You are herecontent / New Gallup Poll: 41% Say Bring the Soldiers Home Now

New Gallup Poll: 41% Say Bring the Soldiers Home Now


From an article in the Chicago Sun-Times (9/1/05):

Four out of 10 Americans, given a few minutes to bend President Bush's ear on Iraq, would tell him to bring the soldiers home now.

Or, as more than one respondent told Gallup pollsters, "get the [swear word] out."

Gallup gave 1,007 Americans a hypothetical 15 minutes with Bush and asked people what they would tell the president about Iraq.

Some 41 percent said they would urge Bush to pull the troops out and end it immediately.

Nearly three in 10 said the United States should finish what it started: 4 percent want to send more troops; 7 percent said Bush is doing a good job and should stay the course, and 18 percent said the United States should be "more aggressive."

'Quit dillydallying'

A variety of other comments for Bush included "come up with an exit strategy" (6 percent); apologize (3 percent), and explain himself better (3 percent).

A few of the remarks by detractors released by Gallup on Wednesday likened Iraq to Vietnam. Others suggested that if the president had sons instead of daughters, the United States would not be involved. "Let the Iraqi people run their own country; get the army out of there," said one.

In urging Bush to stay in Iraq, one said pulling out now would be "like shoving dirt under the rug." Said another, "I do not agree with the reason we went over there but we have to finish the job." Some were frustrated: "Quit dillydallying and go get them," said a respondent.

Women and Democrats were more likely to urge immediate withdrawal.

About a quarter in the Gallup poll, conducted Aug. 22-25, were stumped, saying they had nothing to say to Bush or had no opinion.

Not the case when the Sun-Times asked some Chicagoans about their hypothetical 15 minutes with the president.

"I would tell him to continue what you're doing," said South Sider Ruben Gonzalez, 25, who spent two tours in Iraq as a marine.

"Saddam murdered kids, threw people into jails," said Gonzalez, now a student who works part time in a bank. "We're doing the right thing."

Jesus Garcia, 24, a hotel purchasing agent, said he would ask Bush, "Where did you ever get the weapons of mass destruction idea? Where was the proof?" The Ashburn resident would urge the president to ask the United Nations to assist.

Conflicting surveys

Melissa Pongpitoon, 26, who works in advertising, said she is not qualified to tell the president what to do -- "he has more information than I do." But the Lake View resident would advise Bush to better explain his priorities.

"What is the reason we're there?" asked Daniel Young, 19, an art student who lives on the South Side. "The cost of this war is too high.''

Other recent polls on the war include an ABC News survey in which 54 percent said Bush should keep the troops in Iraq and an Associated Press survey in which 60 percent said to keep soldiers in place.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

[Moderator's note: This is just a "troll" remark. Don't bother responding to it. bslade]

Very interesting... In spite of the blatant anti-Bush, anti-war bias of the mainstream media, there is NO overwhelming support to pull out of Iraq. This bodes well for the good sense of the American people and their reluctance to succumb to liberal propaganda and conspiracy theories.

American people reject liberal propaganda and conspiracy theories

We need to pull out of that contrived war. The media underreports the true and accurate events, they suppress them. It's just a matter of time now, right winger. Get ready, you anti-humanitarians.

Yes, the media does underreport the news. They focus on bad news only. Bad news sells, and is good for ratings and hence profits.

?

Where is this "blatant anti-Bush, anti-war bias of the mainstream media"? I want to watch it! The only stuff like that I see is on Democracy Now and INN. I only watch Fox for the jokes. That has got to be the funniest station. That O'Reilly cracks me up firing up all those pinhead neo-cons. PNAC forever!!!

I know a number of liberals personally. While a few deny the mainstream media bias, most admit, at least privately, liberal bias is widespread. If you don't already see the bias, I can't help you and would not want to disturb your fantasy world. Your denial is probably very comforting for you.

The corporate media clearly has a conservative bias. Want proof?? Name one mainstream media outlet that was anti the invasion of Iraq, the liberal position. Name just one...you can't, can you? No, of course not. That is just the most obvious example but the pattern holds true down the line. On issue after issue the corporate media tows the conservative line. The myth of the liberal media is just that, a myth, the creation of the right-wing think tanks and smear merchants. Wake up, be honest.

You're right. I probably could not name a mainstream news outlet that did not support the invasion of Iraq. Most Americans supported the war, so the liberal media went along. The media and many Americans (not most) thought the war would be a "slam dunk." It was good for ratings and profits. At the first hint of trouble, some people and the media bailed out.

This is right. It was a free television show. Any criticism the media might have had was bought off when they were "embedded."

Your response makes no sense and contradicts your original statement. You said originally: "In spite of the blatant anti-Bush, anti-war bias of the mainstream media..." and then you respond later: "I probably could not name a mainstream news outlet that did not support the invasion of Iraq." Flip Flop!! Not only that but again you just trot out the "liberal media" smear...in the face of evidence that contradicts your position! Like so many right-wingers today, for you facts gets trumped by ideology. Sad.

I apologize for not making myself clear. There may be a failure to communicate here, but there is no contradiction.

The mainstream news media is indeed anti-Bush and anti-war. However, on the eve of the invasion the majority of Americans supported the invasion, and the mainstream media thinking the war was a "slam dunk" briefly went along with the popular sentiment (good for ratings). At the first signs of trouble, some people and the media bailed out. The mainstream news returned to their anti-Bush and anti-war business as usual (bad news is good for ratings).

In spite of your earlier clear contradiction, which I pointed out, you continue to persist in saying the mainstream media is anti-war and anti-Bush. You offer no proof of this, just your rhetoric. In fact the corporate media has remained true to its conservative bias and remains pro Bush and pro Iraq War in spite of the fact that six in ten Americans no longer support the war, if they ever did. By your logic the media is a fair weather friend that should be turning against the war, yet in covering the anti-war demonstration in Crawford the anti-war crowd was refered to by the supposed "liberal media" as "extremist". Six in ten Americans are extremist? No, the media has been and remains the mouthpiece for conservative ideology.

Liberal Media Evidence

"Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative."

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examined the coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows and found only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks after September 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75 percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates were positive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative."

Read More: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkb...

Pew Survey
http://pewresearch.org/trends/trends2005-media.pdf

The Weekly Stardard, founded by William Kristol, the chairman and cofounder of the center of the neocon universe, the "Project for the New American Century" or PNAC? You think the views of his magazine represent balance? Here is a bio piece on Mr. Kristol from the PNAC website:

"William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, as well as chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century. Before starting the Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the first Bush Administration. From 1985 to 1988, he served as chief of staff and counselor to Secretary of Education William Bennett. Prior to coming to Washington, Mr. Kristol served on the faculty of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government (1983-1985) and the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania (1979-1983)."

We are sure to get an unbiased reading of the media from his magazine. The musings of ultra conservatives on the so called "liberal media" hardly qualify as proof of liberal bias.

This has gone from silly to farce, you have been spanked every time. I am done with this debate and will waste no more time on it.

You spanked me? That's funny.

I know you are done discussing this matter, but I wanted to make one last reply. I realize The Weekly Standard is a conservative publication. However, the article in question specifically references poll results from a study by the Pew Research Center. I suppose no evidence would be satisfactory for you. Well, at least it seems we agree the media is biased.

Again, I apologize for any contradiction and confusion. It appears I made typing errors in one of my previous replies. I should spank my editor! Thanks for your interest and point of view.

is not what you are sitting on

A remarkable response considering that the question was open-ended, meaning people could say whatever came to mind. It compares with 18% saying that the U.S. should be more aggressive and finish what was started and only 7% who think the U.S. is doing a good job and should continue with its actions.

That 18% worries me. I wonder how the U.S. could be more aggressive than by launching an unprovoked "shock and awe" invasion and occupation of a country that posed no threat at all at the time. I never cease to be amazed by how some Americans think.

A more complete breakdown of responses is available here

An unprovoked invasion? Iraq had been provoking the U.N, Israel and the U.S. for many years. And, don't forget the invasion of Kuwait.

You are in the rapidly declining ignorant smugnority.
Stop ignorance >>> read

Hey Yank its me!!!!!

DSM? Pleae don't make me rip that ridiculous "document" to shreds. You all know that document is about as valid as the Rather docs about Bush's record. You people will jump on ANYTHING, even if it is a bogus document. Remember, the "original" or should I say the "photocopy of the original" was destoryed. I wonder why???? I love the crap you people come up with and get all the rest of your sheep to beleive.

Richie "The Right Wing Kook" Rich

you never saw the video that's going around , did you? tee hee, don't feel too sheepish, but ignorance is NOT bliss ;)

Yes, after "Rather-gate" I don't understand the willingness to swallow a story based on "re-typed" documents. I want the original DSMs, please.

for another DSM is just a tiny tip of a huge iceberg.

Retype this:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

... and if you think it supports "staying the course", don't take my word for anything. Look at the results breakdown for yourself. I gave you the link.

As for Iraq "provocations", according to you, the U.S. is getting stuck with the human and financial costs of dealing with Israel's being "provoked" somehow.

It was Daddy George's decision to handle the Kuwait invasion as he did without marching on to Bagdad. Thereafter, Iraq accepted "containment" and U.N. inspections. It was the U.S., not Iraq, that refused to allow the U.N. inspectors more time to prove the fact of no WMDs.

The poll does not overwhelmingly support pulling out of Iraq. Considering the mainstream news media's anti-Bush, anti-war bias, I would have expected more support for pulling out.

Saddam openly supported terrorism against Israel, and I seem to remember Iraq lauching missiles against Israel during the First Gulf War. I consider such actions provocation.

And, for twelve years, Iraq repeatedly violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions. I assume you do not consider this sufficient provocation. Perhaps, we should have waited another twelve years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

... some arguments are like religious disagreements, especially when it comes to Israel and terrorism. Your worldview is what it is and, even if I were interested in trying to reshape it for you, it probably wouldn't help. Pax vobiscum.

Thanks for your interest and insight. Sometimes we learn most from those we disagree with. Regards.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.