CNN Poll: Opposition to occupations reaches new high

[bigtree]

08/18/10 09:17 AM ET

Sixty-nine percent of the public oppose the war in Iraq, while another 62 percent oppose the war in Afghanistan, according to the latest CNN poll.

Both conflicts have become more unpopular since May, when 62 percent objected to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and 56 percent said the same about Afghanistan.

. . . a majority of the public lacks confidence in the governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq to succeed after U.S. withdrawal.

Voters also doubt that withdrawal could endanger Americans: only 28 percent believe that leaving the conflicts would make the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, a mainstay reason for military involvement in the first place.


read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114795-poll-opposition-to-wars-reaches-new-high

CNN poll: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/17/poll-opposition-to-iraq-afghanistan-wars-reach-all-time-high/

[EFerrari]

1. Good news. K&R

[spanone]

2. 3 years ago cnn would have been questioning the patriotism of those 69/62%

[bigtree]

4. of course

. . . that was when the appointed one was CIC. You can be sure they're more inclined to report this because our Democratic president is waging them. Funny how the 'principles' of the right evaporate in the face of their opportunistic politics.

[Kolesar]

3. One day, the public says they want the war finished right

Another day, the public says they want out.
Politics is easy!

[bigtree]

5. actually, there was only a slight uptick in support when President Obama was elected

. . . and a bit of a rise in support behind his presentation of his Afghanistan 'plan'. It's tragically predictable that the deepening stalemate there has already soured the war-weary American public on continuing, even before all of his escalated forces are in place.

[gratuitous]

6. There is only one viable course then

And that's to let the most stubborn, loudest-yammering dead-enders continue to drive war policy, so that the administration doesn't open itself up to charges of being soft on terrorism. Or insufficiently supportive of the military. Because there is no credible case to be made for any alternative. We must now stay in Iraq and Afghanistan; it's more imperative than ever! The administration will win over the hawks, you'll see. And you're just naive, or effin' r-word, or need to be drug tested if you say otherwise.

[bigtree]

8. it's not just the administration who runs scared of bleating from demagogues

. . . most of the legislators in Congress also hang onto the Bush-era fiction that these occupations are a credible and effective response to 'terror'. Support for the occupations in some form or fashion is usually all candidates offer these days to establish their defense 'credentials' in elections.

[gratuitous]

10. But wouldn't it be nice?

Wouldn't it be nice to see some leadership from the top, from the one office-holder who commands a truly national constituency? The administration could set the terms of the discussion, and refuse to be drawn into the traps and blind alleys of the yammering class. There is no shortage of examples of folks doing this, and the administration has the poll numbers showing that they would enjoy automatic support over 50% for such a stand. That in turn would have a salutary effect on the Congress critters, who could say with some confidence that not only are they taking a popular stand, but they are endorsing or have the endorsement of the White House.

It would require shutting down people who aren't going to vote for Democrats in any conceivable scenario, but for some reason, I think my party should spend a little more time pandering to me and the other people who elected them to office, and a little less time trying to win over unwinnable votes.

[bigtree]

13. I don't think this administration actually believes in the political power of progressive politics

They assume that they are progressive and that our liberal values and principles are theirs to trade off for votes in the 'middle'. They believe this, so it's a bit more complicated than just assuming (as many progressives do) that the President aspires to be more conservative than liberal. I really think they believe they are making incremental progress. It's not unheard of in modern politics to posture one direction and creep toward the other. I'm not unconvinced, anyhow, that this administration is still leaning in our direction, through all of the political headwinds.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Everybody remember when anti-war protestors were 'un-American'? I wrote a LTTE before our

invasion of Iraq and some nice old man wrote that I should be jailed.

[bigtree]

9. I think that sentiment was held by a younger crowd back then

There's a broader age range in opposition these days, for whatever reason. Also, I think these occupations are viewed, politically, through support for whoever is in the WH. Bush brought out the worst kind of defenders of his nonsense.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Good. Obama's "necessary" lost war is finally being seen as unnecessary.

Now it's up to congress to listen to their constituents and cut off the funding.

[bigtree]

12. .