Post-ABC Poll: Americans Say War in Iraq Has Not Made U.S. Safer

[SharonRB]

Sorry if this is a duplicate post, but I didn't see another one. Check out this WAPO article on the latest Post-ABC Poll. Great news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html?referrer=email

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 5:11 PM

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, over half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.


Nearly three quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in ten now believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

<snip>

Keep reading at the posted link.

[Jacobin]

1. So.........Howard Dean was right?

When he said after Saddam was captured that this didn't make the world a safer place?

Will Kerry and Lieberman now apologize to Dean for excoriating him over such a RIDICULOUS statement?

[Rex]

6. It really is a shame the MSM wouldn't let Dean be our choice in 2004.

:(

[TheWraith]

24. Funny. As I recall, the MSM were the ones who crowned him victor,

Long before there was any real input from the people. Democratic voters were the ones who kicked him out. If you like Dean, fine--but please don't try to change history.

[Voltaire99]

25. Heh

That's pretty sanitized history.

Party hacks and insiders who control primaries in places like Iowa crowned Kerry.

The Democratic party establishment gelded Dean, whose fund-raising and erratic style threatened them; the MSM merely took their cues from the top.

[Rex]

33. I guess you missed the character assassination by the MSM

on Dean at every opportunity. :eyes:

Actually I feel even sorrier for Dennis, they made fun of him for suggesting a Dept of Peace.

[TheWraith]

34. Maybe I missed it amongst the shouting of "FRONTRUNNER!"

The media weren't too bad to Dean. Yes, the "Confederate flags" comment, along with other similar inarticulations, and the famous "scream" all got wildly overplayed. But what do you expect? It's a political campaign, and the media lives for those kind of sound bites. A better organized campaign would have been faster on the response, and been able to minimize the damage from those things. The media did more to damage him by trumpeting him as the frontrunner--after all, when you're in the lead, EVERYONE has a shot at your back.

A big part of the problem was the campaign's reluctance to just either clarify or back away from something they had said, which turned one day stories into three or four day stories. You could even exploit the sound bites to push a message via free media: follow up the Confed flags statement with a short punchy statement talking about how the Repubs exploit southern sentiments to get white people to vote against their pocketbook.

As for DK's Department of Peace, it *is* a pretty wacky sounding idea. And this is coming from someone who voted for him.

[noamnety]

8. Kerry's statement from the floor

"If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed."

Oct 9, 2002

[Jacobin]

15. Yeah, he said a lot of differnt things

Unfortunately, he voted for the IWR, KNOWING that Smirk was bound and determined to invade, regardless.

I found the Lieberman quote slamming Dean :

"In the Democratic debate yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman slammed Howard Dean for saying that the capture of Saddam Hussein had made America no safer: "I don't know how anybody could say that we're not safer with a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, an enemy of the United States, a supporter of terrorism, a murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people ... in prison instead of in power."

I'm still looking for Kerry's quote slamming Dean for saying the same thing. He said it at about the same time Holy Joe did

[NYC Liberal]

19. Here you go: 12/03

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - December 17, 2003

[Jacobin]

20. Thank you NYC

Google was hiding it from me. :-)

[Iowa]

21. Yep, Dean was right...

He was right about a lot of things.

[WI_DEM]

2. Again, Howard Dean has been vindicated

Isn't he the one who said nearly two years ago that removing Saddam won't make the U.S. safer? Then Republicans and many of his fellow Democrats jumped on him for his comment.

[Jacobin]

3. Great minds, and all that

:toast:

[Benhurst]

4. Yes. He made the unpardonable error of

speaking the truth.

[ckramer]

17. "Howard Dean has been vindicated" in half maybe?

Unfortunately he is now the advocate of military occupation.

Very unfortunate.

[Jacobin]

23. I know

Disappointing, that.

I like the riding the tiger analogy. Bush says, let's go for a ride on that tiger, we can tame him. Dean says hell no, it'll be a disaster. Bush puts the country on the tiger and we all go for a hellacious ride. Some want to jump off the tiger and face the possibility of it eating them. Some want to stay on the tiger as long as possible, knowing the tiger will eventually shake them off and eat them.

No good way out of the trap. That being said, we have lost the occupation. We don't control Iraq. The insurgents do. Our troops live behind 20 foot blast walls and venture out only at their peril.

It will take a fricking magician to get us out of Bush's Biggest Clusterfuck without being eaten alive.

[Voltaire99]

26. Yes, Dean is now largely housebroken.

A sad apologist for military occupation.

Indeed it matters little what he said before about Iraq, as he's nullified any good he did with his subsequent cowardice. You can't be vindicated in opposition to war if you later become its supporter.

Did anyone expect anything different? It is one thing to be an upstart candidate, indulging fantasies of "taking back" one's party from its conservative keepers.

It's another to turn around and serve that establishment by dedicating your days to raising money from America's corporate criminals. That will curb one's independent streak very swiftly.

Sit, Howard Dean. Stay. Beg for money. Arf arf arf!

[JohnyCanuck]

5. Hasn't made Americans safer, but .....

it has made Halliburton richer.

[indepat]

7. How could one-half of the people have ever concluded such utter

bovine excrement? GHWB and other high ranking officials made it perfectly clear at the time why it would not have been wise or in the best interest of this nation to have protracted Gulf War I by going after Saddam. It's in the record and every thing they said would go wrong if such a policy were pursued have come to full fruition with some lagniappe for good measure.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. Unfortunately the Repuke lotus eaters think otherwise.

I'd support a draft if it had no exemptions for Republicans.

Let these chickenhawks see what war is really a ll about.

[Solly Mack]

10. Big fucking DUH to the stupid fuckers just now catching on

[zoeb]

11. It's a war for oil - not a war on terror

so of course they are not feeling safer. They are actually starting to wake up and smell the oil laden coffee!

[Upfront]

12. Dean Spoke The Truth.

He still is.

[Career Prole]

13. 52% disapproval on job rating!!

That's the highest disapproval of shrub on this poll ever!
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
:bounce:

[MasonJar]

14. Didn't Dean also say that Bush knew about 9/11? Also a truism.

[ckramer]

16. And who are these people?

And where were they in the last election?

[0007]

18. Read 'em and weep Rove. Cry for your fucking organized crime

assholes that loved putting a strain on a America.

[ckramer]

22. I think Bin Laden has won in the sense that

he has bankrupted USA successfully.

After 9/11, USA has spent billion after billion for something called 'SECURITY' that you can't touch and smell, even giving people more unhappiness.

SECURITY = Black hole of America = Bin Laden's wishes.

Worse, it burns for nothing. People around the world still hate us! And invasion of Iraq didn't help! Thank you mister booooooooooooooo...

See, being an international bully one has to pay a big price.

It's a bottomless abyss and eventually Americans would say, hell with the security, stop spending more of our tax money on it! We need water, food and shelter, will work for ...for ...for security!

And then they live happily ever after, kind of.

[bamacrat]

27. Yet he was re-elected.

[ckramer]

38. Can you say the majority are idiots?

[Pirate Smile]

28. WP: Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War

Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 8, 2005; Page A01

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

[stevedeshazer]

29. Kicked, nominated - great graphs - we've crossed a hurdle

We've almost doubled the number who disapprove of *'s handling of the Iraq war in less than two years, despite the lack of MSM reporting.

[tuvor]

30. Sean Hannity said differently on The View today.

He thinks we're safer without Saddam. So neener neener.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/07.html#a3333

[RebelOne]

36. Insannity says that constantly.

He's like a broken record.

[DeepModem Mom]

31. kick

[LibertyorDeath]

32. Duh!!

[Beetwasher]

35. Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War (WP/ABC: DISASTROUS NEWS FOR CHIMPY!)

52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

--SNIP--

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.

Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

--SNIP--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

Read the whole thing, it's worth it.

[cthrumatrix]

37. soo much disastrous news to choose from...soo little time

[Supersedeas]

39. but our leader has a MANDATE and says ENDS justify MEANS