Poll: Support for U.S. handling of Iraq war drops

[Snellius]

WASHINGTON — A thin majority of Americans still believe Iraq was worth going to war over, but most need to be convinced that it has made the USA safer from terrorist attacks, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows. (Related link: Poll results)

At the same time, approval for the way the United States, and by implication President Bush, has handled Iraq since the major fighting ended has dropped by nearly half — from a high of 80% as U.S. tanks rolled into Baghdad in late April to 42% now.

Overall, 55% disapprove of the post-combat-phase management, the highest negative measurement since the invasion began.
...
Where 56% say going to war in Iraq was worth it, just 48% say it has made the U.S. safer from terrorist attacks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-18-iraq-poll_x.htm

[jpgray]

1. Why would ANYONE approve of the postwar management? (nt)

[gristy]

2. Here's why, I think.

People don't answer the question that was asked I think. They want to show "support" for the president, for the troops, or whatever. So they say yes even though they may be aware of the mountain of screwups that make up our involvement. And then there are those who really don't know anything about what's going on but don't want to look stupid by saying "I dunno". I think at least 90% of those paying attention and those who answer the question that was asked will say yes.

[MoonAndSun]

3. there is a segment of the population that is just like bush*.......

they will never admit they were wrong. Never, so they will always say the approve of this invasion, just like dipshit does.

[gulliver]

4. Sad but true.

A lot of GOPers are "pulling for" Bush despite his unworthiness. They take his being a good president as a starting point and reason out the rest of the world from there. That's how they arrive at flawed theorems like "Being in a quagmire we can't pull out of without hundreds of thousands of people dying in a civil war for no good reason is a good thing."

Our job is to make them question their assumptions. What would they say if Clinton had put us where Bush now has us? Lefties would still be raising Cain as they are now, but some of the less ethical GOPers would reverse their opinion of the war on a dime. The only way they can recover their integrity is to apply the same standard to Bush as they would to Clinton.

Most of them won't have the strength of character to do that, sad to say.

[kainah]

6. cognitive dissonance

it's a fascinating concept that explains most of what happens with * as far as I'm concerned. Especially in the wake of the huge collective national trauma that 9/11 created.

[are_we_united_yet]

7. How about the pre-war mgt?

That was pretty sorry as well.

[louis-t]

5. I've always said.....

...it really depends on how you ask the question. Polls can be easily slanted and results skewed. For example, years ago the Lottery Bureau in the State of Michigan wanted to generate more lottery sales. They decided that if they increased the odds, and thus the jackpots, they would create excitement and make more money. They polled residents asking 'would you rather win 2 mil or 30 mil?'.
Result?: 'Lottery Claims Michigan Residents Want Bigger Jackpots'.