Poll: Most Say Bush Iraq Plan Falls Short

72% In CBS Poll Want U.S. Out Of Iraq Within Two Years - But Doubt That Will Happen

(CBS)  Most Americans continue to want troops to start coming home from Iraq, and most say the plan President Bush announced last week for troop reductions doesn't go far enough, according to a CBS News poll released Monday.

While the president spoke of a long-term commitment to Iraq in his nationally televised address, a time frame longer than two years is not acceptable to most Americans. Still, most of those polled expect large numbers of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for many years to come.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans say that U.S. troop levels in Iraq should either be reduced or that all troops should be removed - similar numbers to those before Mr. Bush's speech.

U.S. TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ SHOULD BE…?

Now
Increased
6%
Kept same
21%
Reduced
39%
Remove all troops
29%

Pre-speech, 9/4-8/2007
Increased
11%
Kept same
19%
Reduced
35%
Remove all troops
30%

Nearly half want Mr. Bush to remove even more troops by next summer than he proposed in his address. Forty-seven percent say the plan to bring troop numbers down to pre-surge levels next year should go even further.

The poll also found that despite optimistic assessments of the U.S. troop surge by Mr. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Americans are unconvinced that the surge is working.

Only about one in three (31 percent) said the surge has made things in Iraq better, while more than half (51 percent) say it's had no impact. Eleven percent say it's made things worse.

Overall, Americans remain pessimistic about the war. Just 34 percent think things are going well for the U.S. in Iraq, while 63 percent say things are going badly - about the same as before the president's speech.

More than half of Americans (55 percent) believe that success in Iraq is unlikely, and nearly two-thirds (65 percent) think Mr. Bush's assessments of the situation there are too rosy.

---

After The Surge: Views On The War In Iraq
Celebrities And Politics
Health Care And The Democratic Presidential Campaign

---

A CBS News/New York Times poll released just before the president's speech found only one in five Americans were willing to allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for more than two years.

There is no greater appetite for that kind of long-term troop commitment now: just 22 percent would accept U.S. troops staying in Iraq for two years or more. Seventy-two percent want troops to remain there for less than two years.

There's a wide gap in the poll between what Americans would like to see happen, and what they think will happen. Just 34 percent think U.S. troops will be in Iraq for less than two years; most think they will be there longer.

KEEPING LARGE NUMBERS OF TROOPS IN IRAQ:

Want
Less than a year
49%
One to two years
23%
Two to five years
12%
Longer than five years
5%

Expect
Less than a year
10%
One to two years
24%
Two to five years
31%
Longer than five years
27%

The gap between hopes and expectations exists among Republicans, as well as Democrats. Forty-nine percent of Republicans are willing for troops to stay in Iraq two years or longer, but far more, 67 percent, expect them to remain that long.

President Bush’s overall job approval rating remains at 29 percent, similar to what it was a week ago. His rating on handling the war in Iraq is holding at 25 percent.

Congressional Democrats don’t fare much better on Iraq: just 31 percent approve of the way Democrats handling the war. Twenty-seven percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job overall, up slightly from last week.

On another topic, the poll found that Americans continue to lose confidence that the government will capture Osama bin Laden. In the wake of a new videotape from the terrorist leader, just 39 percent of Americans are now confident the U.S. will capture or kill him. A majority is not confident that will happen.

In October 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks, 70 percent were confident the U.S. would catch bin Laden.

---

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 706 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone September 14-16, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.

[Krazcarl]

LIER008. do you think anyone wants to hear your endless monotone your the chump of the blog.

[norcalruss]

What these polls show is no surprise to me. After repeatedly lying about the need to go to war in Iraq, the conduct of the war, and whatever PROGRESS, if any, the American public has seen the light. Clueless George Bush, our IDIOT Chimp-in-Chief has ZERO creditability concerning Iraq or almost anything else for that matter. Bush is a lying incompetent, idiot who has done a great disservice to the nation. Unfortunately Congress lacks the backbone to do as they should: To impeach the closest thing to a dictator that the nation has ever seen. Bush can make as many speeches as he want but he will still be seen as the little chimp who cried terrorist more than once too often.

[lars008-2009]

the war is legal, demonic-rat hero al bore says so%u2026

the resumption of hostilities was only a matter of time since iraq broke the ceasefire agreement.....

blame saddam for iraq%u2026%u2026. Even clintoon and the dems wanted the resumption of hostilities back in 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq''''s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[talkingham]

Does anyone, except the Halliburtons and the like, think we are getting our $4-billion a week''s worth out of Iraq?

Anyone, except those that would like to see this nation go even more bankrupt?

$4-billion a week. Great job.

[lars008-2009]

don%u2019t you just hate these stupid silly little fascist nazi terrorislamic muslims pretending to be liberal Americans%u2026%u2026 and begging for the usa to leave iraq%u2026..lol%u2026.. they must be really getting their arses kicked%u2026. Hahahahahahaha

and these fascist nazi terrorislamic muslim collaborators

[tibu987]

In the next election, vote OUT of office all the old timers in the Senate and House. They have become inffectual as to the will of the electorate. They have become accustomed to feeding at the public trough and several scotch and water lunches. The problems now facing the U.S. could have been avoided had those pols done their jobs.
Vote out Warner, Byrd, Stevens, Reid, Kennedy, and all others, regardless of party, who have served at least two terms.
This country needs a fresh approach to the myriad problems facing us in the 21st century.
Do your political homework.

[middleman8]

United States politics are like the weather "EVERY ONE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, BUT NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT"

[hwy71so]

I figure if you have to yell to get your point across, you don''t have much backbone in the first place.

The candidates are doing a lot of yelling these days. Except maybe Huckabee and McCain.

[hwy71so]

So, we''re stuck between a brute and a hippy. Sounds like an episode of Forrest Gump.

I think Huckabee warrents attention. Maybe Edwards. I don''t think Hillary, Thompson, Guil(however you spell it), Obama or any of the Kennedys have the answer.

I would vote for Colin Powell in a heart beat.

[lars008-2009]

VOTE FOR JEFFERSON%u2026 VOTE AGAINST FASCIST NAZI TERRORISLAM%u2026 VOTE GOP%u2026

dnc are like john adams and want to give the jihadist their lunch money hoping they will leave us alone....

gop are like thomas jefferson and want to spend their lunch money on weapons and go kick the jihadists in their arses.....

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

Thomas Jefferson knew about fascist nazi islam..... he killed plenty of them....

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli''s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm
muslim justifies slavery and piracy%u2026
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6bdec278-6a71-4436-bc4d-29d1c54b0ad7

[clestes-2009]

Hwy71So,

I too am concerned about the direction we are headed, as is the majority of Americans. That is why I said we need a new leadership with new ideas.

The war-mongering candidates will keep us heading down the same road we are on now.

[clestes-2009]

killtheliars

Although I can''t say I agree with your moniker, you are right on the money on everything you said.

A nuclear Iran is going to happen. They have every right under international law to develop a nuclear energy program. They will do so.

If they follow the laws set out by the IAEA on developing a program which include inspection and answering all quesions they cannot be denied this.

[clestes-2009]

Lars008 must be 1 cut above an idiot. He can''t figure out how to post a response. It only takes 1 click on the button.

For the last year, polls taken show a climbing majority of the American people think this country is on the wrong track. The numbers go up every month.

The majority of American people do not equate Iraq with the war on terror.

The majority of Americans do not think Iraq is making them safer.

John McCain will perputuate the same policies of Bush that the Americans are already unhappy with. He is the closest of all the candidates. Bush has a 29% approval rating.

No where in all this leads anyone to conclude McCain has any chance of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency?

[lars008-2009]

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry

USA''s PLEDGE 2 THE WORLD GIVEN BY JFK!!

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961

One ought never to turn one''s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Winston Churchill

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." Albert Einstein

[lars008-2009]

IS EUROPE WAKING UP TO FASCIST NAZI TERRORISLAM!!! WILL THE DEMONIC-RATS???
Germany considers increased spying on Muslims
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19539.html
Swiss expulsion proposal draws criticism
Under the plan, entire families would be expelled if their children are convicted of a violent crime, drug offenses or benefits fraud.
"We believe that parents are responsible for bringing up their children. If they can''t do it properly, they will have to bear the consequences," Ueli Maurer, president of the People''s Party, told The Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re_eu/switzerland_deportation_campaign
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2938940.ece
Netherlands sets plan against extremism
The Dutch government will spend $38 million over the next four years to prevent both the growth of Islamic fundamentalism and right-wing nationalism, an official said Monday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070827/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_extremists_1
Germany Wants to Spy on Suspects Via Web
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RC4F2O1&show_article=1
Straitjackets for illegals
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2176422,00.html

[hwy71so]

Yes, I do realize that it was Congress that did all this. Dems and Reps alike.

Look, I''m more concerned with the direction this COUNTRY is going than which party is in the chair. For the past 6 years we''ve been watching the two top parties fighting over top seat disregarding the very people they represent just to build their image as top dog.

I don''t care that Clinton is a democrat. I don''t care that Thompson is a republican. I want the person in the seat that I think can do the best to improve the status of this country. I don''t want either of these too powerful parties to have full control in either branch.

Clinton, Bill Clinton, could''ve been one of the greatest presidents this country''s seen, but he had to get caught up in women and appeasing Hillary''s money lust. Other than that, he did great, IMO.

Bush has been stalled since his first day on his first term. Congress has been too busy trying to control him rather than work with him. Clinton didn''t have that problem. They thought they had them a puppet with Bush. When they found out he fought back, it really irked them and just made their resolve thicken.

We''ve got to do something about the parties and their perceived power, if and before we will ever be able to affect change for the better. After all, they are our EMPLOYEES.

[killtheliars]

The troop need to get out. Let Israel fight her own battles and figure out how to get oil out of N. Iraq.
The excuse about Iran is not a justification to stay either. Retired Gen. Abazaid came out the other day and stated America could live with a nuclear Iran, in other words they won''t be a threat to us.
So who are we worried about, and why should american kids die to protect foriegners?

[lars008-2009]

NEVER FORGET THE RAPES OF BESLAN GIRLS!
Terror at Beslan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1316935651894423094

RAPES IN BESLAN: IN MUHAMMAD%u2019S FOOTSTEPS
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic04/NewsST091304.html

Forget Not the Children of Beslan
http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/forget_not_the_children_of_beslan/index.html

Religion of Peace??? More like a cult of death.
http://www.terrorists-suck.org/why_suck/beslan.html

Radical Islamists must be stopped:
comments on the Beslan child slaughter.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/list.htm

[lars008-2009]

Posted by tibu987 at 01:19 PM : Sep 18, 2007

the war is legal, demonic-rat hero al bore says so%u2026

the resumption of hostilities was only a matter of time since iraq broke the ceasefire agreement.....

blame saddam for iraq%u2026%u2026. Even clintoon and the dems wanted the resumption of hostilities back in 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq''s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[tibu987]

Did Iraq declare "war" against the U.S.?
Did the U.S. declare "war" against Iraq?
"Surrender" is incorrect terminology, wouldn''t it be a "pull out"?
Does anyone really believe that we are keeping terrorists at bay by killing Iraqi''s?
Perhaps we are creating an even bigger mnonster by being in Iraq.
If we "win", what do we win?
If we "lose", what do we lose?
Who are we to be foisting democracy on nations, it will happen anyway with time, it is human nature to want to supercede problems.
Who are we to try to conciliate a strife by three religious factions?
Let''s call this what it is, the control of oil, i.e. money.
Think about it.