possibly have eluded the US Air Force which had absolute control over the "NO FLY ZONE" for something like 10 years ... you seem to have omitted that FACT ... yes, i agree "missiles existed" ... notice you used the past tense ... "existed" ... our own expert weapons inspectors, based on the best available evidence, did not BELIEVE these missiles still existed ... and bio/chem facilities? there you have an advantage ... my recollection is that none was found after the invasion ... are there FACTS to the contrary?

you keep making an implication, or almost an accusation, that i've said i KNEW WMD did not exist ... you cannot, of course, point to any statement i made to that effect because it is not something anyone could have known and i made no such statement or representation ... the point i keep raising is that my opposition to the IWR and the war was based on my opinion some of which derived from my values and some of which derived from certain facts that were KNOWN ...

the bottom line with regard to the IWR was that my opinion was that bush should not be trusted ... and it is still my opinion that those who were duped into trusting him were foolish ... there were enough FACTS and expert opinions available to know better ... included in these were the conclusions of the IAEA on the aluminum tubes; the conclusions of Blix and Ritter and other weapons inspectors about WMD; the fraudulent Niger memo that should have made it eminently clear that "someone was selling something" and perhaps most importantly, the PNAC documents that clearly showed a desire to go to war at any cost and recognized the possible need for a "colossal precipitating event" (or words to that effect) to get the American public to go along ... in addition to all this, we knew or should have known that Iraq had nothing to do with bin Laden or those who attacked the US on 9/11 ... if you're really trying to make a case that the FACTS supported the administration's case for war, we're not looking at the same set of facts ... and if you're trying to support "the opinions" of those who believed what bush was telling them, it's hard to understand what argument you're making for why anyone should ever have trusted that lying weasel ...

it might be useful if you would stop directing your arguments at me and start addressing what was known, and should have been known ... my bottom line on the IWR and the Democrats who voted for it, and yes, it's MY OPINION, is that they should have known better than to trust bush ... unfortunately, they did NOT ...

[sandnsea]

19. Yes, let's address what's known

What's first known is that I wasn't talking about the invasion, I was talking about the vote. It's been a cute trick to distort the facts pertaining to both, to the point that some people say they knew the Niger document was faked so why did the Democrats vote for war.

"we invaded a sovereign country based on a pack of lies"

"we never believed the lies bush and cheney told and we saw thru Powell's lies at the U.N."

Of course you've stated you knew there were no WMD in Iraq, a cazillion times. Here are two statements in that regard. Don't pretend your haven't been harpingon "knowing" and that Democrats should have "known" what you did. Whether it's the WMD or an American President starting a war of choice. The only thing you knew is that you didn't like Bush.

Just like you "know" there "will NEVER be stability in Iraq while U.S. troops remain." You don't know that either, it's an opinion.

It's ideology. It's adherance to a polticial belief system that assumes the right is always wrong. Liking Presidents and adhering to ideology isn't what elected officials base the security of the country on. That's what Bush does.

[rinsd]

12. Pew also has a poll question like that

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"


Keep Bring
Troops Home Unsure

10/6-10/05 47 48 5
9/8-11/05 51 45 4
7/13-17/05 52 43 5
6/8-12/05 50 46 4
2/16-21/05 55 42 3
1/5-9/05 54 41 5
12/1-16/04 56 40 4
10/15-19/04 57 36 7
9/8-13/04 54 40 6
8/5-10/04 54 42 4
7/8-18/0 53 43 4

[welshTerrier2]

18. some have argued with the wording of these polls

i'm guessing that their objection is to the term ASAP ... one could argue that withdrawal is not "possible" until some condition is met ... i think the wording of the polls could be improved but i think what they indicate is unmistakable ..

the American people have had more than enough and want the troops brought home ... the CBS poll cited in the OP and the one you posted both show the same theme: it's time to leave ...

in the poll you cited, immediate withdrawal, or withdrawal ASAP was clearly presented as a "binary alternative" to the choice of staying to help Iraqis achieve "stability" ... if Americans don't want to remain in Iraq to help achieve stability, what other possible reason do the 48% plurality in the Pew poll or the 52% majority in the CBS poll think we should stay there for??? it's clear from both polls that half or more Americans want us to get the hell out of there ...

if it takes a month or two to withdraw safely and ensure our troops are properly protected during the withdrawal, that's fine with me ... if someone were to argue that the Iraqis would be much better off if they had an extra month or two, let's discuss the reasons why ... i'd be willing to consider the possibility ... but if we're going to be sold on staying another 6 months or nine months or 18 months, forget it ... we Americans, the ones in the majority, have had enough ... we've seen more than enough of the lies, the bungling, the record oil profits, the lack of infrastructure rebuilding, the absence of a coherent political solution, and all the deaths and wounds and costs that have been spilled into this insane war and occupation ...

GET THAT ???? the polls, however poorly worded they may have been, are telling our sleeping Democrats to start representing us NOW !!!!