55.
By on Feb 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
55.
Percentage of Americans who “favor a firm timetable for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq within a year. That figure includes 37% who favor an immediate withdrawal and 18% who want a timetable that will complete the withdrawal in a year,” Rasmussen reports. Just 33% believe U.S. combat troops should remain in Iraq “until our mission is accomplished.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, you have to at least give the 30%’ers credit for consistency – consistently wrong about everything.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:49 pmWhat the message here? That the idea that Democrats can’t end the war because cutting off funds or doing anything else against the war will be political suicide is WRONG.
Just the opposite; people who support the extremely unpopular war and it’s discredited policy and discredited supporters are in BIG political trouble.
In this case, it’s also politically expedient to do the right thing—end the Iraq war ASAP.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pmI read the released portions of the NIE which makes a rather strong case for staying in Iraq indefinitely.
I found it interesting the released portions of the NIE made no mention of utilizing UN Peacekeepers.
But the released portions of the NIE also could be used to justify implementing the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Strike against both Iran and Syria. And Turkey could implement the Bush Doctrine against the Kurds in northern Iraq.
The released portions of the NIE made no mention of the probable outcomes of a phased withdrawl or following a timetable for withdrawl. Is it possible the NIE didn’t look into those options?
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 pmI read the released portions of the NIE which makes a rather strong case for staying in Iraq indefinitely.
Cheney made a remark the other day that it may be 2-4 administrations before this thing wound down
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm33%??? Well I’ll be….
That projects 100 million Americans. Conservatively we can say 1/3 are adults or 33 Million ready and willing to put their convictions into actions. Send the 33 million to Iraq and we will hold down the fort here.
Yeah, we thought so.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm#2 Publicus though you are correct, the right thing and political decisions are two seperate entities. Bush is calling Dems bluff to cut funding and sadly it will work. I fear Dems do not have the nations interest at heart or moxy to stop funding…right now. Doing so and pulling out so we can be smarter and more effective against those who mean us harm will produce serious carnage and ghastly ethnic cleansing. I believe it is inevitable. however, Neocons and Rape-Public-Cans will then forever blame the Dems for pulling the plug too soon.
Dems want Bush to own the war but we lose as a result.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:27 pmit may be 2-4 administrations before this thing wound down
Comment by Jet Mech — February 2, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
It may be another Star on the Flag…..
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 pmJust 33% believe U.S. combat troops should remain in Iraq “until our mission is accomplished.â€
But wasn’t the mission accomplished a long time ago? I seem to remember a certain banner.
Even if I hadn’t seen the banner, I recall the mission was to rid the world of the likes of Hussein, his WMD, and to eliminate the threat he posed to the world. All of which have been accomplished.
What else is there to do? Christianise Iraqis, as Coulter advocates? It seems the 30%ers will never get tired of Pres Bush moving the goal posts. What a pathetic, sheepish lot.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 pmIt may be another Star on the Flag…..
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Colin Powell said if he bought it he would own it.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:38 pm#6
As BnF notes, the publicly available portions of the NIE, in addition to providing Bush with cover for an attack on Iran (scant cover, but he doesn’t seem to need anything else), provides similar cover to Congresscritters.
While it appears certain that a US withdrawal will result in carnage, we alreasdy have carnage, and I have seen or read nothing to indicate that our prescence there is doing anything other than providing targets. American targets seem to be the one thing that the Sunni and Shia agree on. If there isn’t anything else to kill, kill an American.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:40 pmNeocons and Rape-Public-Cans will then forever blame the Dems for pulling the plug too soon. -YC
“People forget that Congress did not vote to stop funding the war in Vietnam until after all the American troops had already left,” Dr. Eisenberg said. “Instead what happened was that every year more and more members of Congress voted against the war and that pressured President Richard Nixon to pull more and more troops out every year.”
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm–Carolyn Eisenburg
Well I hope, Gogreen, that Murtha comes up with a redeployment scenario. Congress is already pretty wll divided, but the Dems aren’t likely to cut funding with elections looming.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 pmJust 33% believe U.S. combat troops should remain in Iraq “until our mission is accomplished
I have yet to hear the Bush administration define a mission in Iraq, other than the continually changing and deliberately vague justifications for being there. have these people been getting security briefings denied to the rest of us? Do they know something we don’t?
I was reading yesterday a winger blog wherein Molly Ivins untimely demise was being discussed. People on the blog were describing George Bush as “a class act.” One of them compared Molly Ivins to Ann Coulter. Others said things impling the world was better off without her.
I assume they are in the 33%. I have to conclude that at least that sample doesn’t get security briefings and doesn’t know anything more than the rest of us, in fact quite the opposite.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 pmIf there isn’t anything else to kill, kill an American.
Comment by gogreen
The battle, if Americans left would then likely, I think, be for oil $$
What a quagmire.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 pmWell I hope, Gogreen, that Murtha comes up with a redeployment scenario. Congress is already pretty wll divided, but the Dems aren’t likely to cut funding with elections looming.
Comment by Jet Mech — February 2, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
I agree, they won’t. If this were 2004 instead of 2006, they might have some time to come up with a politically safe strategy, but the soldiers in Iraq don’t have time anymore. The only sane and honorable thing the Dems can do is impeach Bush and get him and his cabal out of there.
I suspect a good bit of the current impasse between Bush and the Iraqi government is becasue they know they are being played until the oil companies have foothold. If we sent real diplomats and honest negotiators instead of industry shills and unqualified Bush political appointees, something might could be salvaged from this wreck.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 pmwas reading yesterday a winger blog wherein Molly Ivins untimely demise was being discussed. People on the blog were describing George Bush as “a class act.†One of them compared Molly Ivins to Ann Coulter. Others said things impling the world was better off without her.
I don’t much care for reading the freeper type blogs they seem to hold alot of emnity.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 pmTom Andrews, a former Democratic Congressman from Maine who is close to Murtha, told IPS other conditions for further funding of the Iraq war could include closing the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and bulldozing the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
This might help reduce some of the tensions.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 pm#18
yeah, the Dems should at least be using funding as leverage to extract concessions from Bush.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 pmJust 33% believe U.S. combat troops should remain in Iraq “until our mission is accomplished.â€
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm=====================
In other words, “Until Dubya says we’s done!”
55 + 33 = 88. What about the other 12%? I personally think that this figure is a little low. Where was this poll conducted, and by whom? What are Rasmussun’s credentials? Why is there so little fact accompanyng this item? What kind of a news item is this?
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm55 + 33 = 88. What about the other 12%? I personally think that this figure is a little low. Where was this poll conducted, and by whom? What are Rasmussun’s credentials? Why is there so little fact accompanyng this item? What kind of a news item is this?
Comment by Liberal in New Mexico — February 2, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
there’s some more info here
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 pmThe “surge” is grossly misunderstood, and opposition thereto is sadly misguided. The President just wants to give ten or twenty thousand more American soldiers the opportunity to enjoy being showered with flowers, as they stroll through Baghdad en route to George W. Bush Square.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 pmThe percentage of Americans against this war is growing daiy. Hell, even the Republicans are questioning the Decider’s war powers.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:24 pmArlen Specter’s questioning of Bush’s war powers made me think of another dark time in our nations history, the McCarthy era. A time when the people were also terrorized by their government. Lives and careers were ruined by this man’s which hunt for communists, hiding under each and every American’s bed. Then came the day during the McCarthy hearings that Joseph Welch spoke back to this monster, with the simple phrase, “At long last, have you no sense of decency, sir?” That Moment began McCarthy’s downfall.
Now we have a Republican challenging Bush’s war power’s with a similar moment. Let us hope that history can repeat itself, and now can be the beginning of Bush’s downfall. Another bully bites the dust.
I had to make this the topic of my latest cartoon, see it at my website
http://www.whatnowtoons.com
There is that crazy 33% who believe that Bush’s Iraq Fiasco War can be won > lol.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 pmSimply withdrawing from Iraq is not satisfactory. We cannot let the place continue to deteriorate.
We’ve got to work on a solution, even if it meant dividing the country into Shiites and Sunnis (not that I’m saying that’s the solution). We should get neighbouring countries to help out.
Of course, this would be easier if the USA had moral authority. A heartfelt apology from Bush to the people of the Middle East would help develop America’s moral authority.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:03 pmHere’s what I find incredibly stupid. The same people who right now are saying “you don’t just cut and run” were the people who four years ago were saying “why don’t we nuke the place and turn it into a parking lot.”
I find it hard to belive that there is anything other than selfish pride playing into the resistance to move US forces out of the most unwise military engagement in American history.
We really should leave now while we can.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 amGrandma vivian,
You forgot a few talking points. Let me help you:
Why do most Americans hate America?
Why do most Americans hate the troops?
How come most Americans want to hurt the troops’ morale?
No idiotic comment is ever complete without these…
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 am55% eh?
Well fortunately for us as a nation we have strong military leaders dictating policy in Iraq, not the general public. Not the by and large †non military ecperienced †general public.
Let the professionals handle this. And it may not hurt to get in there and try to support our military in what they are trying to acieve instead of cutting and running without so much as dousing the campfire or untying the horses. That is sheer cowardice and a reality copout.
Why do most Americans hate America?
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 amWhy do most Americans hate the troops?
How come most Americans want to hurt the troops’ morale?
I work for an evil defense contractor at an Army post in Germany, with a bunch of retired officers and NCOs (non-commissioned officers; that is, enlistees who worked their way up to various Sargeant ranks). These guys are just a few years out and often in the Reserves. All the ones in the Reserves have been called up at least once since “retiring,” and one who separated as a captain after only five years in (served out his college obligation, but not the career he wanted, after all) just got called up off the IRR (Inactive Ready Reserve) list.
Kosovo is the favored “downrange” assignment (but that’s only National Guard these days), and Afghanistan is fervently hoped for if you get called up.
They talk about assignments to Iraq in hushed tones, with strained voices.
The soldiers will (99% of them) do what they’re told to, and do it well and honorably. The pity is that there’s not really anything specific that they can be told to do that will turn Iraq into a peaceful, stable democracy, and they know that.
It’s breaking the Army, they keep saying. Very little mention of Vietnam by the retired officers who believe they were stabbed in the back and could have won it…. eventually, but plenty by the ones who believed it was a mistake from the get-go.
One of the most anti-Iraq war ones likes to tell this joke:
What’s the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?
Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
I remember hearing it around December 2004.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 amIt’s safe to assume that this 33% of the public has 0% empathy for the death and destruction happening to Iraq, Iraqis and the soldiers. These people are heartless sociopaths/primates.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 amA Texan in Bavaria —
I don`t believe you at all.
You are towing the same line as someone else I know at this site.
I think *you* are *they* in disguise. Your words give you away everytime.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 amWell fortunately for us as a nation we have strong military leaders dictating policy in Iraq, not the general public.
Grandma Vivian — A point of clarification: Our military leaders do not dictate policy in Iraq. That policy is determined by the president and the secretary of defense. Our military leaders may be strong, but they are not the ones determining our policy in Iraq.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 amWell fortunately for us as a nation we have strong military leaders dictating policy in Iraq, not the general public.
Strong military leaders includes the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
and ths COMMANDER IN CHIEF
No?
Just what is the Commander in Chief- A military leader.
Just what is the Secretary of Defense- Commander in Chiefs Head Warmaker
If they are not military leaders then I don`t know what is.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 amDo you?
How many of those 33% so you suppose can actually tell you what our “mission” is at this point, the one that absolutely must be “accomplished?”
The only problem I have with cutting the funding is that I believe this president would still send the troops over on tricycles carrying six-shooters and aluminum foil “body armor,” then when they all start dying he’ll blame the Democrats for not funding them. This president doesn’t care about the lives of his soldiers; they’re political fodder for him. He’s a sociopath.
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:19 am#21- Thanks. I appreciate your help.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:09 amI think its time an International Organisation is formed to fight terrorism and all states who are evidenced funding terrorism should be sent back to stone age.
http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 amGrandma Vivian must be high on her Osteo-Biflex.
“Just what is the Commander in Chief- A military leader.
Just what is the Secretary of Defense- Commander in Chiefs Head Warmaker
If they are not military leaders then I don`t know what is.
Do you?”
Wrong you old dipshit. The President and SecDef are CIVILIAN leaders who have authority over the military . Of course, I am not surprised you are too stupid to understand that distinction. Put your teeth back in and take a bite out of reality, granny…
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 am33% believe U.S. combat troops should remain in Iraq “until our mission is accomplished.â€
What is the “mission?”
How will you know when it is accomplished?
If you go into grade one in school the mission is in ten months to pass all the courses.
You know you have accomplished the mission when you get a report from your school saying you passed.
You failed in your mission when you get a report that you have failed.
So when will we know what the mission is in Iraq? Unless you know that you can never succeed and you can never fail. Until then we just don’t know what the hell we are talking about, period.
Do any of the 30% understand this. There is no USA “mission” in Iraq. Unless be go back to the false claims that there were weapons of mass destruction and the lies that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Quaida. In other words the so called mission itself was a lie from day one.
Because of those lies by the President of the USA that lead to the death of more Americans than were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York there is only one logical mission and that is to impeach the President and his accomplices.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 amDRAFT grandma vivian and the rest of those 33%’ers…
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 pmCollege Funding Center
Please keep these excellent posts coming.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm