Wednesday, January 24, 2007
I thought it was Clemenza,
er, the Democrats, all along. But as it turns out, plenty of Republicans are ready to bail out on Iraq as well.
I just checked out some behind-the-wall numbers from Rasmussen on the attitudes of likely voters towards Iraq (1,000 likely voters, 12/2-3/2006), and the numbers were startling (to me, anyway):
Among Republicans only:
44% favor, while 36% oppose (20% undecided), the REMOVAL of troops from Iraq.
54% think it is likely, while 46% think it is unlikely, that Iraq will ultimately be an ally of the US.
43% think it is likely, while 56% think it is unlikely, that Iraq will ultimately remain a democracy.
Hagel's surprise 7% showing in a recent Iowa poll might not be that surprising after all.
I just checked out some behind-the-wall numbers from Rasmussen on the attitudes of likely voters towards Iraq (1,000 likely voters, 12/2-3/2006), and the numbers were startling (to me, anyway):
Among Republicans only:
44% favor, while 36% oppose (20% undecided), the REMOVAL of troops from Iraq.
54% think it is likely, while 46% think it is unlikely, that Iraq will ultimately be an ally of the US.
43% think it is likely, while 56% think it is unlikely, that Iraq will ultimately remain a democracy.
Hagel's surprise 7% showing in a recent Iowa poll might not be that surprising after all.
Labels:
GWOT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
January
(46)
- Rudy: I want to love him
- Eagle lugging a deer head causes outage
- True colors
- Carter
- Billary
- When Greenies and Dems collide
- Deep thoughts from C.S. Lewis
- Mitt Statement on the March for Life
- Wachowski Brothers present: AMSOL
- Carter: Too many Jews on Holocaust Memorial Council
- Brownback responds
- Brownback's stance
- Ru-dy Ru-dy
- If you've ever watched Star Wars,
- Romney updates
- I thought it was Clemenza,
- Stale, male and pale
- The Democratic Response
- Fumare bloggers go off the deep end
- Poll-skewing shenanigans
- Congress
- Underdogs to the fore?
- Keating says nay
- In his own words
- GOP Blogger straw poll results
- Senator Swimtrunks
- Duncan Hunter wins straw poll in McCain's home state
- Putting the "op" back in op-ed
- The BloGlo Hates Romney (surprise, surprise)
- Better late than never
- Tancredo jumps in
- Mitt
- New GOP Blogger Straw Poll
- Can't we all just get along?
- David Frum makes the case for Mitt
- Stem cells, part deux
- Iraq Troop Levels
- They've got him surrounded
- Wanna know what Congress really cares about?
- MSM
- CNN
- More of Romney on the brink
- WaPo Delenda Est
- '08 Candidates - Where We Stand
- Times Shenanigans
- Cent'anni!
-
▼
January
(46)
1 comments:
Does the removal referred to in the poll mean complete immediate withdrawal, or beginning a gradual drawdown process?
The policies should follow the goals, whereas it seems the opposite is happening now. It would be good to hear a clear articulation of the goals in Iraq, what we'd like to see in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years. Possibilities might be: prevent Iran from overrunning; restore oil production to pre-war levels; train 'x' number of Iraqi military / police; have assurances from other countries in the region that they will provide assistance; use Iraq as a base for US troops in Middle East; etc. Then, the # of troops as well as diplomatic/political actions required would be more clear.
To me, it just seems that the goals right now are either poorly articulated or too qualitative. Complete immediate withdrawal seems disastrous, but there should be a clearer enunciation of goals.