Poll: Most Support Iraq Timetable

CBS/NYT Poll: 61% Say Congress Shouldn't Fund War Without Timetable For Withdrawal

(CBS)  While Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a Democratic bid to force a vote on U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq, a CBS News/New York Times poll finds a majority of Americans think Congress should not continue to fund the war unless a timetable for withdrawal is put in place.

Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed think the war should be funded only if there's a timetable for withdrawal. Twenty-eight percent say funding should be continued without a timetable, while 8 percent think all funding for the war should be blocked, no matter what.


WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO ABOUT IRAQ WAR FUNDING?

Fund with timetable
61%
Allow all funding
28%
Block all funding
8%

There's a sharp political divide on the funding issue. Most Democrats (77 percent) and Independents (60 percent) think funding should be tied to a pullout timetable, while more than half of Republicans (53 percent) think funding for war should continue unfettered.

Americans remain extremely dissatisfied with the course of the war. Seventy-four percent, about the same number as last month, say the war is going badly, including 45 percent who say it's going very badly.

Again, there's a strong political split, with large majorities of Democrats (91 percent) and Independents (76 percent) saying the war is going badly, while half of Republicans say it's going well.

HOW IS THE WAR GOING?

Total
Well
25%
Badly
74%

Republicans
Well
49%
Badly
50%

Democrats
Well
8%
Badly
91%

Independents
Well
22%
Badly
76%

More than half of Americans (51 percent) surveyed do not think President Bush's recent troop surge is having any impact on the situation in Iraq. Sixty-three percent think the number of U.S. troops should be decreased, including one in three that says all U.S. troops should be removed. Eighteen percent think the U.S. troop level should stay the same; 12 percent say it should be increased.

The poll also looked at views of the war by gender. While a majority of both men and women think the war is going badly, more women (67 percent) than men (54 percent) say funding for the war should be tied to a troop withdrawal timetable; more men (35 percent) than women (21 percent) think funding for the war should be allowed, no matter what.

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,554 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone from July 9-17, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of women was also conducted for this poll, for a total of 1,068 interviews among this group, by selecting them with higher probability than men in households with both men and women. The weights of men and women in mixed-gender households were adjusted to compensate for their different probabilities of selection. The final weighted distribution of men and women in the sample is in proportion to the composition of the adult population in the U.S. Census.

[gunnerv1]

They didn't ask me.

[bareemperor]

Unfortunately, our president isn't listening to the citizens of this country, just to the defense contractors...

[pepperwood2]

CHECK this out. DON'T MISS IT! Put this in your pipe & smoke on it. We're finally going to get our way. Hope to see you there. 2008 can't come, soon enough for me. History is in the making. Happy days are here again.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Pander to Homosexual Lobby. Debate to be devoted solely to gay issues. HRC is calling it a historic event.

The 90-minute event is scheduled for Aug. 9 in Los Angeles. According to HRC, all major Democratic and Republican presidential candidates were invited. The list of those who have accepted: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska; Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

"This event, which marks the first time in history the major presidential candidates will address a live GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) television audience."

Gravel published an open letter to the GLBT community.

"I promise to use the HRC forum to advance the gay rights agenda and educate the American public that gay rights is one of the great moral issues of our time," he said. "I will call upon all Americans to stop listening to the televangelists, psychologists and politicians and to do what is right & feels good".

In other words, Mackey said, the GAY AGENDA will come across loud and clear.

[twylacrat]

It just doesn't matter what most of us (Americans)want. George Bush Jr. doesn't give one hoot in he11. He has made that abundantly clear. It's HIS world and we should be greatful that he let's us live in it. Thanks George! You're a prince. Now take your crown, sit on it and spin!

[elcajondavid]

This just proves that the republicans do not hear what the people want, or even care about the people of this country. The republicans say stay the course, "but what course?" None of them have a solution to Iraq, and for that matter, "they have no solution to the strengthening terrorist groups." There is really no solution to terrorism, because there will always be people that hate others. But we can build a better fence, and we can strengthen our immigration, "but even that will not stop all terrorist attacks, it is the price we pay for freedom." But to continue to fund a failure, is just down right stupid, that money could be used here, for the betterment of people of this country.

[gheemaster38]

Rephrase the question as to whether we should surrender to the enemy and the answers to the poll would be 90% opposed

Posted by doctorwho4 at 12:58 PM : Jul 19, 2007

I dont see where this has anything to do with surrendering. Okay, so what was the objective again in Iraq? Is Saddam H still in charge? Maybe the US is there to police the civil war? Did not the PM say we are no longer needed there? The US is like the annoying cousin that comes to visit for 2 days and stays the whole summer leaving someone else to clean the mess he made. There is no surrender. The Mission has been accomplished.. Saddam is gone. the PM said our services is no longer needed there.. Now lets get the troops down to the Canadian/mexican borders where they are really needed to protect America..

[gheemaster38]

Rephrase the question as to whether we should surrender to the enemy and the answers to the poll would be 90% opposed

Posted by doctorwho4 at 12:58 PM : Jul 19, 2007

I dont see where this has anything to do with surrendering. Okay, so what was the objective again in Iraq? Is Saddam H still in charge? Maybe the US is there to police the civil war? Did not the PM say we are no longer needed there? The US is like the annoying cousin that comes to visit for 2 days and stays the whole summer leaving someone else to clean the mess he made. There is no surrender. The Mission has been accomplished.. Saddam is gone. the PM said our services is no longer needed there.. Now lets get the troops down to the Canadian/mexican borders where they are really needed to protect America..

[tburzio]

It's interesting that a majority of Americans did not approve of GW's handling of the war. Many refused to sign up for service, and the army was under severe stress. Congress cut off funding, and could not agree on what to do. In fact, it was only through fortitude that the army at Valley Forge was able to stay together under the leadership of George Washington.

Some things never change! :-)

[j4401]

The Real Reason We're In Iraq

The short answer is "OIL." We went to war with Iraq because an influential group of conservatives convinced President George W. Bush that it was in America's best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East.
Try as we may, we are not going to turn Iraq into a model democracy. The Sunnis don't want democracy. The Shiites don't want a democracy. The Kurds don't want a democracy.
The Saudis do not want a new democracy as a neighbor. Nor do the Kuwaitis. Nor do the Syrians.
There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever. Our leaders see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq, a job that should be done (for pay) by the people who built it in the first place: Iraqis.
The longer we stay there, the more Iraqi children end up maimed or dead, the more of our young men and women die.
Clearly, our government lied to us, and to the world, to get us into this war. That alone should tell us it's wrong.

[j4401]

The Real Reason We're In Iraq

The short answer is "OIL." We went to war with Iraq because an influential group of conservatives convinced President George W. Bush that it was in America's best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East.
Try as we may, we are not going to turn Iraq into a model democracy. The Sunnis don't want democracy. The Shiites don't want a democracy. The Kurds don't want a democracy.
The Saudis do not want a new democracy as a neighbor. Nor do the Kuwaitis. Nor do the Syrians.
There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever. Our leaders see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq, a job that should be done (for pay) by the people who built it in the first place: Iraqis.
The longer we stay there, the more Iraqi children end up maimed or dead, the more of our young men and women die.
Clearly, our government lied to us, and to the world, to get us into this war. That alone should tell us it's wrong.