Americans are not united about Iraq

Contrary to what seems to be conventional wisdom on DU, the American public is divided and confused about what to do in Iraq. In fact, they don't know what they want. And polling demonstrates that pretty clearly. Claiming that Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq immediately, is like bush claiming he had a mandate. It's simply not true. Thus complaining that those in Congress who are voting for the Supplemental with its conditions and date to get out of Iraq, are betraying the American electorate, is just plain wrong.

I've seen this argument so often of late that I think it's important to inject some reality into this too oft unquestioned argument. It's ridiculous and insulting to claim that those in Congress who support the Supplement are bush toadies and stooges who want to do nothing but wage endless war and kill innocents. And frankly, I'm sick of seeing this simplistic formulation.

From Polling Report:

"Do you favor or oppose congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?"

.

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
3/14-15/07
59 34 7

OK, that's pretty clear, but it doesn't address out of Iraq right now. So there's this, also from PR:

"Which of the following comes closest to your view? The U.S. should immediately begin to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. The U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq within a year. The U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq as long as is needed to turn control over to the Iraqi government."

.

Withdraw
Now Withdraw
Within Year Stay as Long
As Needed Unsure
% % % %
3/9-11/07
21 37 39 4

Only 21% of the respondents want us to leave immediately. 37% want us to leave within the year. Yes, it's a majority who want us out of Iraq, but people are strikingly divided about when to get out.

My new rep said it well, regarding why he's supporting the Supplemental. He said if he wrote the bill he'd bring the troops home yesterday, but he didn't so he has to judge it on three criteria: Does it hold the admin accountable? Does the departure date for the troops have the force of law behind it; in other words is it binding? (oops sorry, I forget the third, and it's not on his website yet)

In any case, my point is that the monolithic voting bloc that many here believe is agitating to get the US out of Iraq, doesn't exist. I wish it did, but that's just not reality, as PR polls demonstrate. And it's not only PR. Other polls indicate the same thing.

It's no surprise dems in the House are divided. They represent all kinds of opinions on the war. My Rep, Peter Welch represents the most liberal end of the spectrum, and even we're divided. Reps like Heath Schuler or Gene Taylor represent the most conservative end of the spectrum, representing districts that voted for bushco in 2004.

All the sloganeering in the world won't change the complex facts or the conflicted way that Americans feel.

If only it was as simple as "Out of Iraq Now" or "Not a dime more".

If only.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

but congress does. If they had the facts, there would be little division. But even though we live in a more closed society today, support for the war is ebbing.

realities, which alas are very real.

All it takes is for the majority in Congress to get together and tell the American people the facts.

First of all, the American people know the facts. The problem lies in the interpretation. George Bush has all the facts on Iraq, and he has a very different interpretation of which ones are important and which ones are not.

Iraq is not cut-and-dried. Iraq is as messy a situation as you will ever find. And claiming that the "political reality" of the situation is that Republicans can all get on board the farthest-left position on Iraq--a position that the majority of Democratic politicians are not willing to risk--is kind of confusing.

But the truth is.

I'm curious.

The only truth here is that people have different opinions on the war. The notion that if only Americans heard "the facts" about the war they would all come to the same conclusion about what to do is naive. The reality is that this is a diverse country with diverse notions of how solve the problems that face us.

opinion (if I did). I was only indicating that polling numbers would look a little different with more defined, less confusing results and that most likely, the numbers would reflect a larger amount favoring a phase down now. Many give their opinions based on the lies they've been told. There is a truth that it isn't an opinion concerning this war and how we got into it.

In fact, people disagree about approach. Get used to it.

fully meet their ideals 100%.

But my being used to that, and you repeating your position, gets us no closer to a solution.

Only later does that position prove itself or not. My postion is this, a phased withdrawal overseen by a protection force. I just don't agree about waiting for any long period of time. But it's just an opinion and anyone expressing it has the right to express it no matter how flawed we are in the eyes of others. Be glad you're perfect.


Is this the House floor or what?
:rofl:

They're all ignorant and don't have a clue what's best for 'em. No better way to win in '08 than to disregard the American people.

Are you saying if people knew the truth, their opinions would be the same?

People disagree on which facts are more important than which. For instance, since the Surge was declared, Mr. al-Sadr's Mahdi Army has so far willingly stepped aside and allowed US forces to patrol his neighborhoods. That is a fact. Is it an important fact? That's a matter of interpretation.

Also for instance, the Shi'a militias, in mixed-population areas in which the US Army is not maintaining control, have often engaged in an open policy of ethnic cleansing, in which Sunnis are forced to leave their homes and become refugees or are killed. This is a fact. Does this point to a possible genocide if we leave--a genocide we would be morally bound to prevent? Or is this risk a necessary evil in the greater good of ending US involvement in Iraq? That's a matter of interpretation.

People are coming around to our interpretation of the war. But there is still a wide range of opinion, and it would be first-rate arrogance to assume that the American people will follow Congress wherever it goes.

What I'm saying is an informed public won't base their opinion on any of the lies that are floating around. There is no downside to an informed public on such a matter.

Few people now base their support on outright lies; nobody supports the occupation because they think Iraq once had WMD. What matters is whose interpretation of the agreed-upon facts they believe.

We tend to think the truth will set us free. Were that the case, we'd win every election. I'd advise reading George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant!

with his thoughts on brain framing and such. There are no guarantees in life but you can reduce bad decisions with information.

count? Just trust us?

It runs across all parties.

"We will follow my plan, because the American people are with me."
"This poll shows that they aren't."
"We will follow my plan, because the American people would be with me if they understood the facts."

There has been very little discussion about how we might get out - and I can see people being uncertain about which of the two questions they agree with - to leave immediately or to leave within the year.

After all, what does immediately really mean - because the reality is, if Bush gave the order this moment, how long would it take the troops to pack up and leave - a month, three months, six months?

My view is we need to leave - but in a way that is safest for our troops - which I imagine means pulling them into some larger clusters so the ones remaining can defend as the total numbers get smaller. I don't know exactly, but it must involve some logistical moving.

I suspect some of the people that say within a year are thinking more about the logistics than about whether or not they feel strongly about the war ending.

conclusion that there's been little discussion about getting out. There's been tons of discussion for months on that very subject.

United in disapproval of Bush' handling of the war:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?

3/14-15/07

Approve
27%

Disapprove
69%

Unsure
4%

United in recognizing lack of progress:
"All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq?"

3/14-15/07

Making Progress
29%

Losing Ground
61%

Unsure
10%


United in opposing increasing troop levels:
In general, do you favor or oppose President Bush's decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq?"

Favor
32%

Oppose
64%

Unsure
4%


United in favoring withdrawal by fall 2008:
"Do you favor or oppose congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?"

Favor
59%

Oppose
34%

Unsure
7%


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

MKJ

and "withdrawal by fall 2008" is often derided on DU as being the coward's position by those who want the war over tomorrow.

And well worth keeping in mind.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I think, however, you're in the minority. Simple is easier.

DU can be a bit of an echo chamber.

patience and equanimity in these discussions. Something I admire.

want us out by a year from now.

that the Supplementary now being debated gets troops out no later than August of next year, and earlier should conditions not be met? That's slightly less than a year and a half. I suspect that most people who say they want them out within a year would settle for that. Now, I wish like hell, they'd said end of January of 2008 instead of end of August, but it's better than nothing.

If you think they're sheep, then work on making them our sheep.

in winning anyone over. I don't see this as a game. I loathe the concept of political expediency which is just cover for skirting around the truth. I'm interested in the truth.

The US military and the establishment that runs this country is involved in the most flagrant war crimes seen in the world in decades. That is what needs to be discussed not some cynical and watered down bill that doesn't even address what we're really dealing with here and only serves to use the situation for some perceived political advantage. From an ethical standpoint this is completely disgusting.

The adults will be in the other room trying to fix it.

these are children who appear to be adults operating with the same principles we learned about from "Lord of the Flies" but it seems some people haven't learned and can't see through it. I'm not an apologist for The Syndicate. Seems like the "adults" the "pragmatists" have messed things up quite well for a long-time now.

the "general public" consists of people of all ilk getting partial information from various sources. individuals draw conclusions using their own level of analytical, critical thinking and answer a poll. And they are all over the map. This surprises you?

And that's crystal clear to anyone who read my OP.

popular in the polls, I demand that they show "leadership" and do what is "right" regardless of the polls.

When I want them to do something that is popular in the polls, I urge them to act according to the "will of the people" rather than in any principle that they may be acting on.

And the numbers are rather similar.

That comparison is just meaningless. But predictable, coming from you.

Anybody who supports this war is a rotten bastard. Period.

Same goes if they've got a problem with interracial marriage.

And right now there are a number of dems who do NOT support the war trying to figure out the practical steps to ending it.

:nopity:

"we want to stop the war NOW!"

But would it actually end the war any sooner than taking practical steps?

with a majority in Congress (and the White House) who are hostile to the idea.

The mission accomplished flag was flown. Then he said we're not done. Saddam and his regime were executed. Now they say we're not done. I think america is more or less scratching its head at what the hell NEEDS to be done. Right now we're just picking off insurgents who are mainly just trying to protect their homeland from what they see as the enemy...and I've even come across points saying iraq is the aggressor :eyes: