Poll: Public Doesn't Care What Petraeus Says, Will Still Want Out
For weeks now we've been hearing endlessly that today's testimony by General Petraeus will mark a key moment in deciding which way public opinion will swing on Iraq.
Guess who disagrees with that prediction? The public, that's who.
Check out this key number buried in today's New York Times/CBS poll:
As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?Increase 6%
Keep the same 32%
Decrease 39%
Remove all troops 17%
So, even if Petraeus says that the surge is improving things, a solid majority -- 56% -- will still favor removing some or all of the troops. Of course, this number could be related to the fact that in two polls now -- by The Washington Post, and by Gallup -- solid majorities say they don't expect Petraeus to honestly assess the success of his own performance. So no wonder majorities are saying his testimony won't affect what they want for Iraq.
One other key indicator: Today's Times poll also asked whether the U.S. would change its strategy in Iraq or keep going as it has after Petraeus' report comes out. A big majority -- 71% -- said it would continue as is.
Bottom line: The public appears to have decided that Petraeus won't tell them the truth about Iraq, that they want out of Iraq no matter what he says, and that the President won't change course in the wake of his testimony. Clever public.
Comments (14)
CT Voter wrote on September 10, 2007 11:26 AM:Well, the very insightful and serious Cokie Roberts had a somewhat different take on all of that, this morning:
Cokie says goofy stuff, again"
The NY Times poll reveals, according to Ms. Roberts, that the American people trust the military the most, and respondents have a far more nuanced approach to this issue, even though she did acknowledge that a majority say withdraw some or all of the troops....
Oh, and of course, there's a danger for the Democrats in going after Petraeus.
But then, there's a danger, according to Cokie, if the Democrats basically do anything except inhale and exhale on a regular basis.
Even that might be considered too strident.
howard wrote on September 10, 2007 11:32 AM:public opinion on the war is pretty much settled and is unlikely to change based on words.
and pundit opinion on the war is pretty much settled and is unlikely to change based on facts.
and there we have, in a nutshell, the massive disconnect between the beltway class and the american public.
Greg wrote on September 10, 2007 11:49 AM:agreed with you both. It's just unbearable watching the media hype this thing.
illlich wrote on September 10, 2007 12:08 PM:"It's a political roll-out, orchestrated by Ed Gillespie out of the White House, with facts so feeble that can't withstand scrutiny tougher than Fox News."
For the military to be so in-bed with one political party is probably the most dangerous threat to our democracy. Now, I'm not saying the military IS in bed with the GOP as a whole, certainly a lot of military personnel have problems with Bush/Cheney's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, but for a general to bend over backwards and play ventriloquist-dummy to the Bush administration is unsettling. His allegiance is supposed to be to both the US as a whole, and to his troops (and this serves neither).
It seems the more the White House tries to convince the public that "Iraq is going well" the more they damage their credibility (you can fool some of the people, some of the time. . .) -- BUT we need more pundits/journalists/etc to highlight all the "turning points" the administration has touted in the past, and how after those "turning points" (Iraqi elections, capture of Saddam, death of Zarkawi, etc.) NOTHING really changed (c'mon! they are changing the definitions of "sectarian violence" to suit their aims-- let's apply those definitions to deaths in the past and see if deaths have gone down).
So let's say they somehow convince congress that the surge is working and the DEMs roll over and let them continue their surge. . . does anybody really think that a year from now there will have been much (or any) progress? The GOP faithful can call me a pessimist, but all I know is what I read in the papers, and ("liberal" media or not), I haven't really heard much truly GOOD news from Iraq since "Mission Accomplished."
JimBob wrote on September 10, 2007 12:37 PM:But it doesn't MATTER what the public wants. That would be a democracy, and that ain't what we got, folks.
DaveW wrote on September 10, 2007 1:02 PM:Sometimes you still have to admire the American majority. We can be stampeded by the most asinine sentimental propaganda, but at other times show an amazing resistance to overwhelming infowar assaults. Petraeus has been sanctified to a minor god in the media and the Bushie puppets, embodying all the power that "support the troops" and other American nationalist sloganeering can muster. His report was supposed to be the 11th commandment from on high. Yet most Americans maintain a strong distrust for his objectivity and little inclination to let his report influence our perceptions of the war.
And of course, this time the majority is right. As Nir Rosen points out, letting Petraeus report on his success in Iraq is like letting students grade their own tests.
C. Stephen White wrote on September 10, 2007 1:03 PM:Mr. Hunter says that he knows Gen. P.'s testimony must not be seen as having been written by others and then goes on to chastise those who want to attack the messenger! One way or the other, Sir.
MSNBC and CNN are not Fox-lite, they are part and parcel of Fox. "Microphone" problems have caused a delay of the hearings (looks to me like they were trying to rid the hall of demonstrators). That is now called microphone trouble. CNN has Blitzer, Crowley, Snyder, Phillips. MSNBC has Matthews, Vaccaro, and Williams. What in the devil do the cable channels need with the Fox bunch. Move On has been skewered by these channels during this whole delay. I am disgusted and feel sorry if the DEMS cave. More and more, I am beginning to believe this Bush bunch cannot be beat, they are too powerful. I heard a blurb last night that talked about Petreus for president. Is this why the big push today to call him an intellectual? The scholar soldier? Have they promised him the presidency?
Chuck wrote on September 10, 2007 3:00 PM:The very AMORAL thing about all of this is that our young men and women stuck in that Hellhole known as Iraq are nothing more now than pawns. Both the Democrats and the Republicans apparently see these brave men and women as "disposable fodder" for the corrupt Iraqi government. We have given billions and billions of dollars to the Iraqi government and worst of all the lives of our young men and women, leaving thousands of American families without a loved one. AND FOR WHAT??
Basically so that the military-industrial complex can make billions, Halliburton/Cheney can make billions and Bush can continue living in his dream world of "we're kicking ass over there". There is no hope for America I am fully convinced. The Democrats do not want to own this war by doing anything about it and Bush is more than happy to let things ride until he waves good bye in January and flies off to Texas with his millions. AMORAL DOESN'T EVEN DESCRIBE WHAT AMERICA HAS BECOME.
Unless this administration is pushed out of office (NOW), we are all doomed to sit and watch the dog and pony show called "We are kicking ass" - how stupid is this president?
Stupid question, yes I know. But for crying out loud! How can the Dems NOT do something? No majority in either house doesnt cut it - you can still bring articlels of impeachment - public opinion is behind that and yet we are being ignored.
Vote them ALL out of office - get some new blood .......
Kuni wrote on September 10, 2007 5:39 PM:We’ve heard what Petraeus has said before; and none of it was true.
Let’s look at some of Petraeus earlier BS, where he gave us a ‘rosy picture’ implying we should stay the course. I guess all those Iraqi’s he trained turned out so well, that the surge wasn’t needed.
And I love his Jan. 2005 comment where he let slip that: “Iraqis must provide for their own security. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish”
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3158
September 14, 2003 . . .
. . . Schieffer: Let me ask you one other thing, and that is this intense criticism that seems to be boiling up on Capitol Hill. This story this morning is filled with it, and basically it comes down to that Don Rumsfeld, and I'll just put this straight to you, is stubborn, and that's the reason he won't admit that he made a mistake when he said we have plenty of troops there, and that that's one of the reasons you're having problems on the Hill and within the Pentagon. I just want to give you a chance to respond to that.
Rumsfeld: Sure, I'm glad to. How do you respond to whether or not you're stubborn. I guess you respond this way, we have General [John] Abizaid who is in charge of the Central Command, [Lieutenant] General [Ricardo] Sanchez, who is in charge of Iraq, and then a series of division commanders, good ones, [Major] General [David] Petraeus, [Major] General [Raymond] Odierno, and they meet regularly, and they ask that question, do we need more U.S. troops, and they say they don't. They do not feel that we ought to bring in more additional troops, why?
Rumsfeld: Just let me respond. Now, should I be stubborn and say, you're wrong? What I do is I say, why do you or don't you need something, and I go and discuss it. And they come back consistently and say they do not need more additional troops, you need more force protection, you need more combat support people if you're going to have more troops. We're managing the skill mix of the troops, because they're not doing a lot of combat, they're doing a lot of presence and a lot of construction, and a lot of assistance, and a lot of forming city councils, 90 percent of the people in Iraq are now living in an area that's governed by a city council, or a village council.
Schieffer: So you do not feel that you made a mistake‑
Rumsfeld: If I felt I'd made a mistake I'd change it.
Schieffer: Misestimated, or underestimated.
Rumsfeld: My problem is the people who are saying we need more troops are not giving any good reasons. There's no substance to their arguments, they're just saying we don't have enough. Our military people say we do, and they then explain why they think they do, and why they want the effort on increasing the Iraqi capability. So I listen to the two sides of the argument. I would increase the number of troops in five minutes, if people would come to me and make a decent argument, but all I see is critics saying, you need more troops. Something has to be wrong. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26181
June 28, 2004 – Recent adjustments made to improve Iraqi security forces are working, a senior U.S. officer in Baghdad said June 27.
Ongoing changes "are gradually, but markedly improving the quality of Iraqi security forces," Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, chief of the Office of Security Transition in Iraq, reported during a Pentagon Channel interview. . .
. . . "But, there are also areas where we see considerable success," he pointed out. For example, he said, Iraqi security forces had months ago assumed a variety of important security tasks from coalition forces in the north and south of the country. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1643
January 05, 2005. . .
. . . GEN. METZ: No, no. The original plan for the Iraqi army was 27. As we began to grow -- a year ago, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, which became the National Guard, that number has changed a number of times since I've been in command. We are focused right now on 45 battalions, but with an expansion program to about the 65-battalion level. That has a relationship to the amount of equipment we can ship in to get them to that level.
So I just don't have all the numbers memorized, but there is a 27-battalion army original plan; 45-battalion National Guard growing to 65 plan. The minister of interior has an ever-increasing and robust structure that he's putting together. The army has made some decisions inside of that original plan to go with intervention forces and change some of the training for the army battalions. He's brought on -- he's working on bringing on mechanized forces.
And so, again, we had a plan before sovereignty and it was a baseline to work from. But the sovereign government has made decisions and is changing things, and we're offering advice. But it's going to be a robust enough structure, I think, in 2005 to take on the insurgent fight here in Iraq, and it will be equipped and trained to do so.
Does that help?
Q Yes, sir, thank you. Just, the 65, is that by the end of this year, or what is --
GEN. METZ: I would say by the end of '05 for sure. I'm sure that we can get you that data. I just -- I apologize, I just don't have it all memorized --
Q Sure, no problem.
GEN. METZ: -- and that's because my good friend, Dave Petraeus, he's supposed to put me out of business. And every time I see him I hug him and say, "Dave, you've got to put me out of business. I'm the Multinational Corps fighting here. You're building the transition security capability -- get on with it." And he is. And we really are a team. We're good friends. But I look to him to memorize all those numbers. And when he gets them trained and they become tactical control, take on to the Multinational Corps, we employ them and they are good troops. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24406
Jan. 10, 2005 – The U.S. Army general in charge of training Iraqi forces said here today that the job is tough, but it is a mission that must be accomplished before coalition forces can leave Iraq.
And, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, added, progress is being made. . .
. . . Iraqis must provide for their own security, Petraeus said. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31204
March 14, 2005 . . .
. . . Petraeus said the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections provided a boost to the security forces. Iraqis manned the two inner lines around more than 5,000 polling places nationwide. Insurgents launched more than 270 attacks on Jan. 30, but did not penetrate any polling place, he said.
Following the elections, the general continued, the Iraqi forces got a boost in morale for their fine showing, and the Iraqi people developed trust in the security apparatus. This respect has meant more recruits for the Iraqi army and police, and a greater role in the defense of their own country.
Iraq has 96 operational combat battalions today, Petraeus said. The battalions are out in the cities and rural areas of the country. They are going on independent operations and they are getting results, the general said. Iraqi forces are "shouldering the burden" in 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces -- the three Kurdish provinces in the north and the nine provinces in the south.
"It's making a big difference. You see it in Fallujah, you see it in Baghdad," he said. "You also see it in places like Tikrit and Mosul." . . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16991
Aug. 2, 2005 – The chief of the coalition command charged with training Iraqi security forces said "enormous progress" has been made in the effort. . .
. . . Petraeus said that while most of the Iraqi units rely heavily on coalition forces for support and guidance, "there are still some three dozen of them that are assessed to be in the lead." By this he means that the Iraqi units are leading the fight against the insurgents with minimal or no help from coalition forces. . .
. . . Given continued progress and acceptable conditions, Petraeus said, the United States may be able to reduce troop presence in the country next year, noting this depends on political progress as well as progress in the security capabilities of Iraqi forces. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18152
Oct. 5, 2005 – The Iraqi security forces have made enormous progress over the past 16 months, the U.S. Army general who oversaw their training for more than a year said during a Pentagon news conference today. . .
. . . Iraqi security force readiness has continued to grow with each passing week, the general told reporters, and will grow even more between now and the Oct. 15 national referendum on a draft constitution. "There are now over 197,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and that should be close to 200,000 by the time of the referendum," he said.
More than 115 Iraqi police and army combat battalions are in the counterinsurgency fight, he said. About 80 of the battalions are fighting alongside U.S. forces, which the general said equates to Level 3 readiness in the four-tier readiness rating system. "Over 36 (battalions) are assessed as being 'in the lead,'" he said. In the lead is the term associated with Level 2 readiness, and means the troops are capable of leading joint patrols, as opposed to merely participating.
Level 1 units are labeled as being "fully independent." There is one battalion in this category, Petraeus said.
The general said it is a mistake to fixate on the Level 1 unit. He said Americans should to expand their understanding of the readiness levels and what each unit brings to the fight. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18157
Bush Pleased With Progress of Iraqi Security Forces
Oct. 5, 2005 – President Bush said today he's pleased with the progress Iraqis are making in developing a military capable of handling the security challenges of the future.
Bush spoke to the press following a meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq. Rumsfeld and the generals briefed the president on the status of Iraqi forces and coalition operations in Iraq.
Why on earth should we believe any of the polls by the MSM?
They are the primary disseminators of the lies that led us into Iraq and that have kept us there for five and a half years.
They have no credibility.
Accelerating a war crime is hardly something Americans should be asked to vote on.
Congress has responsibilities that no poll gives them permission to evade.
They have a responsibility to stop the genocide in Iraq. They have a responsibility to put a stop to the illegitimate Bush government and restore the Constitution and our civil rights.
The public knows that his name was correctly put by MoveOn.org, BETRAY US.
Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 8:07 AM:"We can be stampeded by the most asinine sentimental propaganda"
Check out the neatly timed Ken Burns.
