home

Support for Iraq War at Lowest Ever

A New York Times - CBS poll finds public support for the Iraq War at its lowest point since the invasion in 2003.

Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

....President Bush’s approval ratings remain near the lowest of his more than six years in office. Thirty percent approve of the job he is doing over all, while 63 percent disapprove.

More Americans — 72 percent — now say that “generally things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track” than at any other time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The number has slowly risen since January 2004. Then, 53 percent said the country was “seriously off on the wrong track,” and by January of this year it was 68 percent.

If we don't cut off funding, how do we ensure the war ends? What's so difficult about bringing the troops home by a date certain and refusing to fund Iraq war spending after that date?

< Poll: Americans Favor Legal Status for the Undocumented | Iraq Supplemental: From the Ashes Can Rise The Not Funding Phoenix >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by shpilk on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:49:47 PM EST
    Not necessarily of Bush and Cheney, but the operatives within their organization.

    Start with Abu Gonzales, Lurita Doan. Get them to turn on each other. Destroy their political effectiveness. Destroy the machine that makes all of this possible. Isolate Bush and Cheney from any appearance of being honest brokers, of being responsible players.

    Start kicking in the rotting timbers that support the Bush administration from the inside out. Knock down this house.


    Reasons (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by koshembos on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:34:17 AM EST
    The reason for not stopping funding the war are not clear. If Democrats fear the after the war blame game, they shouldn't worry; no matter what they'll do, there are going to be blamed for the loss.

    The always war party, i.e. the Republicans, never take responsibility for anything. It's Clinton; it's Johnson; it's Truman, etc.

    Perhaps someone (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Al on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:16:08 AM EST
    could ask the Democrats in Congress where they stand on the draft oil law that still has not been passed by the Iraqi parliament:
    Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

    PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.


    I think the American forces in Iraq are fighting for the American oil companies, as well as the military-industrial complex that does so well when there's war, regardless of how the war actually goes. And I wonder whether the Democrats really object to that.

    Can't Do it With Dems or Republicans (none / 0) (#3)
    by JHFarr on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:21:29 AM EST
    Seems to me this cave-in is of STAGGERING historical proportions not yet grasped by most. Think about it: the maggot-ridden carcass of the corporate state, dragged out into the light for all to see. It'll take time to sink in, though.

    Athenae posted a good rah-rah, fight-fight-fight exhortation, ending with "Not. One. Inch."

    I commented,

    "See? You're not really a Democrat yourself. :-)"

    It's only a cave-in.... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:38:30 AM EST
    if you expected the Democrats to stand with the people, instead of special interests.

    No surprise to me....I don't think the American people grasp it because we listen to what our leaders say, instead of watching what they do and holding them accountable.

    Parent

    GOP Wants War To Continue (none / 0) (#5)
    by john horse on Fri May 25, 2007 at 06:22:36 AM EST
    The major problem for Bush and the GOP is that they can't come up with any good reasons why we should continue to stay in Iraq.  That is why support for the war is so low.  Most of the American public now feels that the costs far exceed any possible benefit.  This war simply is not worth the price being paid.

    The war wil continue because, regardless of what Democrats do, there are enough Republicans in Congress to keep the Dems from overturning a Bush veto.

    The politics of this war is simple.  If you want this war to continue indefinitely support the Republicans.  If you want the war to end then vote them out.


    We need to amend that John.... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:44:35 AM EST
    If you want this occupation to continue indefinitely continue to vote for the GOPDLC (see below for definition of acronym).

    The Democrats want the occupation too...they just have to be sneaky about their support since it was implemented by Bush and Co.  

    Parent

    Re: then vote them out. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:19:32 AM EST
    Ummm. I seem to recall that is what happened in 2004 and 2006. Even so, they still have power, enabled now by the Democratic Followership.

    It's clear that there is only one party now, the GOPDLC (or GDOLPC - take your pick)  and elections are for keeping people from noticing.

    Parent

    Amen edger.... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:41:59 AM EST
    I like GOPDLC best....Greedy Oppresive Party of Dirtbag Lying C*cksuckers.

    Parent
    hahahahaha (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:47:58 AM EST
    That works.

    btw - i answered later the other day over here)

    Parent

    I saw it..... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:34:08 AM EST
    And as you know I share your goals, respect and admire your passion.

    It all boils down to this for me...any strategy to end the occupation that involves the cooperation of congress is no strategy at all, for reasons I have expressed many times ad naseum.  I'd love nothing more than to be wrong, believe me.

    After countless hours of deliberation over "what can I do?", the best I could come up with is get off my ass and lay down on the runway of the next supply plane taking off for Iraq or something to that effect. And getting put in a cage.  Everything else is a waste of time and effort because the entire govt. is complicit in this travesty.

    Parent

    I like the idea of laying down. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    but I'm not sure they wouldn't run you over rather than put you in a cage.

    They are all complicit. Dennis Kucinich yesterday on Democracy Now speaks the truth and is labeled a nutcase or conspiracy theorist. No one else in the dems would come close to verifying this obvious truth.

    AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, your hometown paper. It says, "It's all about Iraq's oil -- rich, abundant, and coveted by multinational companies waiting to line their deep pockets. Or so said [Rep.] Dennis Kucinich Wednesday in an unusual hourlong address on the House floor. He laid out his contention that the White House and Democratic-led Congress are helping oil companies grab a stake in Iraq's vast oil fields while claiming to be interested merely in winding down the Iraq war. The claim has brought Kucinich derision within his own Democratic Party. Leaders reject the suggestion that they would help `privatize' Iraqi oil. And Republicans dismiss him altogether, with Republican Party spokesman Dan Ronayne saying, `It sounds like congressman Kucinich is trying to get noticed with a nutty conspiracy theory.'" Your response, Congressman Kucinich?

    REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, if you look at the facts, the facts speak for themselves. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Vice President Cheney was meeting with oil company executives. They were planning this takeover of Iraqi oil. You know, everyone knows that it has one of the largest oil supplies in the world. This war has been about oil from the beginning. And I've been one of the few people who's been willing to challenge it and say that. And I think the American people need to know that our government has been instrumental in trying to push the privatization of Iraq oil for the profit of multinational oil companies. Our soldiers shouldn't be there in Iraq. We need to bring our troops home. And when someone looks at the long test of truth over the last five years, I'm the one who's been telling the truth. This administration has not told the truth. And some of my colleagues in Congress have kept their head in the sand, while there's been enormous catastrophe in Iraq, loss of life there, loss of lives of our troops, up to over $500 billion wasted already in American taxpayers' funds. I mean, someone has to stand for the truth here. Someone has to stand for the Constitution. And that's what I'm doing.

    Its time we stop looking for someone who fits our image of Presidential Material and get behind someone who makes sense and tells us the truth, but I would fear for his safety if that ever happened.

    Parent

    "Kooch" is probably the only Dem.... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    I'd vote for.  His big flaw in my eyes is being a member of a party that snickers behind his back when he tries to do crazy sh*t like tell the truth.  Is he a glutton for punishment and ridicule or something?  I can't figure the guy out.

    Parent
    Re: I can't figure the guy out. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
    -- Gandhi

    Dennis Kucinich: STOP Funding The Iraq War:

    I'm saying we shouldn't give him the money, period. We should not have even offered a bill. We should've told the president that we're not going to fund it, period.

    Shank: So why has Congress been so timid in exercising its authority to fund or not fund the war?

    Kucinich: I think that's a question that requires a deeper understanding of the primary process that produced candidates that may not have been so strongly in favor of ending the war. But the surge that happened in the November elections was a profoundly anti-war surge that carried in all the Democrats, whatever their positions were. And now we find ourselves in this paradox: the American people demanding an end to the war and the Democratic Congress saying "hey, not so fast, here's a Democratic version of the war that we want you to look at as opposed to a Republican version of the war."

    I think that as the American people realize what's happened here they're going to be outraged and they're going to lose faith in the Democratic Party.

    (from Foreign Policy In Focus)

    Parent
    In my view (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Al on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:51:32 AM EST
    Kucinich is absolutely right on this. When a large majority of people want the war to stop, and the Democrats just got a decisive surge of votes for Congress for this very reason, it doesn't make any sense that they are throwing away the only opportunity they have to actually stop the war.

    To me, the whole political system is just a tangled web of powerful interests and greedy individuals interested only in their own bottom line.

    The system is incapable of doing anything unless somebody powerful stands to gain from it. The political system, as a whole, does not represent the people. Nobody asked that Iraq should be invaded.

    Parent

    how can you give the same acronym (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jen M on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:03:57 AM EST
    to both parties?

    Parent
    What ::both: parties? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    I'm begining to think so n/t (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jen M on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:39:26 PM EST
    Support For the War (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Fri May 25, 2007 at 04:33:42 PM EST
    Was poor before the war began, so say the experts:

    The Senate Intelligence committee releases a new part of its Phase II investigation (.pdf): Report on Prewar Intelligence Assessments about Postwar Iraq. Chairman Rockefeller: "Today's report shows that the Intelligence Community gave the Administration plenty of warning about the difficulties we would face if the decision was made to go to war. These dire warnings were widely distributed at the highest levels of government, and it's clear that the Administration didn't plan for any of them. The Intelligence Community believed an American invasion would be exploited by Iran and al Qaeda terrorists and that an occupation of Iraq would fuel Islamist extremism. They also assessed that al Qaeda would seek to re-establish its presence in Afghanistan while the United States was diverted in Iraq."

    via war & piece

    David Sirota (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Fri May 25, 2007 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    had some pointed comments to make last night:
    Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth - all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation at the request of the most unpopular president in a generation at a time polls show a larger percentage of the public thinks America is going in the wrong direction than ever recorded in polling history.
    ...
    I'm not a purist nor am I a "pox on both their houses" kind of guy. I have worked to elect Democratic politicians and I supported Democratic leaders when they pushed an Iraq funding bill that included binding language to end the war. But what happened today was perhaps the most stunning travesty I've seen in a decade working in Democratic politics. A Democratic Party that six months ago was elected on a promise to end the war first tried to hide their complicity in continuing the war in the House, and then gave a few token speeches as the blank check sailed through the Senate club. And it all happened, as the New York Times reported today, because these Democrats believed criticism from President Bush - the man who polls show is the most unpopular president in three decades - "seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left."

    They make their political calculations with only their own interests in mind. The elections next year will give people exactly wht they always give them - a chance to choose what they consider the lesser of two evils.

    The Democrats had an opportunity to save lives and change the political paradigm.

    They chose not to.

    Democratic politicians, Capitol Hill staff, political consultants and all their lobbyist friends sitting comfortably tonight in their Northwest Washington homes believe the public thinks Democrats are "weak" because they don't more strongly support leaving American troops to be killed or maimed in the middle of a bloody civil war in a country half way around the globe that had no WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11. What they seem unable - or unwilling - to realize is that the public has believed Democrats are weak not because some in the party have opposed the war, but because many in the party refuse to wield the power the public entrusts them with on all sorts of issues.


    It is hard to throw the bastard out (none / 0) (#21)
    by JSN on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    when they don't have a real opponent. Chuck Grassley has not had a real opponent in years. Tom Harkin voted for the original war resolution, continued funding and to confirm Gonzo but the chances of his having a real opponent are small.

    We have a county Democratic party but no functional state or national party. The glue that holds the national party together is they all hate Republicans (not that that is a bad thing).