You are herecontent / Gallup: Americans to Bush -- Withdraw Troops from Iraq

Gallup: Americans to Bush -- Withdraw Troops from Iraq


Gallup: Americans to Bush -- Withdraw Troops from Iraq

By E&P Staff

Published: September 06, 2005 12:55 PM ET

NEW YORK Two separate Gallup polls, detailed today in the organization's weekly report, show that Americans favor withdrawing some or all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Perhaps most revealing was a new poll which asked 1,007 Americans, "If you could talk with President Bush for 15 minutes about the situation in Iraq, what would you, personally, advise him to do?" The poll taken in late August found that 41% said they would tell him to pull troops out of Iraq and end our involvement there.

Far behind in second place (18%) was to finish what we started or be more aggressive. Another 7% advised coming up with an exit strategy.

A separate Gallup poll found that 53% of Americans favor a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq. This includes 26% who prefer withdrawing all troops.

In the same survey, only 40% of Americans approve, while 59% disapprove of the way Bush is handling Iraq. Fifty-three percent of Americans think going to war in Iraq was a mistake, similar to the 54% who said this in early August.
E&P Staff

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Tags

Comment viewing options

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

It seems the height of arrogance to me for the American people to be deciding whether our troops should be in Iraq. Why doesn't the Gallup organization ask the people of Iraq what they want? It is their country, not ours.

wow !!
Like it isn't abundantly clear what the Iraqi people have expressed since very soon after the US invasion?

What planet are you living on?

News about Iraq goes through filters
By DAHR JAMAIL

( Dahr Jamail, an independent reporter covering the Iraq war, has several current speaking engagements in Western Washington. For more info, go to www.dahrjamailiraq.com )

...............................
How is it possible that millions of Americans believe the recent election in Iraq showed that Iraqis are in favor of the ongoing occupation of their country? In reality, the determination displayed by the roughly 59 percent of registered voters who participated in the election did so because they felt it would bring about an end to the U.S. occupation.

How do so many Americans wonder why more Iraqis each day are supporting both violent and non-violent movements of resistance to the occupation when after the U.S. government promised to help rebuild Iraq, a mere 2 percent of reconstruction contracts were awarded to Iraqi concerns and the infrastructure lies in shambles?

How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has admitted there are none?

It's because overall, mainstream media reportage in the United States about the occupation in Iraq is being censured, distorted, threatened by the military and controlled by corporations that own the outlets.

Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan, a CNN executive, told a panel that the U.S. military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq. He said he "knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts who was on the panel with Jordan.

When we hear this statement with the knowledge that 63 journalists have been killed in Iraq, in addition to the fact that in a 14-month-period, more journalists were killed in Iraq than during the entire Vietnam War, one begins to get the feeling that the military clampdown on the media is more than a myth or a conspiracy theory.

(Editor's note: Jordan has since resigned from CNN, telling fellow CNN staffers: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise.")

I've personally witnessed photographers in Baghdad who have had their cameras either confiscated or smashed by soldiers, who were, of course, acting on orders from their superiors. And no, the journalists weren't trying to photograph something that would jeopardize the security of the soldiers.

Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, announced on national television that her own network was censuring her journalism.

Most Americans don't know that on any given day, an average of three U.S. soldiers die in Iraq as a result of 75 attacks every single day on U.S. forces or that Iraqi civilian deaths average 10 times that amount.

Most Americans also don't know there are four permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, with the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root diligently constructing 10 others.

Most Americans don't know overall troop morale in Iraq resembles that of the Vietnam War, with tours being extended and stop-loss orders imposed.

Nor do most folks know where billions of their tax dollars have been spent that were supposed to be used in the reconstruction of Iraq.

But who can blame Americans when the military and mainstream media continue, day in and day out, to distort, deny and destroy the truth before it reaches the audience back home? An international peoples' initiative called the World Tribunal on Iraq met in Rome to focus on media complicity in the crimes committed against the people of Iraq as well as U.S. citizens who are paying with their blood and tax dollars to maintain the occupation. The tribunal found Western mainstream media outlets guilty of incitement to violence and the deliberate misleading of people into the war and ongoing occupation of Iraq.

Makes you wonder what else Americans aren't being told about Iraq. After spending eight of the past 14 months reporting from Iraq, I can tell you the points made here are just the tip of the iceberg.

I thought the slogan was "you vote and we leave". The Iraqi's kept their part of the bargain and it's time to Bring the Troops Home and keep our part of that bargain.

An immediate withdrawal would only be a first step, as impeachment would be a parallel first step.

What is needed is a fundamental change in the pattern of unjustified military agression.This pattern goes back to the mexican war:
"A Review of the Causes and Consequences of the Mexican War"
by William Jay :
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/102-2421293-2642569/

it includes many military actions that to this day are regarded as having been justified:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=134

We Libertarians propose a return to the foreign policy invisioned by the founders of the country:

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia

Foreign Affairs:

B. Military
1. MILITARY POLICY
The Issue:
The potential use of nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to all the peoples of the world, not only Americans. Thus, the objective should be to reduce the risk that a nuclear war might begin and its scope if it does.

The Principle:
Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect.

Solutions:
U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems. Accordingly, we oppose any future agreement which would prevent defensive systems on U.S. territory or in Earth orbit.

Transitional Action:
We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security. During arms reduction negotiations, and to enhance their progress, the U.S. should begin the retirement of some of its nuclear weapons as proof of its commitment. Because the U.S. has many more thousands of nuclear weapons than are currently required, beginning the process of arms reduction would not jeopardize American security. We call on the U.S. government to remove its nuclear weapons from Europe. If European countries want nuclear weapons on their soil, they should take full responsibility for them and pay the cost. We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine.

2.Presidential War Powers

The Issue:
Recent Presidents have -- on their own through declarations of "states of emergency" and with the assistance of Congress via the War Powers Act -- expanded the role of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to assume the power to wage limited (and not so limited) war without the Constitutionally required explicit Declaration of War by Congress. These wars often occur in secret, funded and/or operated by the CIA, NSA, and other agencies not directly accountable to the People.

The Principle:
The role of Commander-in-Chief, correctly understood, confers no additional authority on the President.

Solutions:
We favor a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime.

Transitional Action:
We call for the reform of the Presidential War Powers Act to end the President's power to initiate military action, and for the abrogation of all Presidential declarations of "states of emergency." There must be no further secret commitments and unilateral acts of military intervention by the Executive Branch.

Peace,
The Bikemessenger

Just keep in mind that Gallup polls always lean right.The real number of people opposed to this illegal and immoral war is far higher.

Comment viewing options

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

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.