Here’s the latest WaPo-ABC News poll of American public opinion. And here’s the summary from the WaPo’s David Broder and Dan Balz:
- Democrats have regained a commanding position going into the final weeks of the midterm-election campaigns, with support eroding for Republicans on Iraq, ethics and presidential leadership, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Apparent Republican gains in September have been reversed in the face of mounting U.S. casualties and gloomy forecasts from Iraq and the scandal involving Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who was forced to resign his congressional post over sexually graphic online conversations with former House pages.
Approval of Congress has plunged to its lowest level in more than a decade (32 percent), and Americans, by a margin of 54 percent to 35 percent, say they trust Democrats more than Republicans to deal with the biggest problems the nation is confronting. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said congressional Democrats deserve to be reelected next month, but just 39 percent said Republicans deserve to return to office.
The poll measures broad public attitudes and cannot be translated into individual House districts, but it sketches an environment that is the most difficult the Republicans have faced since taking control of Congress in the 1994 elections. By a margin of 54 percent to 41 percent, registered voters said they plan to vote for the Democrat over the Republican in congressional elections next month…
So the Dems might regain at least one of the houses of Congress! Which means that at last we might see real hearings and some robust attempts at holding this out-of-control administration somewhat accountable.
I am still really upset that a couple of weeks ago, numerous Democrats voted with the administration’s attempt to strip habeas corpus out of a part of the US legal system, and unquestioningly with the administration’s latest tranche of war-financing. So our campaign to bring our country into a much better relationship with the rest of the world will still be a long one, even if the Dems win both houses of Congress next month.
And some more from Broder and Balz:
- Bush’s ratings on the war in Iraq are among the lowest of his presidency, with 35 percent approving of how he is handling the situation and 64 percent disapproving (54 percent strongly disapprove). On terrorism, a majority (53 percent) said they disapprove of his performance. That is the lowest rating Bush has received on his signature issue.
Asked whether the war in Iraq has been worth fighting, 63 percent said no, the highest recorded during Bush’s presidency. Fifty-one percent agreed with Bush’s argument that Iraq is a front in the global campaign against terrorism, the lowest of his presidency. Fifty percent of those surveyed said that the country is safer today than it was before Sept. 11, 2001, but 42 percent, a new high, said the nation is now less safe.
But we still have a lot more public education to do about the need to bring the troops out of Iraq as speedily as possible. B&B write:
- Still, there is no significant support for withdrawing U.S. forces immediately. Half of those surveyed — about the same percentage it has been throughout the year — said they would like to see troop levels decrease. Despite the high number of casualties, only a fifth said they supported immediate withdrawal.
Okay, back to the street corner this Thursday, then…
Immediate withdrawl still looks to most US liberals like we’re leaving Iraq in the lurch. There’s a sense of responsibility that runs parallel to their appalling ignorance of the damage the US has done. This group wants to believe that even though the war was a mistake, some good could still come out of it. Saddam is in jail, they say, and eventually, US troops will calm things down so a better day will dawn, democracy will take hold, their lives will improve, etc. etc. Some of these people would be moved by the knowledge that a majority of Iraqis want us to leave ASAP, even if that means the violence will increase. It’s hard for most Americans to imagine anyone feeling this way, but since surveys indicate this, they may go for it.
Helena
Perhaps you would elaborate further.
Would you withdraw to Kuwait?
Would you as some have advocated withdraw to Kurdistan.
Would you leave the tanks behind? Who would you give them to?
This article gives an overview of most of the options on the table and while not complete starts to enquire as to the results of each of them.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/09/IRAQ.TMP
Robert Fisk describes the bloodshed that followed the revolution in Iran in his latest book The Great War for Civilisation. I would expect something similar to happen in Iraq.
I suspect the Jordanians would be unhappy to see 50,000 US troops move their way, as one suspects trouble would follow them.
Would Bahrain stay stable after an exit from Iraq or would the dockyard be sabotaged to make the Carrier Strike group move?
It is perhaps this confusion about the options that causes the US public’s confusion. George Friedman gets it about right: Can’t Leave, can’t stay, can’t increase the number of troops.
But you are right to keep raising the subject, so Honk if you are willing to live with the consequences.
Absolutely. Break up Iraq in three and get out of there. Like a european commentator said when Germany was unified, “I love Germany so much that I’d rather have two Germanys than one”. Let’s have three Iraqs, just based on probabilities maybe one of them will come straight, decent, and prosperous. That is if the Iranians and Turks don’t mess it up.
Our soldiers deserve to be back home, and start training for the real enemy.
With all the polls numbers, one question here, did US miss the directions and attacked the less threat state of Bush’s Axis of Evil?
Should US attack N. Korea first at that time? Now US found herself with the danger on here doorstep? Or Iran that may have developed more advance stages than Iraq?
So the US citizens think and believing Iraq deserving and should be attacked with all uncovered lies?
Then why with today developments tell us clearly Iraq was in the bottom of threat list to US and the Western world, still US citizens thinks they doing good job there and should stay the course? Is it some think missing here or what?
BTW,
US playing down the strengths of N. Korea test and saying its may be not Nuke Test!!! When N. Korea saying that loudly.
When UN teams and inspectors telling Iraq had and have no weapons US insisting Iraq have and had, why this US? What are the differences here? Now it’s not NUKE!!!!!!….
What a pathetic and sick attitude will never be forgiven at all……
I am sorry I forgot to mention that Republican or Democrat doesn’t matter much, when facing 7th century civilizations they are both on the same side of the calendar. And so are the poor Danes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061010/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_iran_dc
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) – Denmark said on Tuesday a new cartoon crisis with the Muslim world could erupt after Danish television stations broadcast footage last week deemed insulting to the Prophet Mohammad.
In Tehran, dozens of Iranian protesters pelted the Danish embassy with stones and petrol bombs, witnesses said. Riot police guarded the embassy.
Another Stare fallen Anna Politkovskaya, she lost here life to tell the truth about the Savage War.
May God Bless here, Allah Yarhamha (رحمة الله عليها )
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=322245&rel_no=1
One wonders about the effect of the NK crisis on the election. The bunglers in the WH and Bolton will probably mishandle it, and there is a good chance it will escalate to shooting rather fast. But my guess is that this will just reinforce the growing nationwide sense that the world is too dangerous to leave our security in Republican hands.
Dvd – I haven’t been on this blog in a while, so I don’t know you, but I have to say that the comment regarding “7th century civilizations” in contrast to the “poor Danes” I found — without further knowledge about your intent — rather antedeluvian, itself.
The “poor Danes” in the business you refer to were extreme right wingers who were filmed drawing pictures of things like a camel with Muhammed’s head on it and two beer cans for humps.
That would be roughly equivalent to — say — drawing a picture of a camel with Jesus’ head, and having some taboo equivalent for humps. That would rile up the base here in ‘mer’ca fer sure. I can see ’em calling for bombs, too… no, wait, they’re already bombing! I almost forgot…
As for 7th century – well, I’m not sure where to start with that. Too much for one post.
Dear Helena: You believe that the Dems if they retake both or either Houses will confront and hold responsible the brutal Republican war machine? Not a chance. First, the Dems are complicit. Second, and more frightening, they fear deligitimation of the government. For that reason they did not confront Reagan over Iran-Contra and they will not confront the crimes of Bush. They prefer to have dictatorship than expose the terrible failings of the state. So, it is and it will be.
Helena,
I felt sad that most Americans not supporting withdraw troops from Iraq, the reality here comes from very recent New Report about Iraqi death done by the UK medical Journal THE LANCENT, in the report:
“The estimate, based on what Iraqi families told researchers, would suggest nearly 200,000 people were killed by American forces since the war began. But O’Hanlon said that asking Iraqis who is to blame for a family member’s death would not yield an accurate response.
“You see very critical attitudes to the occupying power,” O’Hanlon said. “People blame the U.S. for violent deaths that somebody else may have caused.”
The study suggests the number of Iraqi dead is in line with civilian deaths in other conflicts including the Vietnam War, where it said an estimated 3 million civilians died; Congo, where 3.8 million have been killed; or East Timor, where 200,000 people, a quarter of the population, died.
“Now that we see the size of this conflict,” Burnham said, “there needs to be serious discussion of how we lessen this impact, how we protect the populations better in future conflicts.”
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4474846
Original Full Report in this link
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
In an interview with BBC,” O’Hanlon, said US should really need to change their strategy, their existence in Iraq stimulating civil war and rise of the death and chose their.
I hope you and your friends need to work hard to reach the more Americans to understand this reality and to open the close circle that BUSH propaganda machine brainwashed the Americans.
The reaction from Bush has dismissed the report, saying he does not consider it “credible”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm
Frank Al Irlandi:
“Would you withdraw to Kuwait?”
For what purpose? To make it easier to keep bombing Iraqis? To make it easier to reinvade at will?
“Would you as some have advocated withdraw to Kurdistan.”
How does that even remotely constitute withdrawal from Iraq?
Would you leave the tanks behind? Who would you give them to?
“This article gives an overview of most of the options on the table and while not complete starts to enquire as to the results of each of them.”
“Robert Fisk describes the bloodshed that followed the revolution in Iran in his latest book The Great War for Civilisation. I would expect something similar to happen in Iraq.”
This is an apples and oranges comparison. Iran experienced an internally based revolution. Iraq is experiencing a brutal, deadly, destructive, foreign invasion that was generated by a violent external power bent on taking over control of the country and forcing its will and agenda on the population. What happened in Iran is not related or similar in any way to what has happened in Iraq since March, 2003. Therefore, you cannot draw conclusions or expections regarding what will happen in Iraq based on what happened in Iran.
“I suspect the Jordanians would be unhappy to see 50,000 US troops move their way, as one suspects trouble would follow them.”
Then let Jordan make it clear the troops are not welcome.
“Would Bahrain stay stable after an exit from Iraq or would the dockyard be sabotaged to make the Carrier Strike group move?”
That can easily be prevented by a genuine full withdrawal and genuine complete cessation of hostile actions, and a genuine removal of forces and other elements that might commit future hostile acts.
“George Friedman gets it about right: Can’t Leave, can’t stay, can’t increase the number of troops.”
George Friedman is wrong. The reality of it goes like this: Shouldn’t be there in the first place, can’t stay, must leave completely now, increasing the number of troops will only make things worse.
“Honk if you are willing to live with the consequences.”
Unfortunately, it is the Iraqis and not you who are living and will continue for decades to live with the consequences of Bush regime aggression, ignorance, stupidity and incompetence whether or not you leave.
Absolutely. Break up Iraq in threeDvd
David, DVD, Dvd, Davis “Who the heck are you to question other states?”
Oops – missed a couple:
“Would you leave the tanks behind?”
Why?
“Who would you give them to?”
For what purpose?
“This article gives an overview of most of the options on the table and while not complete starts to enquire as to the results of each of them.”
Mental and verbal masturbation. Any “enquiring about the results” is little more than speculation about the unknowable. However, the history of this debacle so far tells us clearly that staying in any way, to any degree, and under any circumstances will cause the situation to become worse. Therefore, the only possible way to stop the downward spiral, if not to improve the situation, is to leave, completely, unequivocally, with no possibility of returning for any reason, and to do so as soon and as rapidly as possible.
We keep hearing these days that somehow breaking Iraq into three parts will quell the “sectarian violence” – Another ignorant, idiotic, incompetent notion with no basis in reality.
I think it’s a mistake to tie the issue of ending the war to the midterm Congressional elections.
I’m reminded of a story I heard from Ted Glick, a progressive and antiwar activists. In the run up to the 1972 elections, he and other young activists were very nervous. It became clear that Richard Nixon was going to trounce George McGovern, and they assumed that that would be a rejection of the peace movement and support for continuing the war in Vietnam.
The veteran peace activist David Dellinger told them not to worry. Yes Nixon would win re-election. But the social movements independent of the government were what was important. Stay focused, on message and committed to justice. And even though Nixon did win in a landslide, he had to shortly thereafter agree to end the war.
There has definitely been a trend among people to pull America’s troops out. Some of this is reflected in the occasional congresscritter statement. But that’s a weak indicator. Most people don’t see the point in the war and realize that Bush led the country in under false pretenses.
So Helena, just go out there and keep doing what you’re doing. As I’ve mentioned before, I unfortunately can’t support the “antiwar” movement in its current form, even though I opposed the invasion of Iraq. And I think that the antiwar movement, with the various ancillary positions it has taken, and the over the top positions of some groups like ANSWER, may have hindered its cause. But nevertheless, the call to end the war will eventually succeed.
As for the elections, I don’t think the end of the war will really depend on which party controls Congress, but I would really like to see the Democrats take over.
Shirin
lets continue this in the comments on Helena’s CSM article posted today.
Invading places is very similar to shooting people, or sending an unwise email.
No point in wishing you hadn’t. you have to deal with the results.
If you havent read Alastair Horne “A Savage War of Peace” you should. You find out what happens when the President suddenly changes policy and says “We are leaving”
Here’s a link to the fate of the locally recruited troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki
The French had easy options, they just had to move their troops and colons across the Mediterranean.
Frank, you’re raising lots of diversionary, straw-mannish questions here. The point is to have the US troops leave the theater completely– to come home and be demobilized– rather than to leave them perched in Kuwait or elsewhere ready to threaten to go back into Iraq (which was Juan Cole’s plan a year ago.) Yes, it means a deep reconfiguration (reduction) of the US strategic posture in the Gulf. Which definitely should happen, anyway.
What to do about the tanks? The US should be free to take as many as possible with them, and certainly as many of their v. lethal munitions as poss. But the tempo of the withdrawal cannot be held up unduly to allow this to happen. What they can’t take, they could destroy in place (safely).