That's what a new poll from CNN is saying, and it's something you'll likely be hearing about from the left/media for the next several weeks at least.
Of course, CNN doesn't provide us with any data from the poll itself such as a breakdown of the demographics polled (or even a list of questions asked) so we can't see how badly this poll over-sampled Democrats, something that has happened in pretty much ever other poll conducted by the media in recent memory.
But what is interesting from the CNN article about this poll is that while sixty percent of Americans "oppose [the] Iraq war," sixty nine percent of those who said that some troops should come home from Iraq by the end of this year supported keeping at least a certain level of troops in the country.
Sixty-one percent, however, said they believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. Of those, 26 percent said they would favor the withdrawal of all troops, while 35 percent said not all troops should be withdrawn. Another 34 percent said they believed the current level of troops in Iraq should be maintained.
According to the article there were 1,047 adults polled. Sixty-one percent of 1,047 is (rounding up) 639 people.
Sixty-nine percent of 639 (representing the subsection of the previously mentioned sixty-one percent who think that at least some of our troops, if not all, should remain in Iraq) is about 441.
That's 441 people who support bringing troops home at the end of the year, but say that at least some troops and maybe even all of the troops should stay in Iraq. Something that doesn't really make sense, but whatever.
Now add those 441 people in with the 49% of the total 1,047 adults who said that no troops should come home from Iraq this year (49% of 1,047 is about 513) and you get a total of people who support the war in Iraq enough to say that at least some, if not all, of our troops should stay in Iraq. That's 954 people. Ninety-one percent of the poll respondents, give or take.
So what do we conclude from this? I'm not sure we can conclude anything. From my reading of this poll, while 60% of respondents apparently oppose the war in Iraq a full 91% of respondents support maintaining troops in Iraq either at current levels or at reduced levels.
It seems to me that opposing a war is an either/or proposition. What kind of a person opposes a war and then turns around and says that they support keeping our troops in harm's way fighting a war they don't approve of?
I think these muddled results are an indication of just how thoroughly mislead on Iraq many people are. I think most people support the concept of the mission in Iraq (as evidenced by the fact that 91% of the people responding to this poll want to keep troops there) yet because they are fed a daily diet of negativity and outright hostility toward the President and his foreign policies by the press many of them can't help but feel that something must be wrong or going wrong with the war. Thus the 60% opposition to the war in general.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
Now, the dilemma lies in whether we now, knowing what we know, withdraw troops and leave Iraq in the chaos we've helped create over there. Most Americans, liberal or conservative, believe in honor. We made a mess that we have to clean up. We are taught from early childhood to do things this way, and we are not inclined to abandon a country that we have helped set on its ear.
The media is not left, nor is it neutral. Rupert Murdock is a huge media mogul and is admittedly conservative, right-wing, and some think fanatical about it. Many stations have not reported some obvious infractions or controversies around this administration, so perhaps we should at least admit the "left" media is a myth of the past.
I believe the result of this poll, then, indicates that while many people think we made a mistake causing a war in Iraq, Americans want to do the 'right' thing and help clean up the mess.
I mean, come on now. The world is not black or white.
It is for some. "You're either with them or against them," remember?
Until someone steps forward w/ a serious plan the Bush policy on Iraq will remain in place.
Math is not Rob's strong point, is it?
Again, Rob needs a basic survey course in statistics. Then he hopefully wouldn't say idiotic things like:
Of course, CNN doesn't provide us with any data from the poll itself such as a breakdown of the demographics polled (or even a list of questions asked) so we can't see how badly this poll over-sampled Democrats, something that has happened in pretty much ever other poll conducted by the media in recent memory.
For a poll to be valid, it must be a random sample. If a pollster sets out to make a 50/50 split between Dems and Repugs--the poll is invalid because the sample is no longer random.
You're right. It's not. I came back from lunch and noticed my error. I've corrected it, and the numbers actually quite a bit different...further carrying out my point.
It's hard working without an editor.
For a poll to be valid, it must be a random sample. If a pollster sets out to make a 50/50 split between Dems and Repugs--the poll is invalid because the sample is no longer random.
I didn't call for a 50/50 split, did I? Obviously you're the one who needs a course in statistics.
What I'm calling for is a sample that is truly representative of America as a whole. That means including a representative sample of Democrats, Republicans, independents, etc. Most media polls have something like 46% Democrats, 36% Republicans. That clearly isn't representative of the nation as a whole.
Sort of a moot point given that we don't know the demographic make up of this particular poll. But feel free to continue your nasty and snide remarks. That's about all you're good for.
Working isn't your strong point, either.
I've corrected it, and the numbers actually quite a bit different...further carrying out my point.
You still embarrass yourself. A sample is exactly that--a sample. You really need a course in basic statistics.
What I'm calling for is a sample that is truly representative of America as a whole. That means including a representative sample of Democrats, Republicans, independents, etc. Most media polls have something like 46% Democrats, 36% Republicans. That clearly isn't representative of the nation as a whole.
First, you have no evidence to support your claim that "most media polls" are disproportionately weighted toward Dems. Second, if you begin asking political affiliations--the poll is no longer random. Third, most people in the US are Dems.
It's easy for me to understand the poll results because it's exactly as stated by others. I think the war in Iraq was irresponsible and unnecessary. However, now that we are there and entangled in that horrible mess, how responsible would it be to just leave? It would be nice to be able to extract ourselves from this but I don't know how we're going to do that with conditions as they are now. And no, I have no answers on how to fix it. I see the Iraq war as one big gray zone now.
I am not happy with what has happened since, and am among those that felt there wasn't enough troops for occupation. Plenty to win, but not to keep the peace so to say.
I also believe that just pulling out now is an open door for Iran and will make things worse. I don't want to come back later to a huge war. I don't know the answer to make things better, but I do know it took years for others to get on their feet after a similar collapse. So I'm willing to try some more time.
I'm starting to think it might have been better to break it up, like it was before the British (I think) formed the current borders. At least the Kurds seem to be doing better.
We are there and likely will have troops there in considerable numbers for some time. Obama will likely pull out some troops but if he actually listens to his commanders on the ground like he says he will, they are not advocating any real pull out soon. The Iraqi military is saying they are not ready on all fronts and are no where near ready to handle major threats. Even the Iraqi government is issuing warnings about pull outs too soon.
Both Obama and Maliki are playing politics. Both want to gain or keep their respective offices, both know their core supporters and what they have to say. Obama has said consistently that US troops are the problem in Iraq and now he wants to shift more troops to Afghanistan out of Iraq. Isn't that compounding what he thinks is the problem causing factor?