New Iowa Poll Numbers
IOWA: A new Strategic Vision-R poll was released Wednesday of likely Iowa caucus participants.
Republicans: Rudy Giuliani - 29%, John McCain - 22%, Newt Gingrich - 11%, Mitt Romney - 9%, Chuck Hagel - 5%, Tommy Thompson - 3%, and all others with 2% or less apiece.
Democrats: John Edwards - 24%, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tied with 18% each, Tom Vilsack - 14%, Joe Biden - 5%, Bill Richardson - 3%, and all others with 2% or less apiece.
Interestingly, 48% of Republican respondents said they favored "a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months" -- versus 37% opposed the idea.
By contrast, Democrats favored withdrawal by a 64-9 margin.
These pro-withdrawal numbers could bode ill in Iowa for candidates in both parties who either are pro-surge or waffle on Iraq.
h/t Elizabeth
UPDATE: In related news, Vilsack is out.
posted by kate @ 4:55 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
My position is contrary to many who visit this website. I am currently opposed to the war and wish the Republican leadership had listened to it's miliatary advisors prior to attacking Iraq. Rumsfeld's strategy for winning the battle was accurate, but flawed to win the war as was poined out to him by the top military advisors. We never had enough troopsso we never secured the borders which allowed scores of thousands of terrorists to cross over the Iranian and Syrian borders, we never secured the armories which were raided by the terrorists and anti-US militias, we never secured the country and allowed anarchy to reign, we never provided security, we haven't spent money's allocated for rebuilding the infrastructures for Iraq, etc..
That being said, peace comes at a cost most liberals don 't seems to understand or want to remember. SOmetimes peace comes at a cost. WWI, WWII, our civil war, or would you have preferred that these wars weren't fought as many anti-war people then felt! Then the world would be run by Germans, we'd have slaves, and jews, gypsies and mentally and physically handicapped people would no longer live on this planet.
If we continue with our current war stategies, then I have to agree, that withdrawl is the only option. But if we can support a different strategy, one that secures the Iraq border, takes their culture into account, take and hold each town until we force the terrorists into a corner and annilate them, secure the country and help them build a police force, army, and infrastructures that benefits Iraq, then we can win. To make the lame arguement that this is an unwinable war is BS and untrue. Should we be there. NO. But thanks to W, we are. If we leave, we lose international credibility, Iraq is plunged into a full fledged civil war where the terrorists are the most armed and organized, the extremists Shiites in Iran will take advantage of this and the majority Shiite population in Iraq and it will be a boon for terrorists around the world that the US can be defeated. Suicide/homicide bombers will be groomed by the scores of thousands and many will make there way here to visit your family members. This is not chicken little fearing a falling sky. This is history and politics and reality. You may choose not to accept it and join some fun anti-war movement to bring our troops home now. But it is as irresponsible as George W's decision to invade Iraq in the first place and will be even costlier.
As in any dilemma, wouldn't it be better to focus on realistic and achievable solutions. Otherwise, the democrats and liberals will once again snatch defeat from the hand of victory. I am a conservative and my advice to the Democrats is to lead. That actually takes effort and intelligence and tough decision making. Don't pander to the masses, which according to this site are asses. Be responsible. Think long term. Be strong and come up with solutions that will make this country safer, not weaker and more vulnerable to attack.
This reminds me of teachers who get in pissing contents with students. At some point they become more interested in winning the arguement than whatever it was they wanted the student to do or learn in the first place. Which is more important, "winning" or a peaceful, stable Iraq? Perhaps we could win, and merely forestall the eventual sorting out of ethnic/religious tensions, but how long do we want to occupy a country that doesn't want us there? (I find myself agreeing with Joe Biden on partition, though it's just a fancy word for "ethnic cleansing.")
There will be no peace in Iraq as long as there are American boots on the ground. There will not be peace for a good long while even after we leave, but civil war won't be caused by our departure, it's already started.
I do not understand the rationale of continually using tired worn out clichés such as liberals and democrats as if they are the problem. When will we accept that we live in a complex global world with many different viewpoints? Putting degrading labels on otherwise differing opinions is not productive. Apparently, it wins elections but it only inflames political arguments. I know you probably doing out of convenience or habit but it is deprecating to those who have thoughtful viewpoints. I think many rational people agree to disagree but when did we agree to label our foes to dismiss what they have to say.
I believe we made a mistake going in to Iraq and could have accomplished much of the same results in other ways. I am unhappy with those in the executive branch who browbeat members of the intelligence agencies. I continue to maintain that I would be furious if I had lost a loved one in the current elective war. I also believe W did what he thought was best, but that it was motivated by those who are mega rich and terminally greedy to boot. I wish President Bush had chosen others playmates.
We are in Iraq now and we must help clean up the mess. We need to withdraw some of the troops and fortify the Green Zone. We must attempt to expand a buffer zone on the periphery of the Green Zone and make it broader as opportunity allows. We must not, however, abandon Iraq altogether. We can and have made monumental mistakes in our history, but we do try to clean up the mess as history shows. We gained nothing from completely withdrawing from Vietnam and we will gain nothing from completely withdrawing from Iraq.
West Berlin is proof positive that we can establish and maintain a territory within a territory and no one will dare challenge us more than once. We have the airport and the center of Baghdad, we should baton down the hatches and when opportunity allows expand outward to include as many Iraqis as possible. Maybe we cannot secure all of Iraq now, but we must not leave the Iraqis either. Let’s stop the incursions, withdraw as many troops as we can, but keep the territory we already control.
Davidl—
In principle I think we agree concerning abandoning Iraq. I was a little confused somewhere in the middle of your argument, but I think we might be saying similar things.
Port—
You confounded me a bit; however, concerning your analogy of teachers and students I must take exception. Although I would using different terms than “pissing contests” if I understand what you are saying, teachers do not always want to present a definitive position to students. Rather, a teacher will strive to illicit a debate of sorts and attempt to moderate it without tipping his or her hand as to personal positions. Naturally, bias are inevitable but a good teaching with succeed somewhat in masking personal political positions, for the sake of encouraging students to form their own.
Post a Comment
<< Home