I'm skeptical of anyone who writes/says things like "America wants/America thinks" - its not that I believe its a bit of hubris to speak on behalf of the nation, but that inevitably such sweeping statements are used to hide conflicting evidence under the debate rug.
Iraq War? Do Americans want to end it as it is now seen as wrong or did they just get tired of losing? If the latter - as indicated by the results of the 2004 election, will "America want" us to pull out come time for the next election?
Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.
Skeptical is good, but am I wrong? I tend to be skeptical of arguments that are all questions and no answers, so answer for me these questions three:
- Irrespective of the reasons why, do you believe that a majority of Americans oppose the war?
- Whether the reason for the shift in opinion on the war is due to the failure of the Bush Administration to bring victory or whether it's due to the reasons given for going to war turning out to be lies, if Americans no longer support the war, why would they want it to continue for another year?
- Do you think that a majority of Americans believe that a Democratic administration can bring victory in Iraq and that if elected, a Democratic President should continue the war?
In order to belay any skepticism based on my own statement above, I'll provide the (my) answers:
- Yup. As of this week 54% want the troops home ASAP.
- They wouldn't. See above.
- Nope. Same link, down the page: 55% want the troops home before the beginning of 2009, which happens to be the when the next President will be inaugurated. Going further, 54% of Americans say victory isn't possible, and 67% disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the war. Scrolling down a bit further, 50% think the Democrats would do a better job at handling the war. If I had to make the call, I wouldn't bet my political career and my place in history on something two-thirds of the American people think is a lost cause, especially when it would be so easy to blame my predecessor, a hugely unpopular member of the opposition party who's the one who got us into this mess.
-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.
Irrespective of the reasons why, do you believe that a majority of Americans oppose the war?
Short answer: No. Long Answer: Which war are we talking about? I don't say this to distract you but its worth remembering Guiliani-style that much of our troop activity traces back to 9-11. Is Iraq now part of a robust response to terrorism/Al-Qaeda? I'd say yes, more to the point I don't believe Americans in majority oppose the war but rather oppose the steady drain on resources (both people and dollars) with little sign of progress or plan. I believe that as Iraq stabilizes, you'll see this opinion polls (which change by significant margins on a daily basis making me question their utility/sanity) also change. If you look at your own poll, you'll see this uptick in people who want the troops to remain already beginning to occur. Americans like to win -- if we are winning no one cares how we do it (remember how Iraq started? Bush on the carrier?).
Whether the reason for the shift in opinion on the war is due to the failure of the Bush Administration to bring victory or whether it's due to the reasons given for going to war turning out to be lies, if Americans no longer support the war, why would they want it to continue for another year?
Because Abortion, Gay Marriage and Taxes are more important to a voter than the Iraq war. If american's -really- didn't like the Iraq war we'd have elected Kerry. The fact that we still have the Bush administration shows that even when things are shit (and lets face it, Iraq was a LOT worse in the last election than now), Americans still chose to 'stay the course' by electing leaders who intend to do so. AFAIK only a minority of the presidential candidates have committed to a 'ASAP' troop withdrawal, leading candidates such as Clinton on the democrat side and Guiliani on the republican side have not. We are in Iraq for at least another 10 years, by the time the election rolls around Iraq is going to be a second tier issue compared to (rolls dice) economic recession.
Do you think that a majority of Americans believe that a Democratic administration can bring victory in Iraq and that if elected, a Democratic President should continue the war?
The hard numbers bear out your point, the trend behind them undermines it. There has been a six percent shift in people who think that we did the "right thing" in invading Iraq between June and November. Now you want me to believe a 55% measure is conclusive for an election over 12 months away? I am not dismissing the poll data -- just trying to put it in context.
So turnabout is fair play:
- If the Iraq War is so unpopular with the newly enlightened American people, why is it that the support for immediate troop withdrawal are not at "do you think killing puppies is a bad thing" levels?
- If the Democrats are such a shoe-in to 'make changes' and 'steer us in a new direction' what have they done since obtaining control of congress? Corollary: Why is electing a democrat president going to be any different?
Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.
Irrespective of the reasons why, do you believe that a majority of Americans oppose the war?
Short answer: No.
Odd response that, considering the figures are printed right there.
In response to the question: "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?" 54% of Americans polled said "bring them home ASAP". That's an unambiguous statement: bring 'em home, don't fuck around with ifs, ands, or buts, bring 'em home.
Panning down, the responses to the question "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" are just as clear: "No". The percentage of Americans with that response has been a 58% or more since at least January 2007.
Finally, 55% state very clearly that "The most responsible thing we can do is find a way to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009." Only 40% say we should wait until the situation stabilizes.
How many times do you need to hear it? The majority of Americans want this damned war over and our troops home, the sooner the better. No matter what the specific reasons are the result is the same: game over.
Because Abortion, Gay Marriage and Taxes are more important to a voter than the Iraq war.
Wrong again. They may be more important to you, but the most recent polls (NBC News/Wall Street Journal 11-5-2007) show that the number 1 issue on voters' minds is Iraq, outpacing health care by ten points. Abortion and Gay Marriage, BTW, came in 8th. When lumped in together they scored 3%, meaning that only a very small minority of voters (barely over the margin of error) thinks Abortion and Gay Marriage are more important issues than the war. Taxes/Job Creation, BTW, came in third behind Iraq and Health Care.
If american's -really- didn't like the Iraq war we'd have elected Kerry.
First off, it's spelled "Americans".
Second, that same argument would imply that the 2006 election was first and foremost a referendum on the war and that Americans voted "No". If Americans -really- liked the war, they'd have voted for Republicans and the GOP would still hold the House and the Senate. Instead, voters turned out and made history: for the first time in American history, one party failed to pick up a single seat. Usually, even in a year when one party is hugely unpopular there's one Congresscritter who is so unpopular that he'd lose to Jesse Helms in San Francisco. Not this time. The GOP hung on to some seats they already had, but they lost 30 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate without gaining a single seat. That's never happened before.
Third, you could argue that in November 2004 the American people were willing to give Bush more time. Sure, that's plausible. That was three years ago. Read the polls. Time's up.
by the time the election rolls around Iraq is going to be a second tier issue compared to (rolls dice) economic recession.
That's why the GOP is going to lose next year. If as you say, Iraq was a LOT worse in the last election than now and the level of support for the war has dropped to current levels, imagine what it's going to be after another year of "stay the course". On the other hand, there are only two reasons that Iraq could drop to being a second-tier issue in time for the election:
#1 The level of violence drops from "Level 5 Clusterfuck" to "Guns 'n' Roses Concert where Axl bails 20 minutes in".
#2 Something even worse than Iraq happens.
The first case is so staggeringly unlikely that the only way I can see it happening is if the US Army restored the water supply to pre-war levels and used it to dose the entire population with Ecstasy. That hangover's kind of a bitch, though.
The thing about the second case is that the only way it would be bad for the Democrats is if it could be traced directly to something they did in the period from January of 2007 to November of 2008 and the GOP's hands were completely and utterly clean or if the Democratic candidate does something jaw-droppingly stupid.
Moving on to your questions, I don't know why support for troop withdrawal isn't at anti-killing puppies levels. I don't know why so many people supported the war to begin with. That doesn't change the fact that a majority of Americans oppose the war and want it over.
As for the Democrats inability to get things done, that's particularly a numbers game. The Dems have 232 seats in the House and 49 seats in the Senate (2 seats are held by Independents who caucus with the Democrats). They can pass a bill with a simple majority, but need a 2/3 majority to override a Presidential veto. That means that 15 Senators and 60 Congressmen from the GOP have to cross party lines for the Dems to get anything done. Furthermore, there's cloture. Any Senator can place a hold on a bill by threatening a filibuster. In order to break the hold, 60 Senators have to agree to vote to break a filibuster should it come to that. Again, that means that 9 GOP Senators have to cross party lines for the Dems to be able to break a filibuster.
Now me, I think the Democrats ought to be pressing this. They keep presenting legislation, then backing down when they don't have the votes to break the hold and/or override a veto. I think they should be forcing the GOP to very publicly vote against withdrawing the troops from Iraq, health care reform, and the rest of their agenda. The Dems should pass the bills and then force Bush to either sign them or veto them. Even if the Democrats can't override the veto, they can affix the blame squarely on the GOP. It's a gamble, but I think it's worthwhile. If the Democrats' platform really is the one the American people favor, then shining a big spotlight on the GOP using parliamentary maneuvers to prevent that platform from taking effect can only help the Democrats in 2008.
-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.
As much as ever, I think it's a very bad time to paint this in distinctly democratic and republican brushes. Wetkarma's final point below has merit--Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war. Obama, while distinctly different from Hillary on many issues, wasn't that much better on Iraq. Meanwhile, Ron Paul has opposed the Iraqi invasion from the beginning and is expected to lead Republicans in fundraising this quarter. I don't really have a point, that's just my response.
What I do have is a question. If the American people are so outrageously opposed to the Iraq war that they're going to demand party change at the top should their be an election next November, how does their opinion change if Pakistan descends into chaos and we need a million troops in order to go over their and "save the nukes" as the Brookings institute recently postulated?
It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.
What I do have is a question. If the American people are so outrageously opposed to the Iraq war that they're going to demand party change at the top should their be an election next November,
I may be misreading, but do you believe there will not be an election in November?
Not at all. I believe there most likely will be an election next November.
It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.
