CNN Poll: 2/3 Oppose Troop Escalation in Iraq

CNN has released a new poll showing that 2/3 of Americans oppose President Bush's plan for a troop escalation in Iraq. It's the first poll since President Bush's speech Wednesday night.

Two out of three Americans oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday indicates. Nearly two-thirds of those polled also say Bush has no clear plan for Iraq.

....Asked whether they believe additional troops will help the United States achieve its goals, 48 percent who answered the poll said it will make no difference; 31 percent said it would help, and 18 percent said the United States would be less likely to accomplish its goals in Iraq.

< The Case Against Coulter | Tom Tancredo Heads to Iowa to Gauge Presidential Chances >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Makes no difference to the Decider, who just... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    ...wants to stall 'til 09 for the NEXT president to clean up his mess.

    Thank god he will be the LAST bush ever elected president.

    And the new Sec. of Defense knows...? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    Un-believable, isn't it? :-/ (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    no, not really (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 04:40:51 PM EST
    IMHO, he was picked more to give Deadeye and The Unit some surcease from all the negativity surrounding Rummy than anything else.  He wouldn't have gotten the job without freely consuming deep drafts of the Kool-Aid....

    In the meantime, Sen. Jim Webb has a nice post over on HuffPo.  I get the feeling he's building up from and on the theme in this....


    I wonder (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:10:20 AM EST
    Was he picked specifically for his lack of knowledge?

    Since they couldn't have Rumsfeld, did Cheney/Bush want someone who could only take direction, and not even suggest it? A yes man?


    Put A Fork In It (none / 0) (#5)
    by john horse on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:46:59 AM EST
    According to the CNN poll 60% of Americans now want their Congressman to vote against funding for additional troops.  Bush no longer has the support of the American people and he is rapidly losing the support of those in his own party.  As David Corn points out Bush got us into this mess because he lacked credibility and competence and it is for those reasons that the American people do not trust him with his Iraqi do-over.  Bush's Iraqi march of folly is about done.  You can just about put a fork in it.

    A follow-up to Condi's remarks (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:38:09 AM EST
    that Maliki's days were numbered:

    From Andrew Sullivan via TPM:

    But this paragraph, buried by the NYT, leapt out at me this morning:

        A Shiite political leader who has worked closely with the Americans in the past said the Bush benchmarks appeared to have been drawn up in the expectation that Mr. Maliki would not meet them. "He cannot deliver the disarming of the militias," the politician said, asking that he not be named because he did not want to be seen as publicly criticizing the prime minister. "He cannot deliver a good program for the economy and reconstruction. He cannot deliver on services. This is a matter of fact. There is a common understanding on the American side and the Iraqi side."

        Views such as these -- increasingly common among the political class in Baghdad -- are often accompanied by predictions that Mr. Maliki will be forced out as the crisis over the militias builds. The Shiite politician who described him as incapable of disarming militias suggested he might resign; others have pointed to an American effort in recent weeks to line up a "moderate front" of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political leaders outside the government, and said that the front might be a vehicle for mounting a parliamentary coup against Mr. Maliki, with behind-the-scenes American support. [My italics.]

    If this is the case, this president is lying to us once again. It's one lie too far. If all of this is a ruse to depose Maliki and attack Iran, the constitutional consequences of a runaway, duplicitous president are profound.


    Maybe I'm getting ::too:: cynical... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    ...but after bush's speech and after all is said and done I really don't think he wants anyone to  "deliver the disarming of the militias". They're too useful to him. They kill US soldiers. Bush and Cheney will take anything they can get as an excuse to attack Iran. US lives? So? They can always send more.

    Nobody stands up to him to put a stop to it. Pelosi is becoming a joke.

    Not even Democrats.


    To quote Lily Tomlin (none / 0) (#9)
    by aw on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up.

    Or something like that.


    Oh jeeze... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:47:00 AM EST
    OK, I'll work on it... shouldn't be too hard, a bit of reading today will probably pump it back up. Sigh.