Poll: Critics hurting U.S. war effort (70% - criticism hurts troop morale)

They should poll the troops.

However, I think that many Vietnam Vets would have rather that politicians had listened to the doves instead of the hawks.

Why? IMO it's because the media has, for at least the last few weeks now, been pounding interview after interview with officers and enlisted men who are saying these things. Problem is these men are captive interviewees who could be either hand picked, because they have these beliefs, or outright coached about what to say. Now heap on interview after interview with, Bushishta friendly, former offices and enlisted men who are saying the same thing. I can't count the number of times I've heard a story about the war where the last thought is "John Doe of the military says criticism is hurting moral". That's a general paraphrase but the sentiment it there. Of course the public will believe it. The coverage has been hugely one-sided. Did this level of, how the troops feel coverage, exist during the Vietnam War?

Jay

Of course criticism of the war reduces morale. But if soldiers can be ordered to stand smiling behind the president whenever he wants to create a poll-boosting photo-op, they can be ordered to buck up and fight.

Besides, it seems like more of a morale-buster to get shot at.

"Freedom of Speech" seems to be the criminal here. Yet pesky as it is, Free Speech still IS a bedrock to our Constitution. The Constitution...that thing our forefathers based this country on...and THIS Admin. daily tries its best to debase with phoney polls like this.

whore polltakers.

I believe Riehle is a Democrat like I believe Zell Miller is a Democrat.

No one knows what's going on there except the people who are actually, you know, there.

Usually articles compare and contrast near identical polling questions by a whole host of polling groups.

Rightist Thugs?

RT is about as bad as Rasmussen in terms of leaning towards Bush.

http://azureblue.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/24/1350/6844

Edit: Compare their numbers here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Anytime a poll is using talking points as questions has to make you wonder.

Waaa Waaa cry me a river

or, lack of body armor. Or, the lack of a clear mission. Or, no exit strategy. Or, being shipped off to a pointless war.

If it is important that everyone in the US support a war, then maybe the US should only wage wars that everyone supports.

and heard that Rep Murtha wanted to bring me home soon, that sure would fuck with my morale. I'd rather stay in Iraq ad infinitum with no goal, no objective, no reason for being there except to allow myself to be used by bush supporters as a prop against his opponents.

.. see how their morale is right now, regardless of any criticism. I think the threat of being killed daily and witnessing the clusterfuck that is this war, is much worse for morale.

Personally, I think that the soldiers are more concerned with fighting then they are about what people think about back in the states.

Unless you're going to actually poll the troops, then quit it with these lame polls designed only garner political points for one particular party.

"strategy" in Iraq. Poll

The current strategy in Iraq - what is that?

That's the strategy.

they lay down their weapons and refuse to fight. That they realize we have no right to be there.

Proud to be a major hindrance to the "war effort". :patriot:

Has Rove threatened to kill their families, or what?

That ask not about how they feel about the war but what they think others think about the war. They could have also asked what they think motivates Republican support for the war, but they didn't. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about RT's objectivity.

...that's what's really important? What people think other people think, I mean.

RT is obviously polling for the Republican Party -- does RT stand for "Republican Think-tank"? Anyway, RT has discovered that a sufficiently large number of people, including some moderates, as well as those who call themselves undecided in public opinion polls, actually don't have opinions of their own, but are perfectly content to follow along with whatever or whomever they observe the rest of the population to be supporting.

It's like "I vote only for the man who wins". It's much safer just to follow along inconspicuously, it doesn't involve a lot of messy "thinking", and it plays into people's essential bone-laziness. Sometimes it seems as if most people begrudge the small amount of time it takes to vote only because their guilt pang is stronger than their reluctance to get off their butts.

RT knows this. If, through its own polling, RT can manage to convince enough of the undecided moderates that the rest of us think in a particular way, it can manufacture (scavenge) enough votes to swing elections to Republican candidates. Those who remain undecided probably aren't going to vote anyway, which is OK too, as far as the "Republican Think-tank" is concerned. And if RT also uses a lot of wedge questions in its polling, it can remind the less undecided what their marching orders are.

I'd be interested to know if there are any studies that conclude that the further you get away from the political centre, the more likely you are to vote. What is the role of apathy in politics?

because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq."

I don't know about other critics, but I am not interested in helping US efforts in Iraq - I want to END US efforts in Iraq.

Our soldiers don't need me to tell them what they are facing over there. I think their morale is much more adversely affected by their seeing the administration lying to the world and to them about how things are going and the prospects for "success" in Iraq which are not grounded in any reality.

I would like to see them re-poll with:

Which hurts troop morale more:

a) Talk against the war
b) Bombs
c) Losing a limb
d) Killing innocents

Putting aside the accuracy and integrity of the poll itself, so what?

Are we all supposed to sit down and shut up for fear of hurting "troop morale"?

Sorry, it don't work that way. I'm not responsible for "your" feelings. If you know that what you are doing is "right", nobody else's opinion is going to sway you.

How dare we want our families back home, intact and alive??

Maybe those pollster-idiots are simply failing to realize that the INTENT of the criticism IS to fuck up the rah-rah war effort?

Ya wanna make an omelet, ya gotta break a few eggs!

up patrols would welcome any effort to terminate that shit sandwich of a mission. Ask the troops.

Rightwingers, alright.

They're in partnership with Public Strategies Inc. Guess who their biggest clients are? DIEBOLD! They managed their public relations "crisis" for them!

I did some quick research as well.... they claim to be non-partisan, but that's a totally disingenuous claim, as they usually are. I think the League of Women Voters is the last real non-partisan group out there.

The poll is bogus. If 70+% of people oppose the war, then that poll makes zero sense.

Two man operation - he said it looks like part timers. Scads of such two person PR and Consulting and Lobbying firms in Norther Virginia in each and every transit village office park on the metro.

I have an office in the Crystal Plaze office park (actually a mail drop in a lawyer's office and a phone) that makes me a "Washington Consultant".

Big business -

K Street, Jeff Davis Highway, etc. etc. Lots of those office towers have "Executive Office Centers" - a cute receptionst, a voice mail system, Outlook/Note, PowerPoint, and a bunch of "Private Offices" barely bigger then a cubicle, and far more "Brass Plates" on the wall then cubicles. Located within walking distance of the Metro, etc.

We have one in an office tower near the old EPA (20th and Jeff Davis near Reagan Airport).

like the bogus pResident

talking point remains untrue.

:crazy:

I am going to tell you what killed morale in 1969 - no surveys, no links - just personal experience - been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

1. When we would try to get into a bar in a college town (we were 22-24 year old kids, clean shaven, short hair, black GI sox, always one guy in the group with spit shine GI shoes) - we were frequently denied entry -- and one "student" would give us the bird and call us "baby killers" -- as if it was our war and we started it -- not LBJ or MacNamara (the Rummie of our generation).

2. Routinely people would walk up to us at airports and call us baby killers - one little old lady spat in my face and called me a baby killer -- as if it was my personal war and I personally started it -- not LBJ or MacNamara (the Rummie of my generation).

3. The breaking of the "social contract" that America had with the WW2 GI's--

a). The GI Bill was not inflation adjusted. My uncles went to prestige private schools on their benefits - tuition, room and board. Ours did not quite cover tuition alone at public universities.

b). After WW2, the returning vets were given a preferred status when they applied to graduate and professional schools. The VietNam vets were told to "get in line behind the minorities and women." Read the . While the Supreme Court only "granted cert" on reverse racial discrimination - there were two other issues in Bakke--

i) Age discrimination - this case was back when applicants normally applied to med school directly out of college - not two-four years later after military duty.

ii) Discrimination Against Veterans - with the bull crap response - "well now there are women and racial minorities in line ahead of you."


c). The job interview question "If you are so smart and so well qualified - how come you were dumb enough to get stuck in the service -- and even dumber - to get sent to VietNam? (i.e., How come you weren't as smart as George Bush or Karl Rover or Dick Cheney or Newt Gingrich or Dick Armey or Saxbe Chamblis and could avoid the military?


It wasn't George McGovern or Gene McCarthy who destroyed our morale. It was the "bouncers" at the bars -- and the little old ladies at Atlanta Airport -- but even more - it was the Law School and Med School Admissions Deans and the Grad School financial aid officers and the HR interviewers.

And this time it is the "Swift Boating" of Max Cleland and John McCain and John Kerry by Saxbe Chamblis and Karl Rove (deferred) and Dick Cheney (deferred) and Bush (skated) and Jean Schmidt and BFer Danny Bubp and BFer John E. O'Neill of Swifties for their version of the Truth.

I was there - been there, done that, bought the t shirt.

and the situation had not changed much in the early 70s when I was drafted at the tail end of the draft..

I was spit on and called a baby killer, when all I wanted to do was to grow my hair, smoke weed and fight for the War against the War..

I've been on both sides of the issue just like you, and I'll bet you agree with me, for the most part, anyone in Nam that wasn't NUTS or Bought the System wanted the hell OUT OF THERE, and in one piece..

The sad part was a lot of us in UNI LOVED the Hippies and Housewives and what they were saying and doing, but just like NOW we were REQUIRED BY MILITARY REGULATIONS TO NOT DISS OFFICERS, the CIC, etc, etc..

We would be FINED, busted down in rank, and possibly kicked out dishonorably if we told the truth.. it was against the LAW in the military.

THIS is way Bush surrounds himself with Military all the time now, they literally CANNOT dis him.

But I'm willing to bet that the only ones in the crowd with live ammo are the SS agents - remember when Jessie Helms actually THREATENED President Clinton? TOld him to NOT come to a Base in his state as they could not be held responsible for the troops actions AGAINST CLINTON?

Now THAT was some scary shit.

I'm with you Brother, AMEN - you said it all right here in this post.. bought the t-shirt, all the collector spoons and ashtrays as well..

Thanks for serving, I salute you, and I wouldn't salute a WHOLE bunch of officers while IN :)

for having a Hubert Humphry sticker and a peace sticker on my car. So I filed a 138 against me Commanding Officer (a real arse hole red neck). The Adnirl (actually his JAG) dropped the charges and then read me the riot act for jerking around me CO ("God dammit - your smarter then he is - why are you antagonizing him?" - I put that down as a victory.)

Who is he?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

from right wing assholes.

But for symbolman to say it - are you calling him a liar? I have to trust the man for what he is saying, not having any reason to doubt the person.

I wasn't in every place at all times, and I don't know symbolman enough to call him on his personal experiences.

But I do know it was NOT a common occurance, at best.

Once by a drunk on the street as I waiting to board a trolley at the end of the day.

Once at Atlanta Airport - as my wife and I were waiting to board a plane. A prim and proper little old lady.

It was totally an uncommon occurence.

I am not a bhig, muscular Special Warfare type. At that time I was a short, thin, academic looking type. (Not thin anymore)

By the way "symbol" is non-faith based (i.e., not a cross, crescent, or star of David) adopted by the Red Cross as a logo for use where faith based symbols may subject their workers to risk of harm.

Did some research and found out that this is a new, self- styled "bi-partisan corporate/public affaris polling firm" headed by Thom Riehle, "veteran of Democratic polling firms" and Lance Terrance, "pioneering Republican pollster of the 70s &80's" who went on to set up Gallup's polling office in China. They are operating in conjunction with Charlie Cook, of The Cook Political Report. Cook has lots of descriptions, such as from the New York Times, the Washington Post and Bob Shieffer as being very influential and a genius at reading the political scene. Schieffer describes The Cook Report as the Bible of the political community.

RT Strategies conducted its first poll Nov. 17-20, and will b e doing monthly polls They surveyed 1001 adults.

So they are hitting the ground running and will get a lot of play in the Times, the Post, etc. I don't know who funded the new operation, although I wonder about the "corporate: aspect of their work. I used to design survey questions and train interviewers and I know how very easy it is to word the questions and group the answer categories to support whatever outcome your client wishes you to obtain. For example if you got results that 2% strongly approve, 16 % somewhat approve, 70% somewhat disapprove and 12 % strongly disapprove of some action that Bush took; and the pollsters were supported by the GOP, the poll would be reported that ONLY 12% of respondents strongly disapproved of Bush's outcome, IMPLYING that 88% approved. If the pollsters were paid by the Dems, they would report that only 2% strongly approved of Bush. A true bi-partisan analysis would state 82% disapproved and 18 % approved of Bush. That's why people say, lies, damn lies and statistics.

check out this headline for the same poll:

throwers that were hurting morale :sarcasm:

Period	US	UK	Other*	Total	Avg	Days	
4 	671	13	18	702	2.32	302	
3 	579	25	27	631	2.92	216	
2 	718	27	58	803	1.89	424	
1 	140	33	0	173	4.02	43	
Total	2108	98	103	2309	2.34	985

....Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to ``gain a partisan political advantage.''

this poll doesn't pass the smell test.

Not to mention forced extended service, disruption of personal life, the fear that your job and career are gone and that the love life you had before you were sent to a foreign nation on a fool's errand by evil tyrants who never had the courage to do what you are doing is probably destroyed or compromised beyond repair (resulting in increased domestic violence on return when young men who have dealt out death daily fear that their partner was not faithful and neither party knows how to deal with the pain).

Another of the many, many reasons why you don't go to war unless you have to. Bush is bad for troop morale. Telling the truth is not.

caused morale problems.

If troop morale was at an all-time high, the facts on the ground and the mindless killings by the insurgents and our own troops is enough to kill anyone's morale. If troops can't stand criticism then they aren't ready for war anyway. Following orders to commit some of the most heinous crimes against humanity would kill my morale.

disillusion so duh the poll shows the criticism is working. If this disillusion causes a rise in Bush and Chaney's approval rating then it's something to worry about.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Polls fall under statistics. Done objectively, they can reveal a lot about society and it's trends. But they can also be manipulated to say anything you want them to say, by many methods. Sampling base can be manipulated to favor one side or the other (Is this poll of registered voters, likely voters, non-voters, visitors to the Dallas Country club?). Questions can be slanted: "Would you agree with a politician who said our soldiers were patsies sacrificing their lives for nothing?" Questions can be influenced by order, and even by unpublished questions left out of the final poll results. For instance, a poll can ask "Have you heard of the case where a soldier mistakenly killed a young child, and then committed suicide? Do you agree or disagree that criticism of the mistakes of soldiers are bad for soldier morale? Do you believe some politicians go too far in their criticism of the actions of our troops in Iraq?" Ask all three questions, then leave out the first two in your final report. That's not ethical, but there's no gaurantee they wouldn't do it. I saw their other poll, on Bush's approval ratings, and the questions skipped a few numbers here and there. I couldn't find where those skipped questions were spelled out.

So the poll is impossible to interpret, without knowing the questons, the data, the sponsor, etc.

Horsecrap. This poll is just 100%, pure 24-ct horsecrap.

Just sayin'...a penny for mah thoughts.

Has anyone else been watching the Discovery Times Channel's series "Off To War?"

This series documents a handfull of troops and their challenges in Iraq. It covers them in all angles.

Many of the troops recognize how the truth hurts, but they seem to be grateful for the truth. They don't like it being rubbed into an open wound and driven around on parade by the media, but they don't want it suppressed.

Like many Americans, the troops don't understand the news cycle and don't understand that for something to stick and for it to be accepted as fact, sometimes it has to be driven into the ground so to speak.

In a time where the '96 telecommunications act basically neutered the ability to hender media monopolies from controlling news content, it is sad that it takes a huge amount of negative coverage to talk over the neocon pundits that are rolled out and presented as news.

Even then the "few bad apples" line is accepted and swallowed by the public. How do the troops swallow that?

I come from a U.S. Navy that hammers the captain of a ship if anything happens to that skippers ship during his watch. It doesn't matter if it's 0300 and he's fast asleep in his bunk ... if an idiot Ensign slams the ship into a reef ... adios skipper.

Senator Graham made that reference ... I guess it didn't stick, but I was thinking it way before it came out of his lips.

Back to the Discovery Channel series ... most of the series was taped by during the '04 election. It's funny how some of the troops' wives and/or mothers rambled on about wedge issues and such and openly admitted they were going to vote for Bush. While in one circumstance, one of the troops tried and tried to convince his mom that nothing good is going to come of the war. He put it in a nutshell ... all he knew is that he was going over on patrol and that he was going to get shot at. That his buddies were getting shot at. Some buddies were getting hurt, some may die. The Iraqis weren't worth it, there won't be democracy. His mom didn't buy it, she rambled on that even if a little bit of good came from it then it was worth it. She didn't want to think of her son going over to fight for nothing. Her son basically said, too bad, that's exactly what we're doing.

This was just a snap shot of a handfull of troops ... I think a lot of them are getting it. Especially the reserve and National Guard troops.

I was active duty Navy for 5 1/2 years. Reserve for another 5 1/2. I wasn't in the bush ... I wasn't even haze gray. I did my time and then some, but nothing harsh.

I do know about the chain of command. It's important, and it forms the foundation of the military. That foundation took a huge hit when the prison scandal was aimed at only a "few bad apples." That's a joke. The Navy learned a thing or two after Tailhook, but I guess no one else was paying attention. Taking down a ships skipper for something that happened during his watch, even if he was asleep when it happen sends a huge message. It tells everyone how important it is to have good people at the con representing you. It tells everyone that you're accountable for your people's lives, through the chain of command you set up. When it comes to people's lives the shit isn't supposed to roll down hill.

More important than even the torture itself (whether you see it as torture or club med) is the administration's inability to take responsibility. To finger point and to protect high ranking and appointed positions at all cost.

This will tear apart any military, regardless of how strong it is or how much money you pump into it.

Clinton had his faults, but he seemed to appoint qualified people into the positions he had to fill. I don't believe he filled them with a bunch of cronies. William Cohen was, and probably still is, a registered Republican, but he was the man for the job based on his resume. Cohen was a good SecDef as far as I could tell.

BushCo is an entirely different case ... they have their own agenda backed by corporate interests. Big money? I don't think people know how big. When Halliburton lost $30 BILLION in Iraq ... I mean, jeez! $30 billion!!!! That headline didn't even stick. $30 billion lost, misplaced ... ooooppppps. I guess $30 billion is a drop in the bucket. The grand scheme is probably dealing with trillions and trillions of dollars.

It all makes me sick.

Back to these polls ... they're to be taken with less than a grain of salt.

To know that even the troops' parents can't see through the lies is very telling. Knowing this really tells me that although 70% - criticism hurts troop morale, it doesn't equate to the troops feeling the same way.

More media deception ... democracy, liberty held hostage.

Discovering the Administration's crimes hurts morale, as does discovering that the folks at home no longer support what you're doing. Hiding this stuff from the troops--or the rest of the citizenry--only delays the inevitable reckoning.

No, the troops don't like killing and dying for fake causes. Surprised?

history when they ignore the 1952 campaign of Eisenhower
who was going to go to Korea and "end that useless war."
That campaign was anything but an uplifting of moral for
the GI's at that time. But of course that was then and
this is now and we are fighting a GOP war not one sanctioned
by the United Nations.

In the meantime most RWingers and Military Spin Docs claim troop morale is high. This poll is more RW propaganda.

Is any one surprised? They voted for this asshole twice.

nothing on google I could find.

that this poll where ever it is, is out of line and full cheney's bullshit.

Run the poll again and let everyone interested vote, but don't tell us the results of a hidden poll that sounds more like an opinion.

Ok. First off this is meaningless data from a 'does it or doesn't it' perspective because its like polling people on the lenght of the emporers noze.

However it does of course record what people think the effects might be.

IMO... we have no way of knowing wither critisim hurts *MORALE*. It is entirely posible that it does.

The main problem is that the republicans are trying to use this as a measure of wither critisim costs american lives. Unfortunately increasing or decreasing moral is not a valid measure of that.

Even IF you proved (by studieng actual troop morall etc) that it DOES hurt morale... AND you proved that low moral lead to more deaths (also an entirely open question)...
You would still not have conected critisim to more total deaths. Only to more total deaths from low morale. As so many people have pointed out their are other factors. For instance critisim has spured increased efforts to adaquately supply the troops with armor. and it could result in a faster witdrawl wich could save american lives.

In short they are attempting to use a completely and totaly invalid satistic to represent 'patriotism' or 'carring about the troops' or 'getting troops killed' or some such ballony (not the polsters but rather the people who got everyone obsessed with this topic in the first place).

I do not think the poll is inacurate. It is entirely conceveable to me that those statistics are correct *for the question asked*.

I would be hurt if everyone back home thought that it was okay.:shrug:

So far I've not met a single person who has. Another BS lie, yahooo.

They should go "Poll" the Iraqis....the ones outside the Green Zone.

after they have finished with there service is hurting their morale.

the freedom to criticize stupid, unnecessary wars of aggression? Gawd, I miss my country......

For once, pay no attention to polls, and do what's right. Support Jack Murtha.

soldiers coming back in body bags, soldiers coming back in droves without limbs and with serious disabling injuries affects troop moral? I wonder how the realization that there are no WMD and that they were sent into a war that we shouldn't have started without enough troops to even accomplish the 'peace' affects moral.

It's always easier to blame the messenger.

but stating that the war is a lie isn't...there is a difference.

Bush lied and continues to lie - that hurts morale

Saying so doesn't hurt anyone - but Bush.

The question should be what hurts troop morale more, "unjust wars and lack of planning or criticism of unjust wars and lack of planning? What a load of bullshit. When will our media wake up from thier uselessness and quit kissing the Bush administrations ass? Dems need to stand up now and shout out louder than ever that this war is a charade. A political tool and a complete screw up since day one.

And I want to know exactly how they asked the questions for this poll. When 70 percent of Americans support a time table and withdrawal, there is something off about this poll.


When support for a war( based on lies) goes south they have to point some where. We all know how much responsibility this party takes for their mistakes (Zip). They may want to consider exactly why troop Morale really down.

Our criticism only makes troops question WHY they are there killing people. I'm sure they'd like to ask Dick if it's for Halliburton contracts or oil? Is it really to Bring democracy to a country who really isn't interested in western customs? Such questions and their stack of lies that have come to light wouldn't have anything to do with it, now would it?

Honestly, if the troop morale is low, and they can't blame it on the lies they have told, Why don't they check this shit out before pointing fingers at Dems?

Lack of Vet care
Stop Loss
PTSD
Lack of Armor
Lack of proper equipment
Extended rotations and tours (some are on their 3rd and 4th trips over, image spending 4 birthdays with a rifle attached to your arm)

It's just bullshit and propaganda ... and they are just pissed people aren't swallowing it anymore.

Anyone who has good morale while executing the Iraq mission is at best a stupid moron and at worse an evil cold blooded murderer.

There should be no pride in fighting an illegal and illogical war.

Only a monster would be proud of what the Americans have done to Iraq.

I am so sick of the 'you can't say anything or you'll hurt the troops!' mantra.

BULLSHIT

They are all grown up boys and girls and they can think for themselves. Bush destroying the military and insisting upon continuing this war is what is hurting morale.

GET A FUCKING CLUE

What will happen to morale when these troops go on their 5th and 6th tour of duties? Do ya think that just might break a soldier's spirit? This nation is involved in lying to itself on such a massive scale.

The Bush Administration and the US-state-controlled corporate-media are too afraid to even ask the grunts on the ground what they think. Everything is staged in this dying empire to keep up a facade.

be gleefully and quickly removed, since it is no longer "safe" for even the few who have chosen to speak out.

What utter and complete bullshit. Sheeple is what these fools are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Time will tell.

This will get very interesting - unfortunately, not in a good way.

for War business. How do you all expect Bushco to make (steal) our money. :sarcasm:

fill in the blank.

When will people stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by every self serving pollster?

I'm not buying it. Our armed forces are tough, words spoken by war objectors shouldn't effect their efforts. If they perhaps feel the war is unwinnable, then it's because of what they are seeing over there for themselves, not because of what anyone on this side of the planet says.

I don't give a shit what these polls say. I'm not even going to worry about what some dumb shits think. I'll bet $$ that the poll was done by some Repig organization.

Change nothing in the wording of the poll, nothing in the methodology, nothing at all except that 70% say war criticism helps morale.

How many of the posts in this thread would still call this poll bullshit?

Information is never pure, and the signal is never unmixed with noise. But there is some information in this poll nonetheless, and we are fools to disparage it only because we don't like it. Smart people use information.

Peace.