Latest Poll: 67% support Iraq war, 59% think Iraq war helps war on terror.

[Silverhair]

Here's the link: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

And we seem to be getting ready to nominate a guy whose signature issue is being anti-war?

I remember 1972 (My political activity goes back to 64 when I helped in the local JFK office by handing out literature.) and this sure does look like deja vu all over again. Been there and don't wanna lose like that again.

[Terwilliger]

1. Dean was anti-Iraq-war

and only insofar as he didn't like the Bush planning

What kills me is that you would rather repeatthe lies than correct them.

Maybe you should answer the question that Peggy Noonan wanted to avoid: Since 52% of the American people still believe Saddam to have been personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, isn't the poll boost on Saddam's capture reflective of this ignorance?

[HFishbine]

9. Speaking of Bush's "planning..."

"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?"

Has a clear plan: 44%
Doesn't have a clear plan: 45%

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

[Terwilliger]

13. it shouldn't even be that close

should be more like 15-85

once again, you can't rely on the American people to be intelligent en masse...like the mob, they run scared when attacked

[TedsGarage]

67. Stop being so pessimistic

I hear this all the time from Democrats: "Oh, Saddam's capture is such good news for Bush. Now he'll definitely win!"

But the speaker never says he's switching to Bush. Neither do the listeners. So who's switching?

If Dean gets the nomination and Nader passes on another run, that's another 2 million votes in the Democratic column.

So where are all these new Bush votes coming from? Where's he gonna get the votes?

Keep the faith.

-- Chicago Democrats. We know how to win.

[Julien Sorel]

69. McGovern was anti-Vietnam war,

and even at that, he voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. McGovern was not some weak-kneed pansy liberal -- he was just so effectively painted that way that everyone believes it, even to this day, just as they do for Carter -- who actually increased defense spending during his term. But people will believe this stuff about Democrats, whatever the truth.

[Gringo]

2. Dean is hardly a pacifist - the media have painted him that way.

His position isn't that different from that of the others, that we should have only done it with a real international coalition. The only way he differs, is that he didn't just jump on board when Bush decided "we had no choice but to go to war". He stood his ground. That's what a lot of us admire.

[Gringo]

3. Also, even if 90% of the people favored an unjust war

I would never support a candidate who supported it.

[CMT]

4. well the democratic voters will have a say

and if they nominate someone who opposed the war more power to them. This war has had its ups and downs. Saddam's capture has elevated support temporarily. Once this fades people will be concerned again about the killings, the instability of Iraq , and the price tag that American tax payers are shelling out. They also will begin questioning again why we are there when no WMD or chemical weaponds have been found and the lies that Bush told which led up to the war. That is what a campaign is all about. There are plenty of issues regarding Iraq which play into democratic hands.

[Kolesar]

5. oh, about "McGovern", well it is different now

George McGovern never had the grassroots organization that Dean had. McGovern did not have the votes, the wins, and the delegates when the convention was held. I expect Dean will have all that *if* he maintains his momentum and wins when the voting begins.

(and please don't tell me that I am a blind Deaniac)

[Goldmund]

6. I think that such trivialistic historcal parallels are useless.

They're just propaganda. There are such huge differences between the America of 1972 and the America of 2004, between Iraq and Vietnam, between Nixon and Bush, between Dean/Clark and McGovern, between what people mean by "prosperity" and what they mean by "security" and what is "electability" -- you have to completely account for the radically diferent contexts.

Now, we can debate on whether or not a candidate whose signature issue is being anti-war could beat * in 2004. But if the answer is negative, if won't be because of what happened in 1972.

[KoKo]

29. Not "Anti-War" ! Anti-Iraq Invasion! Geeze I'm a broken CD here! But it'

so important we take "Anti-War" out of comments about our Candidates here on DU. It's bad enough the media do it.....why should we parrot?

[Goldmund]

36. Well..

You're right. What I understand by "Anti-War" is really "Anti-THE War". Not pacifism. Of course I understand that there are instances in which both Dean and Clark would approve of plundering and wreaking havoc on another country. I don't know of many self-called "pacifists" who would be against defending ourselves if we were attacked. We would only be lucky to have not only "Anti-THE war" president but also "anti-war" in general, but hey, I know it's a few thousand years too soon.

[Silverhair]

42. Distinction without a difference.

A bunch of responders have corrected me that Dean's stance is "Anti Iraq War", not anti-war in general. If you will notice the poll, it is specific to the Iraq war. Dean's signature issue is being against the Iraq War. So we are back to my statement. We are about to nominate a candidate who is going in a direction that is against the way 67% of American feel. That does not sound like the way you win elections.

Oh, of course, after a huge defeat you will have the "high moral ground".

[KoKo]

51. Leading against popular opinion often is seen as strength. Just look

and our "Unelected P-resident." He came in unpopular, but has become popular. See? It can work both ways.

[Silverhair]

54. Going against 51% is strength, going against 67% is suicide. n/t

[Goldmund]

52. Did you read my response to your original post?

Post number 6.

And let me add something -- saying that candidate electability is directly dependent on the latest polls (your 67% number) is a recipe for corporate dictatorship.

67% of Americans believe what the media tells them to believe, at least when it comes to current issues -- not necessarily broad ideals. Actually, most of them hardly even know what's going on -- they sort of skim the headlines once a week so they don't feel embarassed in social situations if somebody asks them what they support. Especially lately, with all of the corporate de-regulation that led to big media-mergers -- the interests of the media are the interests of the few giant conglomerates. Currently, with this big-business gang of a government, those are also in intersection with the interests of *, but that may or may not change.

Therefore, your 67% of Americans' beliefs are a reflection of the interests of those conglomerates. If you say that the candidates' electabiliy is directly related to the current specific-issue beliefs of the majority of Americans, then in effect you are saying that the candidates' views should also be a reflection of those same big-business interests.

You know what another word for a corporate dictatorship is?

Fascism.

[KoKo]

50. It wasn't supposed to be a "War" either. It was an Invasion to Liberate!

[Goldmund]

53. Right

hahaha thanks for the correction.

[blm]

59. Yeah, Dean was FOR Reagan and Bush's illegal wars in Central America, so

that should prove he's not antiwar. And his support for Biden-Lugar proves he wasn't completely anti-Iraq war, either.

[BootinUp]

58. Not that I totally agree with the orig post but

Your radically different idea is not sound either. The fact is that Americans get happy feet for their Prez when he announces its time to go to war. This is one thing you can count on. Now obviously there is a significant anti-war crowd but it pales in comparison.

This poll shows that making the anti-Iraq case is not going to be easy for any candidate when it comes time to make it in the general election. Face it now or face it later.

[On the Road]

7. How Does that Break Down Among Likely Voters?

and if the war is still not going well, how many anti-war voters will be energized to go to the polls and how many pro-war voters will be discouraged and stay home?

[Guaranteed]

8. The only way to counteract that is through leadership.

That's what Dean gives us. This election is a fight over the issues, not a way of weaseling one's self into the White House.

The only reason we shouldn't nominate Dean is if he's wrong. And he's clearly right. So we're going to fight this. It's our only chance.

You think we'll win WITHOUT fighting? Look at the 2002 election. We're DONE with that roll-over philosophy.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. So we field a candidate who supports an evil war

just because the unwashed masses do?

If they support lynching will the Dem have to support it also?

[karabekian]

49. bah

"just because the unwashed masses do?"

And we wonder why people view us as elitist. :-(

[BootinUp]

60. Not necessarily

but the candidate better have impeccable credentials to make the anti-Iraq case. Americans are not going to go against their sitting war president for just any politician. This is a fact. Now I have my opinion on who can convince Americans and everyone else has theirs.

[sasquatch]

11. I hate to tell you this but polls are about as credible as * himself

So your little DLC thought process isn't going to work here pal. Sorry:( we're real Democrats here not fake sometimes Democrats like Daschle.

[MidwestTransplant]

12. Hey, the Nader voters voted for a guy that they

thought was totally right and was the fiestiest too.

[sasquatch]

25. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about

Please start a new thread if you want to talk about it.

[YNGW]

14. Excellent Observations

I have every reason to believe we are headed down the same road as 1972. As the philosopher George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Many here are not critical thinkers, and I notice a lot of off-the-cuff comments regarding the hopes for 2004. It's good to read someone who has the ability to see beyond the next five minutes.

[madfloridian]

16. Lieberman is the only pro-war candidate. Right?

Is that who we should nominate?

[YNGW]

26. There were a few candidates who cast their vote.....

...for the war resolution besides Leiberman.

[madfloridian]

34. I mean he is the only one coming out saying it was right.

At least I think so. He is very open about it. So if we must go for a candidate who really thinks the war is right it would be him.

It is amazing to me how wrong is now right.

[YNGW]

41. Reply

It's rather hard for the candidates who voted to give the green light to back out, but what they're saying is they would have tried harder to get more coilition forces (France, Germany, Russia) on board. They aren't saying it wasn't right, they're saying it wasn't done the right way.

Thanx for the conversation, but I'm done.

[Timefortruth]

65. Actually its good that you end befor ever having made a point,

it makes it clear that you had none to make.

When a candidate says that we should have gone in with the UN he is saying that going in without them was wrong. The point of wating for internaiotnal support was that eventually there would have been enough internaitonal pressure that Saddam would have left or agreed to inspections without an war.

But why let facts influence opinions, right?

[Terwilliger]

17. Could you name one historical paralell with 1972?

anything?

[YNGW]

21. Re-read Silverhair's comment

>And we seem to be getting ready to nominate a guy whose signature issue is being anti-war?

[Terwilliger]

31. and you think Dean is anti-war?

do you not follow the issues or news? Can you show me where Dean is anti-war?

[YNGW]

44. Reply

>do you not follow the issues or news? Can you show me where Dean is anti-war?

This is where the "Many here are not critical thinkers" and the "ability to see beyond the next five minutes" comes into play. I don't have time for merry-andrews.

Bye.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. What kind of critical thinking is this, sir?

What we see here is not sound critical thinking, but an example of fallacious logic. This is argumentum ad populum.

If a poll shows that a majority of the people believe the world is flat, that does not change the fact that it is round. It is round no matter how overwhelming the majority that believes otherwise.

The fact that a majority of American may support Mr. Bush's war does not change the fact that it was justified by a pack of lies or that it was fought for enrich his corporate cronies. It does not change the fact that it had nothing to do with fighting terrorists and, far from being a setback for the likes of Osama, it probably strengthened his hand.

The invasion of Iraq was wrong from both a moral and a pragmatic point of view.

That is the truth. If we are going to go down, let us go down telling the truth. Buying into Bush's lies because so many people believe them today will buy us nothing in the long run. Any policy based on those falsehoods will be bad policy.

The question, sir, is not whether we should support a candidate willing to tell lies because people believe them. The question is: what are we going to do to dispel those lies?

[Timefortruth]

64. You won't get an answer on issues in this conversation.

Trust me.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

24. There is nothing in 2003 which parallels 1972.......or 1971. This is

a different time with totally different challenges. While Iraq may become the quagmire Viet-Nam was, nothing else is the same. To keep comparing the past to the present without qualifications is just repeating what the Repugs want. They wan't "Failure" burned into Dems brains. They get their jollies manipulating history for their purposes anyway!

[markus]

55. People were voting against Acid and Abortion

as much as Amnesty in '72.

They were voting against the Counter Culture. If Nixon had promised to Bomb The Commies Into Submission and Ultimate Victory things might have turned out differently. People had figured out that the McNamarra approach was a dead end.

People were ready to surrender in '72. They just wanted to do it "with honor".

[madfloridian]

15. Most people still believe that Saddam was tied to 9/11.

That is why. So Clark is against the Iraq War, too, so that lets him out. Is that only Kerry left? But he also criticized it.
So who do we run? Gephardt? Don't know.

Give it some time. The media now and then is letting the truth out a little. Once it becomes more than a drip drip drip thing, people will wake up.

On Edit: Running a pro-war candidate would make Lieberman our nominee, wouldn't it.

[Silverhair]

23. "Once it becomes more than a drip, drip..."

That sound like you are hoping that it becomes worse. Is that the case? Is our situation so bad that we have to hope for bad war news and bad economic news? Can't we run on a positive platform?

[madfloridian]

37. What? Did you read my post?

I don't know what to say to you. I am hoping what becomes worse? I don't know how to explain?

[Silverhair]

45. OOPS. I did misunderstand you. I apologize for misreading.

You wre indeed talking about the news being the drip. I misunderstood it to mean the war situation. Sorry.

[madfloridian]

48. Thank you.

:hi:

[Terwilliger]

38. a positive platform of what?

"OH yes...we're JUST LIKE George Bush! (only better)" :eyes:

[Dhalgren]

39. The "drip, drip, drip" comment was about the truth

getting out, via our "media", about the situation as it is, not about things becoming worse. At least that's how I read it.

[Marxistman]

43. I am a little concerned

The Dept of Defense has recently confirmed that there is good evidence from the Clinton Administration files as well as Bush Sr. that ties Sadaam to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah & the Muslim Brotherhood. The ties are mainly financial, but there are some references to training within Iraq and protection (safe harbor) granted for certain key leaders from each of these groups. I still think this war was trumped up, but I do see the logic in the argument that if Sadaam was linked to all of these terror groups, are we to assume that Al Queda was the one terrorist organization that he had nothing to do with?

[BootinUp]

61. Are we to invade countries

now on that kind of weak circumstantial case? There is a reason that so much of the world was against our little war, and it has to do with justice, and having an undeniable case before bombing innocent civilians along with the targets.

I was never for this war, I tried to believe we could make it work once it started, I watched the news every night and was concerned for the soldiers and the Iraqi civilians. It was not justified! And the killing will go on for years. And every time we think it looks to be improving another horrendous bomb will explode.

The only way out of this situation is with the most skilled leadership we can muster to bring the world to bear on the problem and especially the other Arab countries to play a role.

[VermontDem2004]

18. The war is unjust

I will NOT compromise my own personal morals to support someone that took a hawkish stance for the war or someone who voted for it, but someone like Kerry or Edwards I would probaly support if he was the nominee.

[KoKo]

19. Anti-War or Anti-Iraq Invasion? Please understand the distinction. When

DU'ers use Anti-War to describle those of us here or the candidates who were against the Iraq Invasion, it's misleading.

[1songbird]

20. What are these people smoking? n/t

[jaysunb]

22. Pardon me, but

JFK was dead in 1964.

[Silverhair]

27. Thank you. Typo error. 1960 of course. Regret the typo.

I was in the Army in 1964 and not available to help anybodies campaign. I hope no tinfoil hatter tries to make anything out of that typo.

[Silverhair]

30. Duplicate. Regret the error. n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

28. A majority of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing,

and yet the Democrats intend to nominate someone other than Bush?!?

We're doomed! Doomed, I say! :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

33. that's right...in order to win, we must nominate the one closest to Bush..

Lieberman 2004!! (I wonder how many people here at DU would like that idea)

[madfloridian]

47. All of a sudden Lieberman is the only one. You are right.

This is stunning to me. All the research done here at this forum before the war, showing it was not the right thing to do, now this.

Bush was losing ground on this war deal, we were starting to pull ahead. Saddam was found, there is a feel-good thing, and we must suddenly run someone the right wing will like.

This is scaring me. We have no courage anymore. Instead of telling the truth we bend to the ones who don't yet know the truth.

[Silverhair]

32. Typo error in my post. 1964 should be 1960. Regret the error. n/t

[young_at_heart]

35. Proof that "brainwashing" works!

Say it over and over and it becomes the "truth"........sad, sad, sad!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. I remember 1972 also.

This centrist bogeyman is forever being rehashed.

The war in Vietnam was seen by most as an endless quagmire with no way out. McGovern simply told the truth about the war. That we were wrong to be there and had to get out.

Nixon promised to get out "with honor".

It was presented to the American people as either a "noble" effort that had gone wrong, by Nixon, or an immoral, unjust, slaughter, in which thousands of Americans and millions of SE Asians had died needlessly.

The American people wanted out of Vietnam but weren't ready to yet admit to the fact that it was what McGovern said it was.

Nixon waved the flag, mumbled "support out troops", "peace with honor", and outspent McGovern by a huge factor. The voters responded by reelecting Nixon in hope of finding a way out of the mess without having to surrender. They were wrong.

The same sort of thing is going on now. "You are with us or against us." The aggression in Iraq is portrayed as a noble cause that is just having a few problems. The American people are uncomfortable with the idea that "our troops" are killing and being killed for no other reason than to fatten the wallets of the capitalists and reelect the goober-in-chief.

It appears to be working. Does it change anything? Not for me. I voted for McGovern in '72, and I'll vote for whoever the decidedly anti-war candidate is this time.

[West Coast Democrat]

56. If this is taken from a Gallup poll

I would slice off about 15 percentage points.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. mile wide, inch deep

most probably think Saddam is personally responsible for the opposition in Iraq as well. This is a temporary bump.

[Scott Lee]

63. Which means we have an opportunity to educate instead of pander

Don't you think it's a great time to show America why the Iraq war is a bad thing, rather than play to a bad thing?

[Imajika]

66. I am glad at least a few other people...

...on DU recognize the disaster that is all too likely in store for the Democratic Party next November.

"And we seem to be getting ready to nominate a guy whose signature issue is being anti-war?"

The media is going to identify the two biggest of policy differences they perceive between Dean and Bush - and Dean is on the losing side of both of them.

Dean is going to labeled an anti-war, pro-tax increase Northeastern liberal. There is no way around it. The public supports the war in Iraq - always has and probably always will. The public is against tax increases and that is just not going to change. Mondale probably lost on his promise to raise taxes alone. McGovern couldn't win even at a time when most Americans wanted out of Vietnam. Dean is going to be embracing the very two issues that have resulted in massive Democratic defeats in the past, and I have seen no evidence (especially in light of 9-11) that the American public will vote any different today.

Dean is probably going to get crushed. And with Dean at the top of the ticket we may very well lose 5 Senate seats in the South alone (and that is just for a start). I know few people on DU are going to be swayed by any of this sort of commentary, but nominating Dean will nearly assure a Bush victory and 4 more years of increasing Republican dominance. I shudder to think of what is coming, but I am afraid there is just no way of avoiding it now.

As I've said before, I will vote for Dean, and after it becomes absolutely clear he is going to be nominated (if it isn't already) I will buck up and put the best face on it I can. But at the end of the day, I am almost certain Dean is going to bring the Democratic Party a devestating defeat next November. And then where will we be?

Imajika

[blm]

68. Same story in my crystal ball.

And it sickens me to no end. I despise being put in the position of defending someone I don't trust at all. I can't do it honestly so I will be forced to spout talking points from the DNC to make Dean more palatable. Undergod knows that I won't feel enthusiastic about lying for the left just because the guy on the right is a bigger liar.