New CNN Poll: Confidence In Iraq War Down Sharply ("61% Not Worth Invading")

[Hissyspit]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/poll.wars

Poll: Confidence in Iraq war down sharply

POSTED: 2:12 p.m. EDT, March 18, 2007
Story Highlights
• Percentage who say they're confident, proud of Iraq war drops by more than half
• In 2003, 83 percent of Americans said they were confident, 65 percent proud
• 61 percent of those polled now say it was not worth invading Iraq, poll says
• Support for Afghanistan war drops from 88 percent in 2001 to 53 percent today

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Americans are starkly less confident and proud of their country's involvement in Iraq, according to poll results released Sunday.

- snip -

The CNN poll of 1,027 adults was conducted March 9-11 by Opinion Research Corp. The sampling error for the poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points. According to the results, 35 percent of Americans are confident about the war, the poll said. When the war began, 83 percent of Americans expressed confidence in the campaign.

- snip -

The poll also showed that 33 percent of Americans are afraid of the war and 55 percent are worried by it. Those percentages are roughly the same as they were four years ago.

- snip -

Also, according to the poll, about 55 percent of Americans feel the war in Afghanistan is "going badly," according to the poll.

MORE

[llmart]

1. I don't know about you..............

but this doesn't make me feel any better one iota. It just proves what I've thought all along. Most Americans are lemmings who jump on the bandwagon of anything without any intelligent, independent thought process. They are easily swayed by a jackass like Bush and the corporate media who propped him up. It took them 4 years to get smart?

I'm sure that will make all those dead soldiers feel so much better to know that the American public is finally wising up. This was was a sham and Bush/Cheney doesn't care one bit that someone else's loved ones had to sacrifice for their personal wealth.

[melody]

3. Most humans are "lemmings"

If you look at all opinion collection throughout the years (Europe, China, everywhere), you'll notice that the masses only join in the last few days of the opinion curve -- when it falls, it falls hard.

That said, a clear majority of Americans have, for quite some time, been against the war. Therefore "most Americans" aren't lemmings. I've actually been very taken by the way the public has seen through Bush's bullshit. I expected a much more lemming-like response.

[calimary]

28. Yeah, but senators and congresspeople are lemmings, too.

If the polls keep sliding like this, it will be harder and harder for damn near anybody except for maybe lieberman and mean jean and marilyn musgrave to stand staunchly in favor of this war, against a growing tsunami of adverse public opinion. REMEMBER: ALL of the people in the House of Representatives come up for their lease-extensions next year. And a THIRD of the Senate, most of them republi-CONS. We have far fewer seats at risk in the Senate. And the tide is still rushing in OUR favor. Those hoping to keep their jobs will realize they're fools if they're gonna stand by bush. He won't stand by them. Hell, he doesn't give a damn anymore. He (thinks he) can't be hurt anymore, and he's certainly not running for election. They're gonna stand or fall on THEIR OWN support of the war. And as the public grows even MORE ardently against the war, those up for reelection will be fools if they realize their continued employment is at serious risk. They're not gonna put their necks on the block for this asshole. There's no further payoff for it. THAT political capital has also been spent. Squandered, in fact.

I hope we see many, many more polls like these, better by the week. It's more material we all can use when we call our congresspeople, or somebody else's congresspeople. They should be REMINDED that the tide has turned AGAINST the war, and is not easing back.

[David__77]

2. Time to get out of Afghanistan too.

The US is doing no good there. Just shoring up support for fundamentalists.

[razorman]

7. Unfortunately, the U.S. has the bad habit of getting involved

where we have no business being. We still have troops in the Balkans, and will most likely stick our noses into the Sudan at some point. None of these areas is worth the life of a single G.I.

[PaulaFarrell]

19. 'none of these areas is worth the life of a single GI'

are you saying that the lives of people in Darfur are worthless? For myself, I'm not exactly sure that going in would accomplish anything good, just due to past history, but if it would, and genocide was occurring (which it is) then we would have an obligation under UN treaty.

But my main question is, how many lives in Darfur does it take to equal the life of one GI? Or are you saying that nothing matters at all but American lives?

[razorman]

21. Then what criteria should we use for military intervention?

Would BushCo have been better off to stress the existence of Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers as an excuse to invade Iraq? Would we have accepted it then, rather than the phony WMD excuse? After all, Saddam made Milosivec look like Mr. Rogers.
Please don't get me wrong. I have no problem with helping people in places like Darfur out with aid and facilitating peace talks. But, we keep going in with military force to places where we have no national interest. More often than not, we seem to simply be saving one group of bad guys from another group of bad guys, and only wind up turning the table.
However, if we as a nation decide to intervene in the Sudan, it should only be with the full involvement of the U.N., with African nations taking the largest share of the role. Just as the Bosnian situation should have been Europe's job. Why is it always the U.S. that has to carry the load, and get the blame when it goes wrong?
I do not mean to sound contrary or disrespectful to the common opinions expressed on this site, but that's the way I feel. Actually, I think a good question for discussion might be "What official criteria would you like to see the U.S. adopt to justify military intervention anywhere in the world?" What factors should be present anywhere before we send in the troops?

[PaulaFarrell]

25. I would say acts of genocide demand intervention

providing there is at least a moderate chance of intervention helping. Saddam Hussein was not actively pursuing genocide at the time of the invasion, though arguably he had been in the past. SO the time for intervention in Iraq, had there been one, would have been in the 1980s when we were instead helping him out.

As for Bosnia, well acts of genocide occurred as early as 1991 and we (Europe and US) did nothing. When we actually went in, it was clear that the bombing actually precipitated acts of genocide rather than stopped them. I'm not clear on the Bosnian situation being 'Europe's job' - why so? Because they are closer geographically? This would seem to follow with your premise that AFricans should take the largest role in any action in Darfur - and you can bet they probably would. Wealthy countries contribute very few 'peacekeepers' to the UN, especially in 3rd world actions, as developing nations are desperate for the payments made for supplying troops. The US very rarely 'carries the load' except when it percieves the action to be in its own interests, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. We did nothing in Rwanda. We did nothing in East Timor (well, technically we did supply Indonesia with military equipment I guess). We don't do anything in Burma. ALl these countries suffered or are suffering genocide to various degrees, but it's not/wasn't in the US intersts to get involved, so we didn't.

I guess it's basically a question of do you belive it's every man/nation for himself, or do you believe in an international community.

[razorman]

26. I think that an "international community" is a good idea in theory, and within limits, of course.

However, the concept of "international community" implies a commonality of purpose, which does not seem to exist in real life. Each nation is really only out for itself. The U.S. is not unique in that respect.
Also, the corruption and incompetence of the U.N does not help the situation when it comes to gaining the trust of the nations of the world.

[truthisfreedom]

4. Who edits this stuff?

The internet is fast becoming a dumping ground for news stories that are badly worded, badly edited, and full of typos.

"Also, according to the poll, about 55 percent of Americans feel the war in Afghanistan is "going badly," according to the poll."

I think we got the point the first time.

[Thor_MN]

22. That is the result of "News" having to turn a profit.

It's not just the Internet, it's all media.

[Xipe Totec]

5. Of course it was worth it, God said so.

Just ask George; he heard it straight from The Lord.

:sarcasm:

[yardwork]

13. As insane as that sounds, it's actually what * said

We need to keep reminding the rest of the country that we are involved in a hopeless war because a chimp said that God told him to invade.

[rodeodance]

6. oh, george is using Roves numbers -te he

[Hissyspit]

8. .

[Supersedeas]

9. Nothing to see -- feed them more vagaries from Hadley and Condi

[brentspeak]

10. Who's the 39% who still think the invasion was worth it?

Those people must have rocks for brains.

[yardwork]

14. I've realized that about a quarter of the population has rocks for brains.

The other 14% making up the difference must have stock in Halliburton.

[Black Adder]

16. Just how big a cock-up does Iraq have to become

before these morons see the light?

[Ugnmoose]

11. Polls numbers are bogus

How can 35% of people have confidence in the war yet 33% be afraid of it and 55% be worried by it. The last two groups total 88%. If that were true only 12% would have confidence in the war. Which by the way, is probably the more realistic number.

[maxsolomon]

12. obviously, you can be confident & afraid at the same time

that sounds about right for war supporters, too. they have to be confident in the war because they are so afraid.

who are these people? 1/3 of respondents? i know NO ONE who supports it any more. maybe i do, but i live in a liberal bubble where war supporters are cowed into silence by reality.

[jwirr]

15. We the people believe it was not worth invading but we need to

read Greg Pelast's latest article: It was worth it for Big Oil and Helliburtin.

[Lord Balto]

17. A Quotation from the 18th Century

The extensive wars wherewith Louis XIV was burdened during his
reign,
while draining the State's treasury and exhausting the
substance of the people,
none the less contained the secret that led to the prosperity
of
a swarm of those bloodsuckers who are always on the watch
for public calamities, which, instead of appeasing,
they promote or invent so as, precisely,
to be able to profit from them more advantageously.

―The 120 Days of Sodom, by the Marquis de Sade

[Martin Eden]

18. 39% need their heads examined

Could be they're dittoheads.

[underpants]

20. 4 YEARS ago 60% "don't go alone"

Of course that wasn't mentioned much then and there is no way it is getting on the air today.

[rpannier]

23. self delete

[harun]

24. MSM continues to ask the wrong questions to aid the B*sh Admin

The question is not "was the invasion worth it?" but "why was the occupation strategy one of destruction, chaos and lack of security?". The invasion and capture of Saddam was a success. The occupation has not been ethically or morally on the right path from the beginning.

[IsItJustMe]

27. Damn, you mean a third of America (35%) is living in Republican la la land like the chimp. Scary!!!