A new survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory.
Haha.... close. I think it was run by a marketing firm that was paid by a Republican think tank. Throw it out there anyways.... if you actually look, it's not that great of a poll. It basically says that American's are not crazy about the war, but they don't want to lose either - they do not want to leave the job unfinished. This ain't pretty, but I don't think the Democrats should make the mistake of handing a victory to Islamic Fundamentalists... IMO.
I saw this on the news. It does sound encouraging though. Its better than what the news media makes it sound. your right Nancy, it wont get much attention
Kathleen - most democrats tend to believe that 70% of Americans prefer a full withdrawal from Iraq - and that they are willing to accept the war as being lost. This is what the last election was about - or so they say.
sad that this 'poll,' ignores the reality on the ground...what a mess, people are starting to starve in Iraq due to food shortages and contanimated shipments of 'aid,' guess who the man in the street blames?
We "won" the war! That was essentially over when Bush made his appearance on the carrier. Our troops took Iraq in short order and could easily do it again. What we are doing now is trying to make both sides in a civil war play nice with each other. That's their war and there is no way for us to win it.
Regardless of how long we stay there that country will erupt in violence when we leave. The Shiite majority may well wipe out the Sunni minority. They will definitely attempt to subjugate the Sunnis. The Sunnis dominated the Shiites for many years and the Shiites feel like it is their turn now! It's not a pretty picture and it will never be but as far as the war goes, we won it a long time ago!
What might change things is the involvement of the Saudis and others who are in that area, and have a genuine stake in the stability of the Mideast. And they're probably not going to step in as long as the good old USA wants to pay the costs and sacrifice our people!
James - you might very well be right. There are many opinions out there. I've heard yours and it's quite plausible. I think that we need to give this surge a try. There is quite a bit of political pressure that the Iraqi government is feeling, so maybe we can change the tide.
Was that necessary, Snord? I know you don't like me, but come on -- youruin the artilce for everybody. I don't mind you stating your message, but redundant copy/paste is just a waste of space and makes it so people have to scroll. Ruins the continuity.
You can phrase the question in a number of ways, and that's what this poll does. They say it in a few different ways and get the response. The most contrasting question was:
By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."
It seems that some Democrats plan calls for a complete withdrawal without regard to what happens in Iraq. And clearly, Americans do not want that to happen.
It's an interesting poll...I'd be curious to know the details of the folks who think that Iraq will never have a stable democracy (60%), but think that we should stay there until we achieve a stable democracy (57%) were thinking?
Some of the questions seem a little hinky to me, a little tough to read. For example: 12. Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the US. It makes it harder with the apostrophic phrase in the middle and the negative at the end.
I agree with you that the "lord" needs to learn consideration for others!
The wording of the poll has been, based on what little I've seen of it, constructed to get a particular result and is poor poling.
I would agree with spider woman that we incurred an obligation except for the fact that clearly, the Iraq people don't want us there! And we can't build a nation while they are busy with their civil war. John's comments on percentages is interesting and pertinent.
The poll simply says that people view Iraq as a complex problem and no one should be making rash decisions, liberals or the right wing. Nowhere is the question of victory raised (or actual data on those polled provided).
All you did was distort the findings of the poll to make it sound like it presents facts that it doesn't present at all. Good job. You learned how to make things up.
Gerg - here is a quote from the people who conducted the poll:
"The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory," said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. "The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are."
So, it's you making stuff up. I didn't distort a thing.
The poll also said that the majority of American don't support the the president. It would take more than a sentence or two to really explore those apparent contradictions.
Actually Don, if you were to oh I don't know... read the data set, you would find no supporting evidence for this quote. It's stuck there at random even though their data set presents a rather insipidly worded question that guarantees that most people will answer yes. So yes, you and the guy who you quoted are making this up.
Ask a cancer patient if he would like to undergo chemotherapy with all its pain and side effects or would he rather just get a miracle cure that will instantly make the cancerous tumor vanish. I'll bet you the patient will say he wants the painless miracle cure. From there on in we can use this fallacious argument and say that all cancer patients want a miracle cure and thus doctors should find it. They used the same tactic with the victory question, i.e. "do you want to win?" pretty much making sure that the majority of people would say that yeah, they'd like to win.
In research, this tactic is used reverse questioning, or questions designed to create predictable results. Their conclusions also gloss over the facts that they've seen and had the brain lapse to publish which indicate that the notable majority of Americans don't trust Bush, they disagree with his strategy and they want change. So if the majority of Americans are miraculously agreeing with Bush's position, why are they so dead set against him and his policies?
Yeah, no matter how you look at it, they're making all this up and you're quoting them because you agree with them and want to pretend that 2006 never happened and there was no rebuke to Republicans just a few months ago.
These propagandists asked a few basic questions and in their conclusions glossed over the fact that Iraq has BECOME a central point in Bush's war against al-Queda and used an emotionally loaded word to describe answers to questions they didn't even ask. Their conclusion reads like so "ok, yeah those idiots see the war the same way we're paid to present it so choke on that!"
And yes, I called them propagandists because if you look up the Moriah Group, you will find that it's a marketing and PR firm, not a news agency or research group...
http://www.moriahgroup.com/www
... and that they specialize in helping elect Republican lawmakers...
Let's remember that the polls "liberals" (by which you and your buddies mean any person who doesn't agree with you regardless of his or her views) trust come from independent pollsters at AP or Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. Hell, even the Fox News poll confirms the findings of those polls.
Greg - I don't know the guy who wrote the quote, so I would have to correct you and say that he alone came to the conclusion he did. The poll looked quite fair to as it was critical of the war, but when you get down to the bottom line - do we stay or do we go - it's clear that the American people do not support the cut and run policy coming from the democrats. And I think it's clear today from news reports that the dems are folding under pressure:
"My question is 'who in their right mind would want to lose a war?' A poll is not needed. The aim must be "to win." Oh, excuse me do you want to lose?"
John - if the war is futile and only more losses can come with no victory, then it would make sense to give up. This is the line the democrats have thrown out to America. They mistakenly saw the last election as a referendum to exit Iraq asap.
The Moriah group cannot be trusted to take an independent poll. The polls that are showing that most Americans think we should set a timetable to pull out are the same polls that showed most Americans supported the war when it started.
A PR firm does just that PR. They preform the SPIN just like this poll.
LOL My name is don hall and i live in a deep state of denial. My name is don hall and I am paid by the RNC to be pro-bush on gather
Don, see, now you're backpedaling. In your article and your reply to me, you eagerly proclaimed how that one quote was correct and how there's a credible study about how much Americans want to win in Iraq (whatever that means because the term victory wasn't defined for this poll) and now, after I demonstrated the numerous flaws and errors in this poll as well as proved that it was a poll done by a marketing and PR firm that works with the RNC, you're trying to tell me that the guy at Moriah Group is the only one who who came up with that conclusion.
Now you just had to start yapping about "liberal sources" again, didn't you? Your idea that there's some liberal media conglomerate that says that the majority of Americans support what you call "cut and run" is based on so many fallacies and such deep propaganda that it would take me a whole book to point out each and every thing wrong with just that one sentence.
As for being armed with facts, I don't think I should be listening to a lecture about facts vs. wishful thinking from someone who uses a dubious poll by a PR group as genuine, viable studies of American attitudes. I couldn't care less about the Dems so you can return the articles about their incessant internal bickering back into the place where you traditional put defunct red herrings.
You claimed the survey was viable even though it was made by a spin doctor's PR group. You claimed that it said something the data didn't support and backpedaled when I showed that their methods were fallacious. You're now trying to put me off track to follow your "u stupid liburul media liez" red herring and mutter something about facts when you clearly don't have any.
I took up issue with the poll and showed that it was as credible as any politico's dramatic fallacy-ridden speech. If you can't address the issue and have to resort to red herrings, that's your problem. Not mine.
I do agree with the quote, but I did not make it up as you stated twice.
Also, you guys state this is a PR firm who did the poll. So what! I stated it in my first comment. Again, it was a fair poll. Go read how they conducted the poll -- it's as good as any other poll out there.
I know what your first poll said. You admitted that it was a crap poll but you were going to throw it out anyway because you hated the Democrats and accused them of "handing victory to the Islamic Fundamentalists." I'm literate enough to read it.
You made up the link between what the Democrat plans on Iraq are (which they don't actually have yet so ridiculing them for an non-existent plan is just another example of parroting a trite talking point that went out of style in December 2006) and what people's attitudes about the war are.
You accused the Democrats of doing something that they haven't decided on doing and in fact, what the Democratic big shots like Biden, Pelosi and Obama want to avoid, and used the findings of a crap report as the backing for your theory that Americans are unhappy with a plan that so far only exists in the talking points of right wing pundits and in the heads of maybe 10 Democrats.
PS: Oddly enough you've defended this report to me as "pretty good" and "reflecting the feelings of Americans quite well" while declaring it biased and to be taken with a big spoon of salt. How those two can coexist in your replies, I will never know.
Greg - "a plan that so far only exists in the talking points of right wing pundits"????
Are you kidding? Go read Obama's mission statement on his election site. Better yet, note the house vote two weeks ago against the war with John Murtha and the likes leading the charge. Do you think these guys don't mean what they say? These are not Republican Pundit talking points... these are the liberal elites plan of action.
"liberal elites" "your liberal sources" "handing the victory to Islamists"
Do you mind cutting the talking points crap? I get it, you don't like anyone who doesn't agree with Bush and his following. All those pundits who come up with catchy pejoratives want their acts back. That's all they've got going for them.
As for your argument, if the Democrats want to withdraw so much, how come they have to fight about what they really want to do? How come they're not trying to do so much as stop the funding for the additional deployment Bush is plotting? If the Democrat idea to simply exit Iraq had such a strong backing throughout the party, wouldn't we be hearing about their goal to do so, not endless bickering about what they want to do?
You make an argument and then you don't think it through to its logical conclusion, something I should not be doing for you. Talking points are called points because they're just propaganda to get someone fired up, not actual studies or research or conclusions based on evidence. If you insist on quoting talking points, you will never be able to fully address an issue.
And finally, no, you can't use your personal ideology to verify the correctness of a poll, especially if you declare it biased. Your first comment essentially says "this is probably a bad study, but because I believe that this is what most Americans want to do, I'm gonna say that I believe it." The idea that just because you think one way, it means that you must be right is probably the biggest monkey on the back of American politics today.
I did not say it was a bad study. What I was trying to get across to the reader was that I understood it was done for the sake of Republicans - so I know that people like you would be able to question it's credibility. I still agree with the findings and the polling method was as good as any.
When I say the 'liberal elite' I am talking about all the big names like Murtha, Obama, Edwards, Kennedy, Levin, Pelosi, etc... the usual suspects. The leaders of the Democrat party are so far to the left, using the word 'liberal' to describe them is being moderate.
Anyways, you've really dragged this out because you don't like the results of the poll. I don't think it's that far off the mark and it's in sync with what I've thought all along.
"I don't think it's that far off the mark and it's in sync with what I've thought all along."
Just because you think so, doesn't make it true. Excusing yourself from facts and authoritatively throwing talking points around like you do with no explanation like you keep doing doesn't impress me in the least.
Fat chance. In court they call it leading a witness. In your poll they call it fair and unbiased questioning. Fake poll, done by Republican hacks, to back up a totally flawed plan. It's so obvious, only a truly partisan republican could take heart at it's results.
According to a poll I conducted, people only care about polls if they contain the information they expect to hear in it. Thus, we have Reds in denial that the war has been on the brink of disaster, and Blues who give Don a measly 5 rating for reporting a poll.
Greg - if you carefully read all my posts in this thread, you will see that you really made quite a few errors in attributing conclusions about the poll to me.
A majority of Americans would like to win in Iraq, but most of that same majority do not believe that "victory" is possible. I'd like to win the lottery but I always forget to buy tickets.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
your right Nancy, it wont get much attention
Regardless of how long we stay there that country will erupt in violence when we leave. The Shiite majority may well wipe out the Sunni minority. They will definitely attempt to subjugate the Sunnis. The Sunnis dominated the Shiites for many years and the Shiites feel like it is their turn now! It's not a pretty picture and it will never be but as far as the war goes, we won it a long time ago!
What might change things is the involvement of the Saudis and others who are in that area, and have a genuine stake in the stability of the Mideast. And they're probably not going to step in as long as the good old USA wants to pay the costs and sacrifice our people!
By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."
It seems that some Democrats plan calls for a complete withdrawal without regard to what happens in Iraq. And clearly, Americans do not want that to happen.
Some of the questions seem a little hinky to me, a little tough to read. For example: 12. Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the US. It makes it harder with the apostrophic phrase in the middle and the negative at the end.
I agree with you that the "lord" needs to learn consideration for others!
The wording of the poll has been, based on what little I've seen of it, constructed to get a particular result and is poor poling.
I would agree with spider woman that we incurred an obligation except for the fact that clearly, the Iraq people don't want us there! And we can't build a nation while they are busy with their civil war. John's comments on percentages is interesting and pertinent.
Thanks for the good comments Don!
All you did was distort the findings of the poll to make it sound like it presents facts that it doesn't present at all. Good job. You learned how to make things up.
"The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory," said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. "The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are."
So, it's you making stuff up. I didn't distort a thing.
Ask a cancer patient if he would like to undergo chemotherapy with all its pain and side effects or would he rather just get a miracle cure that will instantly make the cancerous tumor vanish. I'll bet you the patient will say he wants the painless miracle cure. From there on in we can use this fallacious argument and say that all cancer patients want a miracle cure and thus doctors should find it. They used the same tactic with the victory question, i.e. "do you want to win?" pretty much making sure that the majority of people would say that yeah, they'd like to win.
In research, this tactic is used reverse questioning, or questions designed to create predictable results. Their conclusions also gloss over the facts that they've seen and had the brain lapse to publish which indicate that the notable majority of Americans don't trust Bush, they disagree with his strategy and they want change. So if the majority of Americans are miraculously agreeing with Bush's position, why are they so dead set against him and his policies?
Yeah, no matter how you look at it, they're making all this up and you're quoting them because you agree with them and want to pretend that 2006 never happened and there was no rebuke to Republicans just a few months ago.
These propagandists asked a few basic questions and in their conclusions glossed over the fact that Iraq has BECOME a central point in Bush's war against al-Queda and used an emotionally loaded word to describe answers to questions they didn't even ask. Their conclusion reads like so "ok, yeah those idiots see the war the same way we're paid to present it so choke on that!"
And yes, I called them propagandists because if you look up the Moriah Group, you will find that it's a marketing and PR firm, not a news agency or research group...
http://www.moriahgroup.com/www
... and that they specialize in helping elect Republican lawmakers...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Moriah_Group&redirect=no
Let's remember that the polls "liberals" (by which you and your buddies mean any person who doesn't agree with you regardless of his or her views) trust come from independent pollsters at AP or Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. Hell, even the Fox News poll confirms the findings of those polls.
"Democrats' ambitious plans to limit President Bush's war authority and force a change of course in Iraq are faltering amid party divisions..."
Sorry this doesn't square with what your liberal sources are saying, but it's better to be armed with the truth than wishful thinking.
Bingo, Liz.
-John C
A PR firm does just that PR. They preform the SPIN just like this poll.
LOL
My name is don hall and i live in a deep state of denial.
My name is don hall and I am paid by the RNC to be pro-bush on gather
Now you just had to start yapping about "liberal sources" again, didn't you? Your idea that there's some liberal media conglomerate that says that the majority of Americans support what you call "cut and run" is based on so many fallacies and such deep propaganda that it would take me a whole book to point out each and every thing wrong with just that one sentence.
As for being armed with facts, I don't think I should be listening to a lecture about facts vs. wishful thinking from someone who uses a dubious poll by a PR group as genuine, viable studies of American attitudes. I couldn't care less about the Dems so you can return the articles about their incessant internal bickering back into the place where you traditional put defunct red herrings.
You claimed the survey was viable even though it was made by a spin doctor's PR group. You claimed that it said something the data didn't support and backpedaled when I showed that their methods were fallacious. You're now trying to put me off track to follow your "u stupid liburul media liez" red herring and mutter something about facts when you clearly don't have any.
I took up issue with the poll and showed that it was as credible as any politico's dramatic fallacy-ridden speech. If you can't address the issue and have to resort to red herrings, that's your problem. Not mine.
Also, you guys state this is a PR firm who did the poll. So what! I stated it in my first comment. Again, it was a fair poll. Go read how they conducted the poll -- it's as good as any other poll out there.
I know what your first poll said. You admitted that it was a crap poll but you were going to throw it out anyway because you hated the Democrats and accused them of "handing victory to the Islamic Fundamentalists." I'm literate enough to read it.
You made up the link between what the Democrat plans on Iraq are (which they don't actually have yet so ridiculing them for an non-existent plan is just another example of parroting a trite talking point that went out of style in December 2006) and what people's attitudes about the war are.
You accused the Democrats of doing something that they haven't decided on doing and in fact, what the Democratic big shots like Biden, Pelosi and Obama want to avoid, and used the findings of a crap report as the backing for your theory that Americans are unhappy with a plan that so far only exists in the talking points of right wing pundits and in the heads of maybe 10 Democrats.
Are you kidding? Go read Obama's mission statement on his election site. Better yet, note the house vote two weeks ago against the war with John Murtha and the likes leading the charge. Do you think these guys don't mean what they say? These are not Republican Pundit talking points... these are the liberal elites plan of action.
Do you mind cutting the talking points crap? I get it, you don't like anyone who doesn't agree with Bush and his following. All those pundits who come up with catchy pejoratives want their acts back. That's all they've got going for them.
As for your argument, if the Democrats want to withdraw so much, how come they have to fight about what they really want to do? How come they're not trying to do so much as stop the funding for the additional deployment Bush is plotting? If the Democrat idea to simply exit Iraq had such a strong backing throughout the party, wouldn't we be hearing about their goal to do so, not endless bickering about what they want to do?
You make an argument and then you don't think it through to its logical conclusion, something I should not be doing for you. Talking points are called points because they're just propaganda to get someone fired up, not actual studies or research or conclusions based on evidence. If you insist on quoting talking points, you will never be able to fully address an issue.
And finally, no, you can't use your personal ideology to verify the correctness of a poll, especially if you declare it biased. Your first comment essentially says "this is probably a bad study, but because I believe that this is what most Americans want to do, I'm gonna say that I believe it." The idea that just because you think one way, it means that you must be right is probably the biggest monkey on the back of American politics today.
When I say the 'liberal elite' I am talking about all the big names like Murtha, Obama, Edwards, Kennedy, Levin, Pelosi, etc... the usual suspects. The leaders of the Democrat party are so far to the left, using the word 'liberal' to describe them is being moderate.
Anyways, you've really dragged this out because you don't like the results of the poll. I don't think it's that far off the mark and it's in sync with what I've thought all along.
Just because you think so, doesn't make it true. Excusing yourself from facts and authoritatively throwing talking points around like you do with no explanation like you keep doing doesn't impress me in the least.
Every poll, no matter who does it, has some bias. But I think they intentionally asked in ways that tried to get at where the truth of the matter is.
-John C
+Keep it up Don.