nicely done post n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Pachacutec @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 13:15:14 PM CDT

Yes, but (0.00 / 0)

I agree that there's a clear majority in favor of starting withdrawal just about as quick as it could practically be done. (Christmas is only a tad over three months away - yikes!)

But that only gets us so far. We know that the only way withdrawal will start will be if Congress declines to send a funding bill to Bush that he will sign.

And - moreover - if they send him a clean regular FY08 defense apps bill, that will provide indirect Iraq funding for some time, even without a supplemental bill - till March, apparently.

What Dem Congressional leaderships would want comfort on before going the send no bill route - probably too much comfort than conceivably possible, but there we are - is that the voters, as well as willing the end (early start to withdrawal), also will the means (send no bill).

So far as I'm aware, there is no publicly available direct polling evidence on this question (vigorous exchange of views thereon yesterday).

---

by: skeptic06 @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 13:31:14 PM CDT

JTA (0.00 / 0)

One other area of exposure for the Dem leaderships is the Warner-style itsy bitsy teeny weeny withdrawal, well within the numbers by which the forces in Iraq have surged.

If the Dems are going send no bill at the same time as the WH are trumpeting the withdrawal of (say) 5,000, that only makes the Dem task presentationally that bit harder.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 13:38:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even if there were public polling data (0.00 / 0)

on not funding, I'm not sure how much I would trust it. The differences between timelines, benchmarks, defunding (with a bill), and not funding (no bill) get into some relatively arcane constitutional law and parliamentary procedure. Also, Democrats like Joe Biden are arguing that defunding will hurt the troops.

What's frustrating to me is the way a fog seems to descend over the issue of public opinion during these debates. It seems clear to me that the vast majority of people either want out now (by which they apparently mean right now, start tomorrow) or out on a timeline that is basically indistinguishable logistically from right now. Democratic Congressional leadership should be making their case to the public that they will use every available tool at their disposal to get us out of Iraq.

Is that likely to happen? Doesn't seem so. But, I want to make sure no one has the cover of ambivalent public opinion to hide behind.

---

by: brklyngrl @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 20:09:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right there with you! (0.00 / 0)

I agree that the overwhelming weight of public opinion favors an early exit from Iraq.

And that testing opinion on specific scenarios with any degree of reliability - so as to form the basis of decision-making by pols - is a rather trickier task.

And - I'd also agree that one of the main purposes of the blizzard of different bills and resolutions and amendments on Iraq withdrawal that we've had more or less since this Congress opened has been to give cover to the immobilism of the Dem leadership (fave song: Busy Doing Nothing).

Not only do the leaderships have no intention of using pro-withdrawal opinion to back radical action, but they also want make sure the voters are confused and apathetic on the issue to minimize the impact of bomb-throwers like you pointing to the opportunity they're wasting!

Ain't politics grand...

---

by: skeptic06 @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 21:04:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BBC poll on withdrawal (0.00 / 0)

The Beeb released an interesting global poll on this - with US numbers broken out. Charts available here: http://news.bbc.co.u...

Most people 'want Iraq pull-out'
Most people across the world believe US-led forces should withdraw from Iraq within a year, a BBC poll suggests.

Some 39% of people in 22 countries said troops should leave now, and 28% backed a gradual pull-out. Just 23% wanted them to stay until Iraq was safe.

In the US, one-in-four supported an immediate withdrawal, while 32% wanted Iraq's security issues to be resolved before bringing the troops home.

The BBC World Service commissioned the survey of 23,193 people.

In the survey, people were asked whether coalition troops should pull out of Iraq immediately, commit to a gradual withdrawal over a year, or leave when the security situation improves.

In 19 countries, the majority of those questioned believed troops should be withdrawn either immediately or within a year.

Just three countries - Kenya, the Philippines and India - did not have an overall majority favouring withdrawal within a year.

Large numbers of people questioned in India (36%) declined to comment or said they "didn't know".

Muslim countries including Indonesia (65%), Turkey (64%) and Egypt (58%) were among those most eager for troops to be withdrawn immediately.

But an immediate pull-out was much less popular in Australia (22%), the US (24%) and UK (27%) - the countries with most troops deployed in Iraq.

We discussed this on FDL the other day: http://www.firedogla...

---

by: Siun @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 14:09:40 PM CDT

I think that you're missing the point (0.00 / 0)

This is an excellent analysis of where the public stands right now and I have no truck with that aspect of it.  However, I don't think I do you a disservice in assuming that you think its implication is that Democrats should not cower during this month of voting on Iraq, so I'll go straight to addressing that.  This is my speculation, but it's informed speculation, and you and others should take it for what it's worth.

To assess the Democrats, we want to know what they make of this apparently compelling information.  But what people think now is not what is determining Democratic MOCs' responses to the Iraq issue.  Implicit in your argument is that Democrats should recognize the degree of freedom they have to support dramatic action in Iraq, given this present degree of public support.  But they are concerned with what public opinion on this issue will be like leading up to and on November 7, 2008.

The specific concern of Democratic MOCs is that the Republicans will be successful in pulling off a Dolchstoss strategy against them once The Next Bad Thing happens after the Democrats manage to put any teeth into their antiwar position -- especially if it happens before the election, which is one of the three strategies (the others being immigration yayaing and pretending that Pelosi is Gingrich when the government shuts down after no budget passes) for scrambling to an improbable victory in 2008.

I do not personally share the concern all that strongly, largely because I think that the Republicans are going to do it anyway and the gullible segments of the public will be duly gulled.  But it's far from a stupid or negligible concern, and at any rate it's important to understand that their actions are (IMHO) being guided by their predictions rather than their inability to read current polls.

The oleaginous, scumsucking (can I say that here?) Sen. Lindsay Graham previewed the Dolchstoss strategy for the Dems today when he took complete leave from reality and bullshat out that we have the enemy in Iraq on the mat, that any strong Democratic action will let them survive to fight again (like bin Laden at Tora Bora, he did not add), and that we'd be -- gack! -- breaking our soldier's hearts if we brought them home "prematurely."

The data you cite should allow us to conclude that the wide majority of Americans (though not FNS viewers) would greet this display with audibly synchronous eye-rolling.  But that's not the point.  It doesn't matter what people think now, it matters what people think on Election Day, and Sen. Graham was offering a shot across the bow as to what will be said in the weeks leading up to it if and when Something Big and Bad happens (in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, or especially here at home) before then.

Your data does not allow us to say that the public will be consistent from now to then and remember that they too wanted withdrawal, etc., so logically should share the blame.  The public doesn't think that way.  It holds no burden of consistency; people will not even remember than they once held a contrary view if fourteen months from now it makes them happier to forget.  (There's plenty of social science evidence for this if it's not obvious.)  They want to withdraw now, but they may well not admit it then if the plan appear to have come a cropper.

Personally, I would roll the dice, attach poison pills to any bill, refuse to pass anything if need be, and work on getting the word out to voters so that they understand that it's the right move even if suspected terrorists give out anthrax-covered donuts in West Philly for Halloween 2008.  But I'm not your average Democratic representative.  Your analysis leads to perplexity at how they can be so dumb, so fearful, and/or so rotten.  But there should be no perplexity: they are maddeningly equivocating because they don't consider these polls decisive.  They know that these polls may have only a passing relationship to what people will think 14 months from now if Things Go Bad.

If we want to change their views, keeping in mind what fuels their current views is paramount.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 02:33:04 AM CDT