CNN Poll: Most in US say Iraq war not worthwhile

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/iraq.poll/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq, a national poll reported Tuesday.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.

That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not.

It's also the highest percentage of respondents who have expressed those feelings and triple the percentage of Americans who said that it was not worth the cost shortly after the war began about two years ago.

eom

:eyes: Dumbasses.

Probably the same morons who didn't like Kerry because they, "didn't know where he stood" on issues.

Which is pure nonsense. :eyes: I wonder if they'd still vote for the moron.

Bush appeared to be scoundrel imbecil with convictions, Kerry scoundrel imbecil with no convictions. And in US politics it's all about appearance.

Simply put, pro-war DLC Kerry was the wrong pick. A semi-honest stand-up anti-war guy with a spine would have won.

An upfront anti-war guy like Howard Dean would probably have gotten more votes than Kerry, but even so I believe Kerry actually won but the election was stolen. I just can't believe Bush's support could have evaporated so quickly if it had actually been there in the first place.

...that Kerry did win. Bush supposedly got 50.7% of the vote 6 months ago? No way. Kerry won, and they stole it again. If these voting machines and vote-counting machines are not thrown out, the Dems will always have fewer votes than the right wing.

that it was a fair election. It wouldn't have mattered if it were George Washington running against George W, so long as the repubs control the vote counting machines and voters registration, there can be no winners, only thieves.

I don't think it was a fair election. First of all, I don't think it's possible to have fair elections in US because of the lousy system where practically only amount of campaign money matters, second voting machines.

But someone apparently with some spine, like Dean, could and would have been able to put up a good preventive and VERY PUBLIC campaign against machines with no paper trail, and gathered enough votes so that it would have been difficult to do enaugh tampering to steel the election.

No question about it.

It's true that the IWR caused Kerry a few problems, but an anti-war candidate would have gotten it worse. What Kerry lacked was the language that would have simplified the thing to the American people.

"Yes, I did vote for the Iraq War Resolution. I was given the word of the President that these weapons existed, and I agreed that if peaceful means could not eliminate them then as a last resort action would have to be taken. Little did I or the American people know, it was all a lie. The weapons never existed, but were simply the pretext for a rush to war. We trusted in the President of the United States, and we were deceived."

It would have placed Kerry on the same side of the issue as the general public, would have given a pass to former supporters of the war, and undermined trust in Bush. An anti-war candidate would have fared worse because 1) Bush/Rove would have cast him as being against the 'War On Terror' and thus implicitly in favor of terrorism 2) To vote for an AW candidate, the public would basically have to admit they were wrong on the war from the beginning, the "I told you so" factor, which people don't like. The truth, which is that they were lied to, would be easier to swallow.

It was all a lie to get a war started, if we knew then what we know now, it would have been a landslide with huge coat tails.

there was election fraud....* was never elected.... He was E-Elected!

the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of idiots and that we actually elected that monster. We can cry "foul" all we want, but when the umpire is crooked, the call still goes against you. We need to level the playing field. I just don't know how. I guess just continue to speak out and loud and hope that others wake up.
Too bad it takes death, disease, and poverty at their own doorstep to see the truth that's been in front of them the whole time.

other than he would execute the war better.

:grr:

People here have generally and basically called everything right from the beginning and this was not enough against a tide of, well--stupidity among enough of the populace to serve the Bush strategy: get enough real votes so you can steal enough of the rest to look like you won. This is, sorry if you don't like it everyone, an intellectual elite here at DU.

have?

The info WE had available was info that anyone with a brain and an internet connection had available. Scott Ritter/Hans Blix and others in the intel community were ignored. The info we had here was due to a few notable individuals willing to speak out and our media decided they did not matter.

From Democratic Underground
Dated February 14, 2004

The Left Was Right
By Jack Rabbit

One year ago this weekend, an estimated ten million human beings marched world wide against Mr. Bush's planned invasion of Iraq. They marched in major cities such as London, Madrid and Canberra, capitals of Mr. Bush's military and diplomatic partners in what passed for a broad coalition; they marched in Paris, Berlin, Tokyo and other major capitals of the world; they marched in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other major cities of the United States, including San Francisco, where this writer marched with an estimated 200,000 others.

The message was clear: on one side stood George W. Bush, presumptive President of the United States, his aides and PNAC think-tankers, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his aides and a small handful of other world leaders, set to invade a sovereign state with no provocation; on the other stood the people of the world, a teeming mass of humanity, led by the political Left to oppose them.

They said that Saddam needed be overthrown because he was a brutal dictator. We knew all about Saddam and made no apologies for him. We knew that he had plunged Iraq into two senseless wars, one with the blessing of the US government and one with its active opposition. We knew that he had used poison gas on his own people. We knew that he murdered thousands of Shiites in the aftermath of the 1991 war. We knew that he was one of the great criminals of modern history.

And still this did not excuse war. If Saddam was a criminal in 1991, we could have and should have brought him to justice in the aftermath of the war; President Bush chose not to do so. In February 2003, there was no immediate humanitarian crisis in Iraq for which Saddam was directly responsible; he was not a threat to his weakest neighbor; and he had no associations with the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 . . . .

One year later, we have every right to hold our heads high. We of the Left were right.

Read more.

:hi:

And now over a hundred thousand people, including 1,600 US soldiers, are unnecessarily dead, permanently disabled, and psychologically scarred - and our country is crushed by massive war debt.

All because of the lies of George W. Bush and the PNAC fascist-republicans.

They must be put on trial before the world, and convicted of treason, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity.

has managed to dismantle it with the aid of all the stupid representatives and senators who kiss his derriere?

Iraq and Afghanistan going at the same time!
I'd say the American public should be concerned

(or maybe that's justification for implementing a draft.)

see link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_risk

Funny how the #@% complicit media NOW starts telling the f-n story.

was a big force behind the willingness to go to war, and live on a temporary "high" of seemingly winning one that carried through to election day 2004, and for which those Bush voters and the rest of us will be paying dearly for years to come. Sickening and sad.

As I read the post, I thought back to RumsFailed's words, from some time in 2003.......(reminisces)

RumsFool: We can fight a war on several fronts (acts threatening).

Yeah, right fool.

We can't handle what we have right now. We're hemorrhaging to death financially. Give it another 2 years, and we won't be able to continue at this pace. The public coffers will be dry.

Other countries in the past have had to stop fighting because the treasury was empty. It's called "Going to the Dog Races with your mortgage money".

If 57% oppose a war that the corporate media whores promote nonstop, how many would oppose it if they were given the whole truth?

More like 77%.

what we've known for over 2 years?

Slow learners indeed. They are in need of some individual instruction.

I hope all of those who have changed their minds will remember this when the next election cycle comes around. But then they have short attention spans.

you know, we're not hooked in to the "core values" of the red staters who think they have a monopoly on patriotism and good old fashioned U.S.of A. "moral" values. They're sick of our MTV, our fancy museums, our college educations, those "movin'pictures" they show down at the Orpheum Theater on Saturday nights. Yep, they were 'gonna show US who makes the decisions in this country. They were 'gonna show US that a good, bible totin', southern rancher, the kind a guy you'd like to kick back and have a sarsaparilla with after a hard day of mending fences and clearing brush, who believes in JESUS above all else, someone who reflected their "values"...was better than one of them fancy pants northern yankee liberals. Yep, they showed US alright, they elected this fucking moron because he was SO MUCH LIKE THEM! Yep, they showed US alright!
Listen Gomer, from now on let people who know what the fuck they're talking about make the decisions. Go fix the John Deere, feed the chickens, bake bread and home school your kids so they'll turn out to be dolts, just like you. Let people who actually KNOW the issues and how government works in this day and age make the important decisions. You think we're still back in the Eisenhower administration.
I'm sorry, but when I hear these ignorant hayseeds telling us that THEY know what this country needs, I lose it. They're so far removed from reality in Bugtussel, or wherever the hell they live, that they have no idea what makes this country anymore. To them it's all Momma, hot dogs and apple pie (and patriotic bumper stickers). America has changed, and they didn't change with it. So lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

ShockNAwe them back into the stone age and they aren't happy. Suprise!

Yes -- keep the pressure on ...

A link to how we all pushed back on our local paper:
http://www.meadvilletribune.com/story.asp?id=3393


We can make a difference !(even if it's a small one -- it's worth it)
:patriot:

Closing in on 1,700 military KIA. No exit strategy. No defined objectives. No metric that tells us we're "winning," just a mounting casualty figure that tells us how much we're losing. $300 billion poured down the drain so far, and supplemental appropriations as far as the eye can see. And our nation's leaders continue to spout happy talk about how good it's all going.

Well Mr. and Mrs. America? Is it going real good for you? Know anyone who's come back from Iraq missing a couple of body parts? Or a family with one of those spiffy gold stars in their window? The Iraqis hate us, you know. And Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, and didn't have the capability to do anything more violent than blow its nose prior to this invasion.

Now look at all we've won with the saber and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all?

No, it was not worth it. I hate that our country seems to have fallen completely off the horse. Number one? Not anymore, haven't been for a long time.

because of religion. Abortion and the right to life and the desire for the state to regulate, according to their religion, another's body and her decisions re her body. That's why. It is an immoral position as well as the gay marriage postion, which is also an immoral position. Why is it immoral? Because it foster hate and hurt to other human beings.

Nevermind that we killed and murdered 100,000 innocent people and the killing goes on day after day---it is American women who need to be reigned in, according to the religion and anyone who votes for someone who is moral, who recognizes the right of anyone to control their own life and their own body, is going straight to hell

That's why they voted for Bush.

The war for many of them, is revenge. The war for many of them is 'get them, before they get us" The war for many of them, in spite of the slaughter committed in theirname, a name that has NO compassion, no morals, no empathy, but certainly does contain the fearful, the perception of power to wield over women--who are still regarded as "filth" as the bible says often.

This is why.

That's why they voted for the CHIMPANZEE and his Handler "DARTH" CHENEY.

Yes, we told them it would be Iraq-Nam. I remember the debates here in Feb & March 2003. I was called all kinds of names by the LimpMan supporters and other troop apologists.

Then one year later and Abu Ghraib came along. I was excoriated for being anti-Americkan when I suggested that certain troops were THUGS and HOODLUMS

Yup, I have a long memory.

Of course I thought it was a bad idea along, but what do I know.

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

and help do something about it?

will you all stop laughing at me -- i'm being serious here.:spank: :grr: :spank:

they were stupid or they were fooled or both, being subjected to the greatest blizzard of systematic lying the world has ever seen, unchallenged by the media, largely.

voting republican. Why? Because many troops will leave Iraq and be off fighting somewhere else that seems "more" necessary, and then that will be justified, once again, UNTIL IT'S NOT.

YEP. Losin' my dinner now.

Remember, only 50-60% of the people even voted. Likely & registered voters polled last year; all Americans polled this year. That's the difference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3588644&mesg_id=3588644

MNA Day 2 will be announced when the number of American deaths in Iraq is 1608

That day is designated MNA 1608



Peace and thank you for your post. Nominated and kicked!


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - 'We The People' WILL STOP THE ATROCITIES

brand bullshit.

The tide comes in, the tide goes out.

asshat got his "mandate" and the rhetoric cooled. bushco stopped selling the war once he got reelected. now that the marketing has slowed to the occasional defensive rebuttal, the people are starting to wonder what it was really about.

bushco has already gotten what they wanted, so they no longer care about selling what has become an outdated message. why cheerlead after the game?

who really cares what americans think, besides a bunch of imbecile americans? The blood is on their hands, it will never be washed off.

News Flash: 57% of Manson family think murder spree wasn't worth it.

Surprise-surprise,... people think War is bad after the fact.
Duhhh... We knew the War was a Con long before the first bomb.

It's always tempting to accuse Bush/repug voters of just being stupid. These polls include people that don't vote and didn't vote. Like it or not, even with voters of any Party, a lot of them only have the vaguest idea why they vote a certain way and very little idea what the consequences might be. They don't have second thoughts till the bill comes due or they begin to feel some personal pain. You may say that defines stupidity, but it also defines people who have other things to worry about like jobs, family and health care. Issues they'd vote Democratic on if they knew what Dems really stood for. The DU crowd and concerned progressives in general are better educated and informed because we want to be. We seek out information. We spend time on it. Don't be freaked out when you see polls like this and wonder how people can be so stupid. The SCLM is going to spoon-feed fat, sugar and disinformation as long as that is what pays their bills.

We have to continue to be the voice of reason and never stop getting the word out, speaking the truth and speaking to people that don't think they agree with Progressive values. These polls could turn around next week and people will love the Monkey and his War again just because Rove and pals concoct the right stunt. We need to use this dissatisfaction to get the truth out and turn some minds around.

Check out this link.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/05/learn-to-say-aint.html

Written by a stand up comedian that is dead-on about why Dems specifically and Politicians in general don't connect with audiences. We have to connect. People are ready for a different message. They won't listen if the first thing you say implies that they were stupid and are stupid.

No matter where, work, home or play... Never let a right wing talking point go unchallenged. Never let a lie get repeated, without the truth being offered. People aren't that stupid, they've just been conned. Wake somebody up from being conned and they get righteously pissed at the Con artists. We are beginning to see it and we need to harness that anger.

we can talk till were blue in the face and we won't "connect" unfortunately.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

I/we voted for Kerry. Rub it in. :evilgrin:


Download the free PDF letter size art here:
http://www.ediablo.com

...to CNN writing the percentages in this particular manner?:

Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was

I had to reread that line because "fifty-seven percent" didn't stand out the first time. Why didn't they write "57 percent" like they wrote "41 percent"? Afraid of making an too big a bad impression on their readers, ya think?

:tinfoilhat:

they are so transparent.

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Congressman John Conyers
http://rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

I'm an old woman who has lived long enough to recognize that most (not all) of Congress has been bought, bullied, bribed, etc.

Congress is NOT working for the American taxpayer!

When was the last piece of meaningful legislation passed for the ordinary taxpayer?

You young people probably keep up with this better than I do, because I can't remember anything that has been passed by Congress for us over the last few years! I do have a bit of memory problem, but then, so will you one day :).

NEVER EVER GIVE UP. Keep up the fight for yourselves, your children, for us who have gone before.


I was one of those 60's college kids who refused to be co-opted. Screw 'em all.

brought up the fact that the color-coded chart chart was dumped and "terra alerts" stopped immediately after Bush was re-selected? I would like someone to point out that Bush used millions of our taxpayer dollars to boost his poll numbers and pay for his re-election.

God, this pisses me off. :mad:

Unless someone is holding a gun to them or somthing.

Here's a link to the Color Wheel of Fascism. Worth reading the chart.

http://www.falloutshelternews.com/ColorWheelFascism.html


I don't remember the last time we had a color coded duct tape warning.

The millions of protestors around the world got it right. The intelligence planners, administration liars, and outright corporate bastards got it all wrong.

The disconnect from these neocons is truly stunning. Reality to them is everything they see on Fox News, read on the Wall Street Journal, and check out online at Newsmax.com and Drudgereport.com.

If any group of political ideologues were truly divorced from reality, it's the assholes who voted for Bush, because they also voted for gay bigotry, religious dogma, and most of all, AGAINST THEIR TRUE BEST INTERESTS.

:eyes:

And they still indicate that they are trying to impress "moderates", "swing voters" etc.

Those 41% need to get their heads out of their asses and check out the world of FACTS. This war was NEVER a good idea.

whe we needed them....

the war, Social Security privitization, energy and its poor cousin the environment, healthcare, education.

It's not about what WE want!

A beand new 2005 vehichile parked in my parking lot in thr condo parking lot where I live had a number of anti-bush stickers ,one said "the only term bush deserves is a prison term" another said BUllSHit and on the back of the car was a Edwards /Kerry 04 sticker
! I took a China writer I have ,its a white colored caryon type pencil and wrote Right On ,on top on th bush deserves a prison term sticker. Happy to see ,in a town that was full of bush/chenney stickers ,something like this running around town ,hope to see more as the American people open there eyes to the nightmare this country is going thru under this most corrupt of pResidents !

that so few of our political leaders represent the majority--and those that do, like Kucinich, are marginalized like some sort of crackpot.

Or is accountability (responsibility) a dead concept in America?

>> What's on Bill's mind? Political commentary with attitude and more at http://www.BillsBrain.com