Only 7 percent support taking military action against Iran.
By on Jun 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Only 7 percent support taking military action against Iran.
According to a new poll from Public Agenda, nearly 50 percent of those who follow the situation in Iran say “the one” best way to deal with Iran is through using diplomacy “to establish better relations.” Only five percent favor threatening military action, down from nine percent in fall 2007. Seven percent support taking military action:
(HT: Democracy Arsenal)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
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.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Cheney/Bush/Rice/Rove/O’Biley ~ So?
June 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pmMemo to McIIIrd:
Go for it! Back these chickenhawks! Sing that Beach Boys parody song over and over.
Make my election cycle.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pmAccording to Boosh, that gives him a mandate. I’m sure Iran will greet us as liberators.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pmThe poll proves that liberals, conservatives and the don’t-cares would all like to achieve peace peacefully, rather than by war. You didn’t know this?
June 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pmand that 7% will rush to their recruiter’s office to enlist, right? RIGHT?
*crickets chirping*
June 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pmBushco wants armegeddon/the rapture. How much more do we have to see to understand that our leadership is delusional/borderline insane?
June 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pmWTF is the Senate thinking? Why has there been no serious discussion about impeachment? C’mon- it happened last decade over a BJ! The WH activity of the last seven years seems to be more serious.
Oh, I forgot. The GOP were looking to impeach Clinton the day after he was inaugurated.
Makes you wonder about polls. If only 7% of the people want to implement McShrub’s main foreign policy fiasco, how can the polls show over 40% support for his election? Are the American people that stupid?
Never mind.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:37 pmi will concede your point this one time, rogers, but those mongoloids are supposed to represent US
June 5th, 2008 at 2:37 pmrogers isn’t having a particularly good day at trolling today, is he?
Good thing the RNC pays based on quantity, not quality.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:38 pmTHIS should be the beginning of a petition on a national referendum ballot initiative!!!!!!
Not just another menaingless poll that congress doesn’t pay attention to.
NI4D <- vote for the right to vote.
and check out my latest broadcast while you’re at it.
http://oldhakcs.blogspot.com
June 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pmThose 7% all hold stock in Exxon/Mobil et al.
woodguy Says:
“Makes you wonder about polls. If only 7% of the people want to implement McShrub’s main foreign policy fiasco, how can the polls show over 40% support for his election? Are the American people that stupid?”
No! Just the idiots the fools poll.
Have you ever been polled? Not I!
June 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pmoops.
http://oldhacks.blogspot.com
I meant to do that…
June 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pmDiplomacy over military action??
What a bizarre concept…..
/snark
June 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pmrogers Says
June 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
It means nothing since it obviously doesn’t include the politicians.
___________________________________
Who says they aren’t included? Those 7% could very well BE the politicians. Or at least quite a few of them.
But your point is well taken — if that 7% represents the politicians, it doesn’t matter what the other 93% think. Until November.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pmrogers Says:
It means nothing since it obviously doesn’t include the politicians.
Wrong. If you hadn’t noticed, the wording of the amendment has significantly changed, including this:
“Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that “I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by the preferable approach. That the one we are using. We always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.”
June 5th, 2008 at 2:55 pmIt should not be forgotten that Obama has proclaimed, during one of the summer debates of 2007, that he wishes to leave the nuclear option available against both Iran and Pakistan. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of those countries, now is it?
June 5th, 2008 at 2:58 pmIt should not be forgotten that Obama has proclaimed, during one of the summer debates of 2007, that he wishes to leave the nuclear option available against both Iran and Pakistan. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of those countries, now is it?
Link? I believe he said military options, not nuclear.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pmThat only accounts for a quarter of the 28%ers. Hmmm….what are the others after? An attack on France?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pmAs Abraham Lincoln once said, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. This Administration’s sewn the proverbial wind. It’s time they reap the whirlwind.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pmImpeach Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution.
That only accounts for a quarter of the 28%ers. Hmmm….what are the others after? An attack on France?
Actually, the other 21 percent are Ronnie RayGun democrats who want to re-invade Grenada. It’s the only military invasion that we would be likely to win now that GDumbya has broken the armed services. Oh, yeah. He could always use his mercenary butt-buddies.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pmNot sure where I heard it, but I believe Bush’s motto is, “You can fool some of the people all of the time. And those are the ones we want to concentrate on.”
June 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pmSlightly OT, but maybe not. Reports on NPR news state that two (2) top dogs of the Air Farce were asked to resign/retire/whatever.
Did they get their hands caught in the cookie jar?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:13 pmDid they oppose or even disagree with Bush/Cheney’s plans to start another war in the middle east?
Stay tuned. News at 6.
#19-barfly
I do not have a link but I remember specifically Mike Gravel bringing up that point during one of the debates last summer, i.e. keeping the nuclear option open vis a vis Iran. I strongly suggest that liberals closely examine what Obama says, because if one does do that, one will find that he is not as peace loving as he portrays himself to be, as evidenced by his desire to keep 80,000 troops in Iraq even after his phased [not immediate] withdrawal finally takes place in Iraq and his desire to keep civilian contractors in Iraq. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, now is it?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:14 pmReports on NPR news state that two (2) top dogs of the Air Farce were asked to resign/retire/whatever.
These are the guys who were in charge when an unarmed nuclear bomb was flown from North Dakota to Texas, I believe. They were also in charge when nuclear bomb fuses were mistakenly delivered to Taiwan.
In other words, they are just run-of-the-mill GDumbya appointees.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pmErroroll ~ c’mon, give us a link to Obama’s to keep 80,000 troops in Iraq even after his phased [not immediate] withdrawal finally takes place in Iraq …
thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pmThey ought to ask the people who said the USA should wage aggressive war on Iran how they can justify an attack based upon international law.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pmsniff, sniff,
June 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pmIs someone in here suffering post-Hillary-partum anxiety?
#28-RUCerious
Despite your implication, I do not make it a habit of making things up. As the link makes clear, Obama, through his adviser, wishes to leave close to 100,000 troops either in Iraq or, to use Murtha’s phrase, “over the horizon”, which would be in countries like Kuwait, Qatar, or Oman. This would be similar to a foreign power saying that they will keep their troops either in Mexico or Canada. Since Obama wishes to keep American forces in Iraq or in the region, a country which was illegally invaded and occupied and brutalized by the less than benevolent American military, this again begs the question: by leaving those troops in that country or in a nearby area, will this result in winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? I would not bet the mortgage that this will somehow win the approval of the Iraqis.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
http://hotair.com/ archives/ 2008/ 04/ 04/ obama-adviser-keep-80000-troops-in-iraq/
June 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pmWhat more has to come out about the lies bush told to get us into Iraq before the 7% and any of the 25% get a clue ? And everyone who supports bush should have to enlist. Watch the numbers change.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pmSince when did what the unwashed masses want matter?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pmI see. Here is a paragraph buried in the article you cite.
“Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position. Nonetheless, the paper could provide clues as to the ultimate size of the residual American force the candidate has said would remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat brigades. The campaign has not publicly discussed the size of such a force in the past.”
Sounds like fiction to me.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pmHere’s what’s on his web site…
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
I don’t think your citation was credible.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pmErrol, I see Mr Ed Morrissey (has been busy since he got out of prison for money laundering conviction. Not a credible source. Please come up with something else to bolster your bullshite.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:03 pmWant to see polls showing the opposite?
No, I didn’t think so!
June 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pmSure, phony soldier, bring em on.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pmRUCerious at #35
Let us try to be honest about this, shall we? As you note from Obama’s own web site, Obama will “… keep ’some’ troops in Iraq…” Both Obama and you seem to be engaging in a bit of less than nifty word play. Obama is attempting to be coy about how many troops he wishes to keep in Iraq but that cannot disguise the fact that neither he nor the U.S. government has ANY right to keep ANY troops in a country which the U.S. illegally and immorally invaded and occupied, which resulted in the brutalization and terrorization of the Iraqi people.
I strongly suggest that you may want to poll the average Iraqi to see if he or she agrees that the U.S. should keep its troops in their country. I would bet the mortgage that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the less than benevolent U.S. forces to stay out of their country and the nearby region. That, of course, is assuming that one believes that the Iraqis actually have a right to state that they do not wish to see any more armed forces kept in their country from imperial America.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pmI’d like to see ALL US troops withdrawn tomorrow. I’ve stated that position over and over on this site and others.
The question was about Obama’s position, so let’s be honest.
Your source, Ed Morrisey has zero credibility.
Obama says we need to secure the embassy and it’s employees. That’s not going to take 80,000 troops.
If he goes back on his word, I’ll be really pissed, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pmThe choice is between McIIIrd’s vision of a permanent miltiary occupation and Obama’s graduated withdrawal.
I know who I am voting for, how about you?
Mr. Rogers, if you couch the question as preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, sure. Only problem is that there’s no evidence they’re doing that.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pmWhy would Iran want to attack us or our interests? We’re already giving them everything they could possibly want from us:
We got rid of their arch-nemesis Saddam and opened the door for an Iran-friendly Shi’ite regime in Iraq
We’ve gotten ourselves entangled in a protracted, expensive and ill-advised war in the Middle East, which has degraded our capability to respond to other crises and eroded our influence in the world.
Our economic policies have provided the conditions for oil to skyrocket in price on the worldwide market, boosting Iran’s revenues enormously.
We’ve provided the mullahs with a perfect new boogeyman that they find useful in rallying their people to their side, against an outside threat.
We compromised our own credibility in assessing threats from nations we want to bomb, thus lessening the scrutiny we are able to bring to bear on any nuclear program, weapons-related or not, that iran might want to implement.
Bush has already made life so much easier for the power structure in Tehran, we would they want to attack us? What would they have to gain?
June 5th, 2008 at 4:54 pmI do believe that I heard the Head Mullah say just the other day that he publicly repudiated nuclear weapons…That being a slap down to those factions within the Iranian power structure who wanted to go forward.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:57 pmRUCerious
If it were not so tragic it would be almost hilarious to see how many Americans and worse, liberals, have so much faith in this [alleged] agent of hope and change. As noted film documentarian John Pilger has pointed out, Obama has, like Bush, assured Americans that he will “listen to his commanders on the ground.” Obama plans to add even more troops to Afghanistan, the so-called “good war”, where American bombs and bullets have ripped apart Afghan villages and homes. Obama, the alleged anti-war candidate, has voted each and every time to continue voting to fund the illegal occupation in Iraq. As noted previously, despite your denials, Obama’s adviser, Colin Kahl, says the U.S. should keep up to 80,000 troops in Iraq. What few liberals wish to acknowledge are Obama’s ties to Wall Street, including such firms as Goldman sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan chase, citigroup, Morgan Stanley as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. According to files owned by the Centre for Responsible Politics, the top five contributors to Obama’s campaign are registered corporate lobbyists. It should also be pointed out how Obama is quick to reassure Israel that he will take care of them while grounding his heel into the face of the Palestinian people.
Americans and liberals are very quick to be led down the garden path by Obama’s oratory and charisma while perhaps purposefully ignoring that the devil is in the details. As to your earlier question, I will most definitely be voting for a third party candidate. It is useful to recall Congressman Kucinich’s wise observation that by voting for the lesser of two evils, one still ends up, despite his smooth talk, with an evil.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pmGreat, Errol, may I suggest Bob Barr. Good luck with that.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pmAccording to a new poll from Public Agenda, nearly 50 percent of those who follow the situation in Iran say “the one” best way to deal with Iran is through using diplomacy “to establish better relations.” Only five percent favor threatening military action, down from nine percent in fall 2007. Seven percent support taking military action…
Will the opinions of those Bush has sworn to serve matter at all to Bush? Would it matter to McCain? The answer to both is no. Neither man gives a rats ass about what real Americans want.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 5th, 2008 at 6:01 pmWould we now have to call the bombing of Iran the ‘7% Solution’?
Just wondering……
June 5th, 2008 at 6:09 pmErroll said:
Americans and liberals are very quick to be led down the garden path by Obama’s oratory and charisma while perhaps purposefully ignoring that the devil is in the details.
You’re awfully quick to speak for all “Americans and liberals.” And the last I heard Kucinich (my choice), is no longer running.
It’s also a little ridiculous to refer to Obama as “evil.” I happen to agree with you in general, the Democrats are not going to “save” this country. While there are clear differences between Democrats and Republicans there are troubling simularities. When you say you’ll be voting for a third party candidate who are you talking about, or will any third party candidate do?
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pmErrol:
Americans and liberals are very quick to be led down the garden path by Obama’s oratory and charisma while perhaps purposefully ignoring that the devil is in the details.
A two-headed strawman.
How freakish.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:35 pmPaul W at #50
Despite #47s recommendation, I certainly will not be considering a vote for Bob Barr, since, as a libertarian, his policies should be considered anathema to what progressives believe in. Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney present two excellent choices, since they are calling for reconstruction of U.S. policy in the Middle East, a true universal health care system which, unlike Obama’s plan, would mean a single payer plan. Best of all, neither one of them, unlike Obama, is bought and paid for by Wall Street.
Ideally, one of these two should be allowed in the debates this summer in order to offer the American people a true alternative to either Obama or McCain. But it should be remembered how the Democrats and the Republicans conspired with the television executives to make sure that Nader would not be seen and heard in the summer debates of 2000. Apparently the last thing that the Democrats and the Republicans would wish is for Americans to realize that in a true democracy, other alternatives should be available beside the two major parties which are currently in power in the United States.
As Gore Vidal once wisely observed, there are two parties in this country, the extreme right wing and the right wing. I suspect that the last thing that Obama wishes to have happen is for Americans to realize how less than liberal he actually is. What one would not give to hear either Nader or McKinney call Obama out regarding his ties to corporate America. Yet so many Americans continue to believe the fallacy that Obama is a “man of the people.”
June 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pmWill President Bush attack Iran before the end of his term?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2556
.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pmCheney says that’s a “fluctuating” poll.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:52 pmIs that more or less than want to attack Mexico? Canada? France? And I can’t help but wonder what percentage would like to attack Oceana or Never Never Land?
June 5th, 2008 at 10:01 pmI’m sure we could get 7% to agree to boil children . . .
Could start with GHWB’s kid . . .
June 6th, 2008 at 1:22 amWell, we ALL know that Dictator Bush could CARE LESS about public opinion. His only concern is GLOBAL DOMINATION so I’m sure the invasion is a done deal. He has already run the this country into the ground, might as well finish it off!
JT
June 6th, 2008 at 8:00 amOnline Privacy when it Counts
With the attack on iran, the russians and chinese will be hitting us with their missiles. Where will we get the troops? unless there is A draft with no deferrments
June 6th, 2008 at 11:33 amOnly 10% in U.S. See Iran as Immediate Threat
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15093
June 6th, 2008 at 8:01 pmDiplomacy and appeasement are such a good idea! Ask Neville and Grampa K…
June 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pmyes we cant talk to countries we dont like but we can bomb we can blow the hell out of them ! of course this makes sense
July 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm