



« Out of Africa, out of sight | Latest postings | Swamp Gas, May 31, 2007 » Originally posted: May 31, 2007

Americans to Bush: Exit Iraq Posted by Mark Silva at 6:50 am CDT If Americans had a direct say in the Oval Office, most would tell President Bush to focus on an exit strategy that removes U.S. forces from Iraq. Just one in four would suggest staying the course. These are among the findings of a Gallup Poll that asked, ''If you could talk with President Bush for 15 minutes about the situation in Iraq, what would you, personally, advise him to do?'' "Bottom line,'' reports Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport: "The majority of Americans, as measured in a number of Gallup Poll surveys this year, believe the initial decision for the United States to become involved in Iraq was a mistake. Research also shows a majority of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Americans -- if given the chance to talk with President Bush about Iraq -- would be most likely to tell him to figure out a way to get U.S. troops withdrawn from that country.'' In open-ended responses to the question, 54 percent said focus on getting troops out of Iraq – with 39 percent saying pull the troops out, come home, end it, and 12 percent saying come up with and execute a well-thought out exit strategy. Five percent suggested getting the Iraqis trained and let them run their own country. Twenty-five percent suggested focusing on the continuation of current policies or becoming more aggressive, with 11 percent saying stay the course and 11 percent saying be more aggressive and 3 percent saying build up the military and send more troops.



Newport draws several conclusions from all this: -- The largest category of responses -- offered by a majority of 54% -- would be to advise President Bush to focus on removing the troops from Iraq and exiting the country, leaving the situation in the control of the Iraqis. This includes 39% of Americans who would advise Bush to simply get U.S. troops out of Iraq now. -- A second group -- representing one-fourth of Americans -- would advise the president to essentially "stay the course" or to be even more aggressive in the country's military actions. -- A smaller category would advise the president to work with others in finding a solution, including an advisory board or the United Nations. Six percent would advise the president to admit his past mistakes and apologize. Of course, there is a partisan divide in these answers, with 57 percent of the Democrats surveyed suggesting that Bush pull the troops out, come home, end it, and just 21 percent of the Republicans surveyed saying that. And 24 percent of the Republicans surveyed said they would tell Bush he is doing a good job, stay the course, while just 2 percent of the Democrats surveyed said that. "The president maintains the loyalty of a smaller group of Americans -- one in four -- who are supportive of his current actions or would even want him to be more aggressive,'' Newport reports. "The administration argues that the war in Iraq is a necessary part of the war on terror, and that it is imperative to succeed,'' he reports. "The president and members of his administration have said repeatedly that any type of discussion of withdrawal or the setting of a timetable is unacceptable at this time and would be tantamount to failure. These arguments notwithstanding, however, the majority of the American public would instruct their president to focus on withdrawal of troops and the development of an exit strategy. The Gallup Poll report was based on a series of interviews with 1,000 adults, with a possible margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. For more on the polls, see Gallup's full report. in Iraq War | Permalink Comments Very interesting poll results. The majority opinion is clearly one of an exit strategy. Yet just yesterday, he advised he thinks Iraq is like Korea where troops will be stationed there forever. I don't see MORE people wanting to escalate this as this drags on and on, but rather the opposite. The real question is what are the Repubs going to do about this? We Dems have pretty much made up our mind years ago. The Independents are joining us in increasing numbers. Do the Repubs really want to continue their current approach? Posted by: weinerdog43 | May 31, 2007 7:09:27 AM Again, an inaccurate headline. The reality is that 39 percent say leave Iraq now. Of the 54 percent that want out, 12 percent want some sort of exit strategy, but do not indicate how much longer the troops should stay there. Of those 12 percent, do they think it should be two months, four months, six months, one year, two years? Heck, while I believe we shouldn't leave anytime soon I also don't think we should be there forever, or at least not 150,000 strong forever. Perhaps some type of long-term presence like in Korea, Germany, Japan, etc. So, while I am part of the "25 percent," I am also part of the 12 percent that believe at some point in time there should be an exit of some sorts. But the reality, Mark, is that most Americans do not believe in exiting Iraq anytime soon. Posted by: John D | May 31, 2007 7:25:49 AM Americans to Bush: Exit the White House. Permanently. Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | May 31, 2007 7:45:23 AM If I could talk to President Bush? I'd give him a cold can of beer and say "look, Bush, don't you git it, Bubba? You wuz wrong, pal. Admit it, I won't tell nobuddy. Whut wuz on yo mind, dawg? Were you scared of Cheney? Were you mad cuz Saddam tried to kill yo daddy, and you wanted revenge? Has Saddam's ghost come back to haunt you and rendered you unable to be rational? Aw, c'mon, chum, you can still save a good spot in the history books. Abdicate, and tell the country you did it for the good of the nation, and the people will admire your courage. The historians will then herald you as the, the, the Man. Just do it, ol buddy. Posted by: GW | May 31, 2007 7:47:07 AM When Mr. Bush believes he is right, he will not change course. No matter the trials and tribulations, he will not be deterred. And the lost resources(lives and dollars) seem to be well within Mr. Bush's "stay the course" vision. And someday The Bush team will find the tunnel because, once found, there should be light at the end of it. Posted by: bezelt | May 31, 2007 7:59:15 AM You have to wonder if those 25%ers think that they are the only ones who still see this war as the only way? Are they smarter? Well it seems to me that if they were that smart, we would have foreseen what the consequences could have been knowing that the Iraqis have fought amongst themselves for decades. If they were smart enough they would have used the correct amount of troops. Smart enough to know that to disband the army would be a disaster. Are they just smarter than 75% of Americans? NO..just misguided. Posted by: bill r. | May 31, 2007 8:56:00 AM But the reality, Mark, is that most Americans do not believe in exiting Iraq anytime soon. Posted by: John D | May 31, 2007 7:25:49 AM Johnny, even you must blush trying to spin "execute a well thought out exit strategy" to mean "Don't believe in exiting Iraq anytime soon." You must define "soon" as 3 hours from now. Posted by: tony | May 31, 2007 9:06:44 AM One thing I've learned over the years is that when things don't make sense, it's because you don't know the whole story. It makes no sense that Mr Bush is bound and determined to stay the course of a policy that everyone knows has failed. Or has it? Could it be that the objectives of this little war are not what we were led to believe they are? Shouldn't someone on the Hill be asking the question: What are Bush and the Dick really up to? What are the real objectives here? Why have thousands of American men and women died and been maimed? Could it be that we don't know the whole story? Posted by: GP | May 31, 2007 9:09:17 AM Funny how Mark Silva publicizes some Gallup Polls while ignoring others. While looking through the Gallup link above, I found a poll released last week (5/24 to be exact) on the Dem presidential campaign. It hasn't been mentioned in the "Swamp" or the Trib (I did a search of the archives), and after reading Gallup's headline of the poll, I can see why: "Clinton Leads Obama Among Whites, Blacks, and Most Other Democratic Subgroups" "Obama for President" wouldn't want this poll publicized. And the "Swamp", doubtless by coincidence, spikes any mention of it.

Posted by: Bruce | May 31, 2007 9:16:06 AM Screamer David, first of all, the U.S. isn't "occupying" anything. We're there at the pleasure of the freely-elected Iraqi gov't. Back to screamer David. Please see "The Marshall Plan" for a roadmap to creating democracy in a foreign country. Seems to me like that one worked out pretty darn well. Just ask Germany and Japan. Posted by: Jeff | May 30, 2007 4:03:19 PM Jeff... I had to bring this current because it fell of the board and this "but what about west germany and Japan after wwII" argument seems to be a common thread amongst some righty's in here. Anyway: Jeff.... YOU need to look up the Marshall plan. The Marshall plan had nothing to do with occupation by American troops. The Marshall plan was entirely a financial aid plan. We gave Marshall Plan funds to Turkey, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Iceland, England, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, Greece, France, the Benelux countries, all of which we didn't occupy, AND East Germany. We also offered the Marshall plan to the USSR. Yes... the Soviet Union. We certainly weren't planning to occupy them as part of the Marshall plan. We didn't "occuppy" ANY of those countries (Including West Germany). And I could ask Japan about the Marshall plan and how it worked out for them (as you recommend I do), but all I'd get back is a quizzical look... Japan wasn't involved in the Marshall plan.

And you also need to learn the difference between an occupation of a hostile country and maintaining military bases in friendly, sovereign counries for the purpose of DETERRING ANOTHER FOREIGN POWER. That's what we were doing in West Germany and Japan. Our military was morally and politically necessary in those countries because, as part of the WWII terms of surrender, Japan and Germany were not allowed to militarize! (damn, you do not understand history). We had to maintain a military force in order to keep foreign powers (mainly the Soviets) from moving in. That is not analogous to what we did and are doing in Iraq. Our current occupation of Iraq is nothing, nothing, nothing like the maintenance of military bases in post WWII Japan and West Germany. Not militarily, not geopolitically, not morally. Not by any standard. And it shows quite simply in the bodycount of American soldiers and the ruinous results in America's world relations and ability to maintain a moral leadership role in the world. The Marshall plan was admired by (non-communist) world. The Iraq occupation is admired by virtually noone outside our shores. Posted by: david k | May 30, 2007 9:49:50 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: david k | May 31, 2007 9:24:10 AM There you go again, John D., twisting things to meet your viewpoint. The following is a direct quote from the article: "The largest category of responses -- offered by a majority of 54% -- would be to advise President Bush to focus on removing the troops from Iraq and exiting the country, leaving the situation in the control of the Iraqis." So I'm not sure how you can then come up with this: "But the reality, Mark, is that most Americans do not believe in exiting Iraq anytime soon." Sorry, John, the reality is, the majority of Americans DO want troops out of Iraq either immediately or soon (hence, a timetable). Generally what is meant by "focus on removing the troops and exiting the country" is doing so soon. That doesn't mean in 10 years. Please use some logic. Posted by: Dan | May 31, 2007 9:33:58 AM And the same pollsters said at the time of the invasion 84% of the people in this country supported the invasion. Hindsight is always 20/20. In 5 more years we might look back and say that remaining in Iraq turned out to be the correct course of action. In any conflict there is so much secrecy to protect our troops that the American public cannot possibly have enough information to make an intelligent decision.

These same people would probably have said we should have pulled out of WW II when we lost thousands of men on D-Day. Would that have been a wise choice? The very nature of having to answer to every minor detail of a war, every casualty, every destroyed building, hampers the effort to finish. Again, the media puts its nose into any situation in order to sell a few more papers and hobbles the ability of the military to function to its highest level of effectiveness. Posted by: alchemist | May 31, 2007 9:37:59 AM John D: Leaving American troops in Iraq for decades, like we have in Germany and South Korea, is not an "exit strategy".

Posted by: BC | May 31, 2007 9:46:21 AM Anyone who runs organizational meetings knows that if a meeting has no specified ending time, it is likely to drag on and on while the participants argue about every trivial thing they can think of and avoid the business that needs to be a priority. The most important business is typically put off until the end of the meeting and then is given short shrift or tabled until the next meeting. The only way to get the priority business done is to indicate a specific ending time for the meeting and to have a strong chairperson who is willing to prioritize the work so that the critical business gets done first, and whatever time remains after that can be spent on less important matters. Our Yale grad MBA President George W. Bush, who failed in every business venture in which he participated in the private sphere, still doesn't seem to have learned this basic fact of good business or seen its application to the situation in Iraq. We need to tell the Iraqi government they've got a limited time - and specify how limited - to count on our support to address the most important issues - such as sharing oil revenues, developing a truly representative government, building and training their armed forces, providing safety and security for their civilian population, developing and protecting their infrastructure - and then act on our plan regardless of whether they make best use of our offer or not.

Posted by: xnlover | May 31, 2007 10:19:46 AM No surprise here. It's amazing, though, that the American people were willing to swallow, hook, line and sinker, Bush & Cheney's rationale for going into Iraq. It just shows how ill-informed most Americans are when they believed that 9/11 and Saddam were somehow connected. Now thousands are dead, billions are spent and Bush has spawned new generations of terrorists. This Administration couldn't have done more encouraging for hatred of America. Nice going, George and Dick! Posted by: Judith | May 31, 2007 10:35:58 AM I wish someone would define what "winning the war on terror" actually means. We are talking about extremists who are perfectly happy gathering followers worldwide, living in holes and caves, igniting dirty bombs wherever they think they'd have the greatest impact anywhere in the world, depositing followers at undisclosed locations and who can assimilate into various societies and who are called upon at will to create as much distruction as possible- and who are capable of sitting tight for years at a time until called upon. How are we going to "win" exactly? How do we defend ourselves against extremists who are sooo patient? How were we to know they were already positioned in communities the US and Britain? I guess we didn't think about that before we took our big guns to Iraq and blew up all those people? How dare those extremists, who have been doing this for years, not tell us they had a strategy. Posted by: Karen | May 31, 2007 10:37:13 AM Have to finally admit it. The majority of the country, and the Democrats, are correct. We should get out of Iraq once and for all. I cannot believe I am saying this but, I am now one of the Majority of Lefties around here. Posted by: John D | May 31, 2007 9:04:30 AM Is there any way to ban the IP address of people who pull sock puppetry pranks like this? I would think something so out of character from a regular (or a different e-mail address during the submission process) would be a red flag for not making it through the filters. Posted by: Jeff C. | May 31, 2007 10:57:05 AM Ah, the deranged work of the worst humanity has to offer: the Loony Left. Folks, obviously this post copied below is NOT me: Have to finally admit it. The majority of the country, and the Democrats, are correct. We should get out of Iraq once and for all. I cannot believe I am saying this but, I am now one of the Majority of Lefties around here. Posted by: John D | May 31, 2007 9:04:30 AM Loony Lefties, please stop whining about me calling what you weird, fraked-in-the-head losers what you are. If you have to post as others, then don't post at all. And BC, if it was and is OK to continue with some presence in Korea and Germany for six decades and in Kosovo/Bosnia now for 10 years, then why is it wrong for some presence in Iraq for 10 years or more? Clintoon said we'd be out of Kosovo/Bosnia in a year back in 1997. Here we are 10 yerars later. Posted by: John D | May 31, 2007 11:10:53 AM John D -- that 54% beats the popular vote Bush won in 2004 and he called that a "mandate". So which kind of fuzzy math is going on now? I think its important to keep in mind that one of the reasons "they hate us" is we are in their face right now. It goes back to Bin Laden (you remember him, everyone? he's never been caught btw) calling for the removal of US troops from Saudia Arabia long ago, way back to an event called 9/11. Sorry to channel Ron Paul, but he has a basic point that Bush and Co. never understood in their arrogant ignorance. Posted by: kb | May 31, 2007 11:18:56 AM Can someone, SOMEHOW get this information to President Bush? Or is he too Stubborn!

Get out of Iraq....NOW! Not next month, not next year, NOT in 10 years. Posted by: Ron Schumann | May 31, 2007 11:25:55 AM "Karen", if you read history, you'd know that many nations have defeated extremist, "insurgent" and terrorist groups. I'll be happy to give several examples. One is the US defeat of the Muslim "Moro" extremists. The British defeat of the Mau-Maus in Kenya is another. France defeated the "Algerie francaise" terrorists, and Irish government defeated its IRA terrorists in the 1920s. I might also note that since the US took out after terrorists in 2003, the terrorists have not made a successful terrorist attack in the U.S. I'd call that success. What do you call it--defeat? I realize that real world history won't impede your French existentialist "what is victory?" word-games, but a real world does exist, and in that real world extremist, terrorist groups and "insurgencies", including Muslim terrorist groups and "insugencies", have been defeated. Posted by: bruce | May 31, 2007 12:00:08 PM Bruce, you are absolutely correct. Terrorist factions have been defeated before... And it has never been accomplished by a country declaring a global war against "terrorism". It's defeated by undermining the root causes of terrorism.(note the IRA terrorists of recent decades have been defeated in the UK by political policy and police action, NOT an all out war in Ireland). Posted by: David K | May 31, 2007 12:14:58 PM And yet another thrashing victory for the liberal majority. Dog's bollocks to all! Posted by: Sir Ramsbottom Pennystone III | May 31, 2007 12:29:33 PM Bush's decision to invade Iraq was an insane gamble, especially considering the lack of planning that went into it. We lost this "war" as soon as the first bomb fell. Anybody who was the least bit informed and objective could have predicted it. The slightest familiarity with history, Murphy's Law, and Dick Cheney's lack of credibility would have been enough. Now the majority of Americans want to abandon the people we were supposedly fighting for, after attacking their country and sparking the death and displacements of millions. Now that we've destroyed Iraq, we want to leave without rebuilding it. If we do that, we ought to think long and hard about starting another war without adequate cause. In fact, we should make sure it NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. If we don't, we're dead. The problem now is that we're stuck in a shameful web of incomprehensible conflicts that's taking a huge toll on everyone involved. Do you think that withdrawing American troops will "end" the "war?" That's what the Democrats running for President will tell you. Is there any reason to believe Hillary Clinton, ever? Or George Bush? Or Dick Cheney? Or John Edwards? I say no. These people are charlatans. The people who are willing to speak the truth without euphemism are the ones who will keep us out of such stupid and counterprductive wars in the future. We need to fight the people who hurt us, not the innocent bystanders. And that calls for smart, timely, focused, creative action, both against our particular enemies and in favor of our basic beliefs. These beliefs do not include torture, pre-emptive war, or delusional dreams of world domination. They do include liberty and justice for all. They do include freedom, but not freedom that is spread through the barrel of a gun. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq serves as the best example yet of what NOT to do. Meanwhile, he has failed to do most of the things we MUST do for the longterm survival of our nation. (Tune in some other time for a list of would has to be done.) Posted by: Interested | May 31, 2007 12:38:02 PM Is there any way to ban the IP address of people who pull sock puppetry pranks like this? Posted by: Jeff C. | May 31, 2007 10:57:05 AM

Jeff C, I'm convinced that this blog's administrators enjoy and encourage this kind 4th grade "wit". So the answer is there's no way to ban it if they don't want to ban it Posted by: Leo T | May 31, 2007 12:55:06 PM Comments are not posted immediately. We review them first in an effort to remove foul language, commercial messages, irrelevancies and unfair attacks. Thank you for your patience.



The comments to this entry are closed.