portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

imperialism & war

Americans No Longer Support Bush's Iraq War

A majority of Americans now say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.
Last Updated: Jul 17th, 2004 - 07:40:45

Bush Leagues

Americans No Longer Support Bush's Iraq War

By Staff and Wire Reports
Jul 17, 2004, 07:23

A majority of Americans now say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, according to a poll released Friday.

The CBS-New York Times found that just over half, 51 percent, said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, while 45 percent said going to war was the right decision. Last month, people were evenly split on that question.

Sentiment on that question has slipped steadily since December, when the decision to go to war was supported by more than 2-to-1.

The presidential race remains close in the CBS-Times poll.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry held a slight lead, 49 percent to 45 percent, over President Bush in a two-way matchup. In a three-way race including independent Ralph Nader, Kerry had 45 percent, Bush 42 percent and Nader 5 percent.

Kerry's popularity has increased since his announcement in early July that he had chosen Sen. John Edwards as his running mate.

In June, 29 percent viewed Kerry favorably and 35 percent viewed him unfavorably; about one-fourth, 26 percent, were unsure. In the new poll, 36 percent saw Kerry favorably, 33 percent saw him unfavorably and 20 percent were unsure.

Edwards has been a popular choice for Kerry, though his presence on the ticket has not significantly altered the race. People viewed Edwards favorably by a 3-1 margin, while they were more likely to view Vice President Dick Cheney unfavorably.

Voters are interested in the campaign, with almost half, 47 percent, saying they are paying a lot of attention. That's twice the level of close attention at this time in the 2000 campaign.

The poll of 955 adults, including 823 registered voters, was taken June 11-15. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample, 4 percentage points for voters.

homepage: homepage: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4850.shtml
address: address: Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue

two ways to look at this 18.Jul.2004 18:00

NE Buddy

Finally! Hurray!

But how much do you wanna bet that most radicals who read indymedia are thinking: "Wow! It took them this long! How dense can you be?!!" Hell, I half think that myself. It gets back to what I was just saying about PESSIMISM, a grim, delusional view of the world that is rife among radicals and activists these days. See:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292836.shtml

not really "Bush's" war 18.Jul.2004 20:50

GRINGO STARS

Regime change in Iraq was the openly-stated official policy of the Clinton-Gore regime as well. Let's not pretend that the Republicans aren't any more violent or idiotic than the Democrats.

 http://www.isreview.org/issues/30/anybodybutBush.shtml
 http://www.isreview.org/issues/33/dems&war.shtml
 http://www.isreview.org/issues/26/democrats_war.shtml
 http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/clinton-gore.shtml

Ooo, polls ! 18.Jul.2004 21:19

tinker

Gosh, CBS sure does have it's finger on the pulse of america.

Real hard-hitting investigative reporting from these guys.

Yes, I am afraid this shit is too little, too late. Meaningless, actually.

I sure hope a new poll comes out soon to tell me whether "we" prefer Dee or Dum.

Recognition that this way is fucked and that a better way is possible is OPTIMISM.

The idea that the only model is the one in place is small-brained, intellectually stunted, self-defeating PESSIMISM.

Demo..HA..cra...HA..cy?.......HA...HAhahahahahahaha................................

I wipe my ass with your analyses, 'buddy'.

could be significant 18.Jul.2004 22:46

researcher

Nothing like trying to support your argument through the use of a straw-man. Makes a person's argument look pathetically weak every time. You can never win an argument by telling people what it is other people are thinking when they may in fact not be thinking it all. Perhaps it's just your projection onto others.

As has been stated and predicted before, this is important because support for the war should erode more rapidly now. Now that *most* people no longer support the war, according to the corporate polls all the people who had been going along with the crowd and believing what they thought others believed should quickly change their public position. In short order it will only be only a relatively small group of people (say 25-30%) who will continue to claim that they support the war. I suppose I should categorize that statement by saying "barring any significant events". I don't usually place much interest in or importance on polls but I think this one is significant.

could be significant, but . . . 18.Jul.2004 23:46

observer

it will be interesting to see how the sheeple poll when either:

1. Kerry wins and US troops remain in Iraq until 2008

2. BushCo. continues after Nov. and invades Iran + Syria

No, it's Bush's War all right 19.Jul.2004 12:11

Lawrence Maushard

There's a HUGE difference between an officially state policy and then actually carrying it out. The Iraq invasion was and is clearly Shrub's War. To advocate is one thing. To do it is quite another.

And, yes, we all know Clinton-Gore bombed Iraq and starved 100s of thousands by way of the embargoes. But that still is not the same as an actual invasion and occupation. Sorry.

And let's also not be so intellectually dishonest as to even suggest Shrub was somehow finally carrying out the policy Clinton didn't have the guts to implement. Shrub did his war crimes completely apart from whatever motivated and inspired Clinton regarding his Iraq adventures. Please.

Clinton killed over 1.5 million - Shrub killed 55,000 so far 19.Jul.2004 14:03

GRINGO STARS

Who gives a damn what motivated them? They are both warmongering assholes. How is a lethal siege/embargo different than an invasion/occupation? People end up just as dead. And under Clinton, they died a slow, starving painful death, unlike the quick painful death they get under Shrub.

Clinton DID have the guts to implement what Shrub did. But sieges go before invasions, as you know.

Who's being intellectually dishonest? You defend someone who killed more than another, on the basis of their party affiliation? Pure hypocrisy.

bs gringo 19.Jul.2004 15:19

uu

Are you saying that none of the kids who were dying from malnutrtion and disease due to the embargo are dying anymore, and that Mr Bush is to be credited for this? This is bullshit. Electricity is still not being provided as many hours a day as it was before the war. Hospitals have still not been rebuilt and resupplied. Unemployment is higher than ever before. The people are worse off, and dying in greater numbers, than any comparable period under Clinton, due to both rampant political violence, and the same slow and agonizing deaths as before. Stop telling absurd lies.

Are you on crack, uu? 19.Jul.2004 21:00

GRINGO STARS

<<Are you saying that none of the kids who were dying from malnutrtion and disease due to the embargo are dying anymore, and that Mr Bush is to be credited for this?>>

Of course not. What are you on? I'm saying that Clinton kills Iraqis too. As a matter of fact, he killed far more than Bush did. They are both genocidal maniacs, and Bush has no intention of letting up on them whatsoever. You should really learn to read more carefully, uu. Just because I say Clinton is a complete asshole doesn't mean I have any respect for Bush. How could I? They are cut from the same cloth, despite the different parties they slaughter for.

To fully understand how bad it is in Iraq now:
 http://www.isreview.org/issues/35/aijaz_ahmad.shtml
 http://www.isreview.org/issues/30/corporateinvasion.shtml

use logic 20.Jul.2004 16:22

uu

If the people are worse off, and dying in greater numbers, under the reign of Bush, than any comparable period under the reign of Clinton, then you can't claim "Clinton killed more." Bush will have killed A LOT more given as many years as Clinton had.

yes - please DO use logic 20.Jul.2004 22:13

GRINGO STARS

Not at the rate Bush is going now. Clinton killed almost 2 million in 8 years. Bush a mere 60,000 tops at the end of 4 years. Do the math. My point is that Democrats kill just as much (and in this case much more) than Republicans. Such is the way of capitalists. And whether from the Demopublican or Republicrat wings of the Capitalist parties, the victims of US empire are just as dead.

Facts remain: people are NOT "worse off, and dying in greater numbers, under the reign of Bush, than any comparable period under the reign of Clinton"

Follow the links I provided above (in my 1st post on this thread) for proof of this.

There is absolutely no reason at all to think that Kerry will be any less genocidal than Bush, especially since Kerry is going out of his way to prove that he is MORE militaristic than Bush.