WTF, CNN? "Poll: Fewer oppose U.S. presence in Iraq" (6% fewer)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Poll: Fewer oppose U.S. presence in Iraq
Majority believes U.S. is not beating insurgency

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Posted: 8:23 a.m. EST (13:23 GMT)



President Bush will speak again about the strategy for victory in Iraq in Washington on Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/poll.speech/index.html

(CNN) -- As President Bush prepares to make his final speech on the strategy for winning the war in Iraq, a recent poll indicates that fewer people are opposed to the U.S. presence there, but they don't think the U.S. is winning the effort.

Forty-eight percent of those polled said they thought it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, as opposed to 54 percent of those polled last month. Fifty percent said it was not a mistake, compared to 45 percent last month.

Despite an apparent surge in approval for sending troops to Iraq, those polled said they don't believe that the U.S. is winning the war. Of those polled, 49 percent said neither side is winning the war, 13 percent said the insurgents are winning and 36 percent said the United States is winning. (See poll results)

The poll, released Tuesday, was conducted with 1,003 Americans who were interviewed by phone. The sampling error varied from question to question, but none had a margin of error exceeding 4.5 percentage points.

[ECH1969]

1. The Murkins think the war was a good idea now that

* has given a few speechs and said victory a couple hundred times.

[Why Syzygy]

2. A "surge in approval" ?

A SURGE?

Since we are almost three years into a frutitless, killing spree, and GWbya has finally decided to address the issue, muricans are "surging" to now support it?

Makes me wish they would poll muricans who actually KNOW something about the issue. Not just those drinking coffee and eating a donut at their desks.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. CNN is lying

Why would anyone think they would stop lying for bushCo after so many years of faithful service.

[mmonk]

4. CNN is working hard

[deutsey]

5. Propaganda's hard work...hard work

Remember, military psy-ops personnel have worked for CNN before...why would now be any different?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748

[shraby]

6. Probably some more "good" propaganda

put out by the DoD.

[adigal]

7. Good - then let these 6% who changed their minds

send their kids or grandkids, or go themselves, to fight Bush's war if it was not a mistake to go in there.

Their hypocrisy is what galls me so.

[AX10]

8. "CNN" = "Certainly Not News"

[Clarkie1]

9. The majority of Americans want us to win in Iraq.

They don't want to lose, but they don't think we are winning now.

[Azathoth]

10. It's not CNN's fault

Sure, CNN is doing their best to exagerate what's happening by using words like "surge", but the overall gist of the article is correct. Bush's approval rating and public support for the war IS going back up. Team Chimp is doing just what they said they would do: they are running a campaign-style PR blitz, complete with slogan-packed speeches in front of pre-screened audiences, and it's working with the general public. Bush's approval slide has stopped, and now they're gradually starting to reverse it (the lower gas prices ain't hurting either). We've got to stop discounting the polls every time they tell us something we don't want to hear. The bottom line is if the Democrats don't get their act together soon and take a united stance on the war, they're gonna lose the opportunity.

[Clarkie1]

11. I think Democrats need to be united.

in calling for a change of course. That's the most important thing. We shouldn't allow ourselves to get drawn into infighting about when we should begin withdrawing, and how fast. We AREN'T the ones setting the policy.

Troops in all likelihood will begin to be withdrawn from Iraq next year. If Democrats look like a party that just wants out of Iraq, with no consideration of what we leave behind in Iraq, we will lose in 06' and 08'. It will reinforce the stereotypical image of Democrats being good at domestic policy, but unable to cope in times of conflict and threats to national security.

[BigYawn]

14. Exactly right!

[jackbourassa]

12. Azathoth, I think you're right --- to a point

The public isn't really coming back to Bush. But the slide has stopped. These numbers, including a new poll by NBC/WSJ (which still has Bush at 39%) certainly don't suggest a "surge."

He was losing his own base. Now they are coming back. But his base is only 40% or so of the population. I don't disagree with the numbers, I disagree with the interpretation of these numbers.

We do need a "united stand" on Iraq. We need a plan to get out of there. I think those who still support the war, on our side, are just fooling themselves if they believe Democrats will suddenly turn around on this issue.

We might be able to reach a compromise. Meaning that we might be able to say: Let Bush identify benchmarks and introduce a plan to meet them; if he fails to do that, we should have withdrawl.

Or something like that. But, if the Washington Democrats continue to fail to grasp that THE VAST MAJORITY of Democrats oppose this war, and still continue to support it without question, there can be no unity in the Democratic Party. And like you said, we would have failed to seize this opportunity.

Compromise means that both sides make steps toward each other.

[Azathoth]

15. Agreed

I tend to believe, or at least hope, that Bush will never manage to go up much past 40%, no matter what he does or says. As you say, he's re-solidifying his base. I have learned, however, never to underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate. Bush's campaign tactics have worked in two elections, and I honestly don't believe that much of the public has "learned its lesson".

The problem that we face is that we are in fundamentally the same position we were a year ago: Bush and the GOP once again have a solid base and a rock-solid (if mind-numbingly vacuous) message that they hammer home repeatedly over and over, while the Democrats can't seem to put up a unified front. Just today, we had Reid giving a speech denouncing Bush's policy, and then hours later we had a bunch of Democratic congressmen coming out of a meeting with Bush and praising his Iraq strategy. We have the Murtha faction, the Dean faction, the Hillary faction, the Lieberman faction, etc. all saying different things and undermining each other. If we can't come up with a unified message on Iraq, then Bush's PR blitz will be successful and his poll numbers will continue to climb, because people are going to lean toward the evil they know instead of the evil that can't make up its mind.

I think the idea of a compromise is spot-on, and I think that slowly but surely the Washington Democrats are starting to adopt the strategy you suggest. But they have to be unified and hammer the message loudly and repeatedly, and they have to do it quickly before Bush regains the initiative (and I have become cynical enough over the past five years to believe that he will be able to regain the initiative if we let him). In fact, I've gotten to the point where I don't really even care what particular message the Democrats agree upon, just as long as they agree.

[jackbourassa]

16. Azathoth, again I agree

If you look at it, whenever we are united we win. Regardless of how many seats the Dems have vs. the republicans. We unite, we win.

Who were those Democrats who stood with the President? They are traitors.

I also agree that we are hurting ourselves by offering so many different points of view. Like I wrote, the Washington Democrats have to realize that the VAST MAJORITY of Democrats (of all persuasions - not just liberals) are opposed to the war and are not about to change their minds. Therefore, just blindly following Bush's strategy on Iraq is plain stupid, politically speaking. Because it ensures divisions within the party, and thus ensures that we will lose the issue. Remember 2002? How did standing so blindly with Bush help us? Answer: it didn't. It hurt us.

It's really that simple.

[BenDavid]

13. Listen folks, when the networks

stop reporting for over 2 to 3 weeks the daily deaths of our men and women in Iraq and you have to find it on a scroll that passes underneath and you do not give anything but glowing reviews about the speeches and you are critical of the dems for not having a plan to get out of iraq, then goodness, bushits poll numbers will go up......
I cannot for the life of me figure out why the media does this. You know they spent more time covering this Williams death in California then they do covering the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq in a weeks time...