Poll showing that Dems don’t want us to win in Iraq is nothing new

Posted by: ST on January 18, 2007 at 6:01 pm

**3/9/09: Hi and welcome, Hot Air readers! To comment on this post, please click here. Thanks!**
————-

Fox News has released a poll that proves once again that Democrats either don’t want us to win in Iraq, or at the very least “don’t know” if they do, which is just as bad (emphasis added):

Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know

Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know

Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know

Independents: 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know

I noted another poll which documented the Dem’s desire for the President to fail in Iraq in this post last September, but some people complained that the question, which read “would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” was ‘too vague’ because it didn’t specifically mention Iraq, even though we all know that Iraq is the issue and has been since even before the war started. In any event, there’s no mistaking it now: 34% of Dems want us to fail in Iraq, and 15% “don’t know” which to me is the same thing, because if you have to even consider whether or not you want the President to fail in Iraq, then you haven’t taken hoping for failure off the table.

What other tidbits did we find out from the latest Fox poll?

16. If you were a member of Congress, how would you vote specifically on increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq — would you vote for or against funding the increase in troops?

Overall: 38% For 57% Against 5% Don’t know
Democrats: 17% For 79% Against 4% Don’t know
Republicans: 64% For 32% Against 4% Don’t know
Independents: 39% For 52% Against 9% Don’t know

That’s not really that surprising though, but this one should be (emphasis added):

17. Regardless of how you would vote on sending more troops to Iraq — If you were a member of Congress, would you vote to continue funding the current level of U.S. troops in Iraq or would you vote against funding the war altogether to try to force a troop withdrawal?

Overall: 52% Yes 41% No 6% Don’t know
Democrats: 33% Yes 59% No 8% Don’t know
Republicans: 77% Yes 19% No 4% Don’t know
Independents: 53% Yes 43% No 4% Don’t know

Got that? 59% of Democrats say they would vote against funding the current level of US troops in Iraq in order to try and force a troop withdrawal and 8% “don’t know” (uh huh).

Bbbbut they support the troops.

Right?

Hat tip: Dean Barnett

Update 7:37 PM: The Nutroots are gonna go ballistic once they read this: Pelosi Won’t Block Iraq Funding to Stop Troop Surge (hat tip: Allah)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Flopping Aces trackbacked with What A Disgusting State Of Affairs
  • Sensible Mom trackbacked with The Support The Troops... If They Lose
  • 29 Responses to “Poll showing that Dems don’t want us to win in Iraq is nothing new”

    Comments

    1. sanity says:

      I see the polls, but to tell you the truth, i am more worried that the Democrats seem to put up am ore unified front …even if it is against the president or funding, ect.

      Now go back through the polls and look at the rebublicans…

      19% of republicans say they would vote against funding the current level of US troops in Iraq in order to try and force a troop withdrawal.

      That is damn near 25% of the republicans.

      I consider the republican party like the border problem. If you can’t stop the flow (dissention in the ranks) you never will be able to effect in real change. The Democrats on most things tend to be more united than the republicans, and we can knock the democrats on this, but we have ot look at the republicans also. If they can’t get THEIR crap together they will continue to stay in the minority.

      As I said, I am not overly suprised at the democrats, they tend to not surprise me much and are mostly predictable, but what I watched more in those polls were how the repulicans would vote….and I was disappointed in what I saw.

    2. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      ST, I think that Allah is half correct about this (he suggests that the Left may come out of this smelling like a rose by offering up only symbolic opposition to increased troup strength in Iraq). It is true that Left wants to have their cake and eat it, too, but that course has its dangers as well.

      Democrats are prodded on two fronts: by the MSM (which holds their leash) and by the Left (which supplies the hate cash they have become addicted to and the storm troopers they need for intimidation purposes). Let us say that in 2008 (1) the situation in Iraq is no better than it is now, or only marginally better, and (2) a Democrat (probably Hilly the Hun) wins the White House and Democrats keep control of Congress.

      Unless Iraq in 2008 was a 100% peaceful land flowing with milk and honey (in which case Democrats would try to hog all of the credit), there will be titanic pressure on Democrats from the MSM and the Left to cut and run yesterday. If that resulted in a disaster in the Middle East (and even some of Bush’s critics are honest enough to admit that it probably would), Democrats would take the blame. None of this “we tried and failed” or “Bush is completely responsible” stuff will work – Democrats for years have promised a pain-free solution in Iraq: cut-and-run, bring one party rule in Washington, and all will be right in the world. If they don’t deliver Paradise, they get punished at the polls. And after almost a decade of anti-war demagoguery, it will be near impossible for Democrats to flip-flop on this issue and suddenly take a strong line on the GWOT. Even Congressional Republicans with half a brain (that describes most of them, I think) will know enough to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire – and deservedly so. We may yet witness the rarest of political events – Democrats being held accountable for their actions.

      At any rate, I think this is one way Allah may turn out to be wrong on this issue.

    3. CavalierX says:

      Can we question their patriotism now?

    4. Tom says:

      Can we question their patriotism now?

      Comment by CavalierX

      No, you cannot. You are not qualified to consider anyones patriotism.

    5. Sensible Mom says:

      Looking at three other questions in the poll together is quite interesting:

      Even though the majority of democrats in this poll state that most Americans are impatient and won’t tolerate a long-term fight against terrorism, admittedly a flaw, and even though the majority believe Usama Bin Laden will claim victory (so they must know about about our withdrawl from Somalia and how it emboldened Bin Laden), they still don’t want the US to succeed.

      Probably because half of those democrats think that a loss in Iraq will have an affect on future terrorist attacks.

      Therein lies the problem.

    6. Sensible Mom says:

      Probably because half of those democrats think that a loss in Iraq will have an affect on future terrorist attacks.

      I meant to write: Probably because half of those democrats think that a loss in Iraq will have no affect on future terrorist attacks.

    7. Tom says:

      I meant to write: Probably because half of those democrats think that a loss in Iraq will have no affect on future terrorist attacks.

      Comment by Sensible Mom

      Fair enough Sensible, but not quite right. Mr Bush invaded a soverign nation under incorrect and flawed (read: lies) reasons. He avoided the real enemy (osama been forgotten) and went ahead with his vanity war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or al quida. Because Mr Bush’s crusade (his word) created tens of thousands of new terrorists, it seems misguided to think dems don’t understand the wider conflict (created by Mr Bush). Why can’t we discuss the current situation this way: Since Mr Bush and the neocons screwed everything up in the middle east, we now must invest even more soldiers and treasure to attempt to put lipstick on a pig. If everybody started their posts citing the true reasons we are in this situation, even the right side would start to wonder about the administrations motives. dems want the Iraq people to govern themselves (it’s their country). Repubs seem to want continual war. Why is that?

    8. Severian says:

      Wow Tom, what insight, you must have watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and managed to stay awake thru it all!

      What a load of BS. You parrot the same discredited talking points the left is so fond of clinging to regardless of facts (Bush lied, yada yada yada). Dems running away from terrorists, starting with Carter, terminating with Clinton (and yes, with Republican presidents in the interim also not facing the issue) is what got us into the mess we’re in in the first place. Running away again will do nothing but encourage the same or worse.

      Nice try at making Republicans look like the warmongers though. You all are the only true peace loving folk, who really care about the world and it’s peoples. Just like you cared so much about Vietnam that you worked for and got the total abandonment of South Vietnam even after we withdrew our troops, to the tune of 3-4 million dead in SE Asia after S Vietnam fell. Yeah, you are all just soooo ethically superior. Gag.

    9. Baklava says:

      Tom knows us so well and shows his tolerance by saying, “Repubs seem to want continual war.

      Yep. He nailed it. I can return with Democrats want a humanitarian crisis which would result if we pulled our troops out. Uncaring Democrats. Now we are debating. Woo Hoo! Intelligent discussion.

    10. Baklava says:

      Tom is god. He knows people’s “motives”. He wrote, “even the right side would start to wonder about the administrations motives

      Can’t argue with god. Nobody can disprove what you know. You have insight. You have ESP.

    11. Severian says:

      ESP, I doubt, BDS, absolutely!;)

    12. Baklava says:

      It’s so nice to have actual conversations with people. But how do you have a conversation with someone with so much condescnesion and knowledge of motives?

      Back to the original point of the thread. Less democrats actually want success in Iraq. They want failure. There is a motive for ya! They even admit it in a poll question.

    13. Tom says:

      Tom is god. He knows people’s “motives”. He wrote, “even the right side would start to wonder about the administrations motives”

      Can’t argue with god. Nobody can disprove what you know. You have insight. You have ESP.

      Comment by Baklava

      What a dumb thing to say about me. Me, God? Why would you say that? Nothing in my post suggested anything of the sort. Can’t you simply stick to the actual words in a post. Why do you insist on ‘making stuff up’? If you have learned anything about recent history, I will direct your attention to the PNAC crowd. They are followers of Strauss and it is well documented what their ‘motives’ are – yes dear, motives – of the group. I didn’t make it up – they posted the vision for all to see. If you cared about your country, you would want to know what these folks think. They include Pearl, addington, yoo, cheney, kristol, abu gonzalez, and many more. Again – I didn’t create the group. it is public and documented. That is the motive I was posting about. But again, you don’t want to discuss what is on someone’s mind. To you it is a playground of: did to – did not! My posts was pretty clear about what I was trying to convey. BTW, I wouldn’t put too much stock in a Faux News poll. Using that as a debate tactic will probably get you laughed out of the discussion.

      I also laughed when Baklava mentioned humanitarian crisis. Yes sir, there is a crisis – started by the vanity war of George W Bush. If you insist on calling this a crisis, the least you can do is admit HOW it became a crisis and WHOSE fault it is. Please don’t believe Mr Bush cares for you or about you – he doesn’t. That is my point of view. Now if you have anything thoughtfull to say, please do.

    14. Leslie says:

      I find it frightening more than somewhat that anyone would hope that Bush will fail. What kind of looneyness is that?

      :(

    15. Baklava says:

      Tom asked, “Why would you say that?

      Because you know people’s motives and they never stated the motives as you put them.

      Tom wrote, “Nothing in my post suggested anything of the sort.

      Yes. You wrote, “even the right side would start to wonder about the administrations motives” as if you know the administrations motives…

      Tom wrote, “Why do you insist on ‘making stuff up’?

      What did I make up there?

      Tom wrote, “it is public and documented.” Yep. You even documented it further. See? It’s documented further now what the administrations motives are. Now. I can post what there motives are based on your research.

      Tom as god wrote, “If you cared about your country” See Tom? You did it again. You know whether or not I ‘care’. You nailed me. I can’t refute you and say I do ‘care’ because you know better than I that I don’t right? Your condescension kicks you in the butt because you write things you can’t prove – unless you are god.

      Tom wrote, “I also laughed when Baklava mentioned humanitarian crisis.

      You laughed when we pulled out of Vietnam and the result was millions killed also? Short sited is what I think you are. If you do not think things could get worse as a result of a cut and run policy.

      Tom wrote, “if you insist on calling this a crisis, the least you can do is admit HOW it became a crisis and WHOSE fault it is.

      I do not call this a crisis. In fact this war has the least amount of deaths per year than other wars. We had more die in Iwo Jima in a matter of weeks than what we have in Iraq. What I was referring to is what would result if Democrats are successful in removing our troops before the job is done. THen it would be a humanitarian crisis. Whose fault would that be Tom? The Democrats who forced the cut and run. Being shrill won’t change that.

      Tom in god like fashion wrote, “Please don’t believe Mr Bush cares for you or about you – he doesn’t.

      Refer to facts not who ‘cares’ or doesn’t ‘care’ or what people’s motives are. It’ll help our conversation. Or we can go in circles attacking each other about which politician ‘cares’ or doesn’t ‘care’. Are we god here?

      I hope you see what I’m trying to say. Or maybe I can part by saying – Why do you want to beat your wife? Because, two can play the knowing what’s in people’s minds game right????

    16. Tom says:

      Yep. He nailed it. I can return with Democrats want a humanitarian crisis which would result if we pulled our troops out. Uncaring Democrats. Now we are debating. Woo Hoo! Intelligent discussion.

      Comment by Baklava

      Sorry sir, you used the word humanitarian crisis. Your words sir. You may have referred to the future crisis, but I would rather stay on the reasons it has become (or will become) a crisis. We must lay blame for the situation we are in with the person responsible for invading Iraq. The reason I say Mr Bush doesn’t care for you is becuase of his actions and behavior. My opinions are developed by looking at what people do – not say. Mr Bush actions do not seem to be geared toward your benefit or mine. Tell me then, in your opinion, what has he done for you?

    17. Sensible Mom says:

      The sum of the poll indicates that a significant portion of democrats either don’t or aren’t sure they want the plan to succeed.

      And if we’re into subsribing motives it seems obvious they feel that way because they didn’t agree with Bush’s reasons for going to war.

      That’s called spite. Rather than working to come up with a plan for victory the just say no to every plan. Bush doesn’t want more troops, they say we must have more. Bush wants more troops they say we must withdraw. Talk about the equivalent of a grade school argument

      And since most democrats don’t think cutting and running will create additional terrorist attacks, to them, there’s no risk to behaving in a contrary manner.

    18. CavalierX says:

      >No, you cannot. You are not qualified to consider
      >anyones patriotism.

      Hehheh… you know, you may have a point. How can anyone be qualified to consider that which does not exist?

    19. Baklava says:

      Tom without reading comprehension wrote, “you used the word humanitarian crisis. Your words sir

      My words were, “Democrats want a humanitarian crisis which would result if we pulled our troops out.

      So class, what would result if we pulled our troops out? A humanitarian crisis. What is it if we do that – present, past or future? Future. Logic 101 and critical thinking 101 all rolled into one. Tom failed.

      Tom asked, “Tell me then, in your opinion, what has he done for you?

      The question was whether Bush was ‘caring’ or not because you assert your god like knowledge that he isn’t. Doesn’t matter if he’s done anything for me to prove that you aren’t god. Kennedy, nor Carter, Bush 1, Reagan or Clinton did nothing for me. Do I claim that nonee of them were caring? No. Because you can’t make a claim of something you don’t know unless you are god or experienced their caring or non-caring.

      My love of my life cared for me. I cared for her. Presidents make actions that you disagree with or not. You don’t know them well enough to know if they care for you or not.

      You can either learn from what I’m saying or continue on wtih god like powers…. I tried to help. Signing out…

    20. Ryan says:

      You want to know when the humanitarian crisis began, Tom? Long before “Mr. Bush” took office.

      BDS, plain and simple.

    21. tom says:

      STs “gotcha” line is that since 59% of self-identifed Democrats in the poll would vote against funding the current level of troops in Iraq, it MUST mean they don’t support the troops. Kinda of like if you’re not for “reinforcing” the troops, you must be an unpatriotic cut-and-runner. Misinterpreting polls like this ceases to become an argument for or against a war and istead becomes a dishonest rant about who supports our troops more.

      I find it interesting that no comment was made about 1 in 5 fellow Republican who also apparently are against out troops. What about the whopping 43% of Independents who have such ill-will toward our countrymen in uniform that we send to war?

      This troop-funding question has become a political football. If congress voted against funding troops further, does this mean we’d just stop sending bullets and MRE’s? They’d have to find their own way home? Cmon folks, let’s have an honest discussion here. The only way Congress has a say in wartime matters is with the power of funding (or de-funding). If this president is going to use the WOT as general cover to do anything he pleases, and congress can do nothing but fund his ambitious plans for fear of not supporting the troops, then we effectively have a Monarchy. OK, that’s a bit overstated, but I think you get my point.

      This poll shows 41% of our country according to ST (including a significant number from her own party), by her own words – do not support our troops. Does she really believe this?

    22. tom says:

      Last paragraph here should read:

      This poll shows 41% of our country (including a significant number from ST’s own party)- by her own words – do not support our troops. Does she really believe this?

    23. NC Cop says:

      Oh, gosh, Tom where do I begin? Let’s start here:

      Mr Bush invaded a soverign nation under incorrect and flawed (read: lies) reasons.

      Perhaps my personal favorite of the Bush haters. The reason for the Iraq invasion was to stop Saddam’s WMD program. Here’s a long list of democrats who agreed with the war for those reasons.

      Iraq quotes

      I can’t list all the quotes, there are so many of them, but here are a couple of my favorites:

      “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

      Former President Clinton
      During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live”
      July 22, 2003

      Then there’s the quote by Hans Blix, certainly no friend of the war:

      “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”

      Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
      Addressing the UN Security Council
      January 27, 2003

      Notice the date of Blix’s comments. January 27, 2003, a mere two months before the U.S. invaded. So even while being surrounded by coalition forces, Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors.

      He avoided the real enemy (osama been forgotten) and went ahead with his vanity war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or al quida.

      Incorrect. As far back as 1998, which I believe was the Clinton administration, the U.S. had reason to believe Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together:


      The Clinton View of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties

      The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden’s financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country’s chemical weapons program.


      Clinton first linked Al Qaeda to Saddam

      In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

      The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

      So, was Clinton lying too, or did Bush manipulate intelligence while he was still governor of Texas? Hmmmm?

      Because Mr Bush’s crusade (his word) created tens of thousands of new terrorists, it seems misguided to think dems don’t understand the wider conflict (created by Mr Bush).

      Oh exactly, tom! Because the terrorists liked us soooooo much before we went into Iraq. I could have sworn that 9/11 happened BEFORE we went into Iraq of Afghanistan, but maybe that’s my crazy right-wing loyalty coming into play. It was much like the Kamikaze recruitment almost doubled AFTER we declared war on Japan. Sometimes standing up to criminals and terrorists will create a frenzy. I would much rather them go to Iraq to get killed by our military than to be in the streets of our nation. Not to mention, if it wasn’t Iraq, it would have been something else; the Pope’s comments, the Danish cartoon, etc.

      Since Mr Bush and the neocons screwed everything up in the middle east

      Yeah, right tom, the middle east was perfect before we showed up. Are you reading from the Nancy Pelosi textbook of history?

      8-|8-|

      dems want the Iraq people to govern themselves (it’s their country). Repubs seem to want continual war. Why is that?

      Maybe because the Republicans want to make sure Iraq CAN govern itself so that we don’t have to come back in 5-10 years.

      Here’s a few other articles you may want to browse:

      ‘Iraq Al-Qaeda’ welcomes US poll


      Al Qaeda send message to democrats

      Al Qaeda, Iran, Hugo Chavez, NY Times celebrate democart victory

      Personally I would be a little concerned if all of the U.S. enemies were happy about an election result, but that’s just me. Probably that blind right-wing loyalty again.

    24. sanity says:

      Tom ignorantly states:
      I find it interesting that no comment was made about 1 in 5 fellow Republican who also apparently are against out troops.

      Tom you obviously do not read things entirely before you speak, otherwise if you care to scroll to the top you will have seen it was one of the FIRST things I mentioned: Link

    25. sanity, would you repost your last link? The link didn’t take for some reason.

    26. sanity says:

      NP ST, all it was was a link to the first post of the thread where I mentioned just what he failed to see.

      Link

    27. Severian says:

      19% of Republicans…Republicans have their share of nutcase, Pat Buchanan isolationists, though they are nowhere near as numerous as the Democrats, who are against it not so much due to an isolationist bent as due to a hatred and distrust of their own country’s international policies, and there are a lot more of them. While both may answer a poll by saying we should withdraw, the reasons and ideology that leads to such beliefs are radically different.