Another poll, but telling

In the latest Fox News poll, just out today, the pollsters asked the following question:
Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
Here are the results:
Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know
Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know
Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know

Even though we have some 150,000 troops in harm’s way and we universally profess to “support the troops,” over 1/3 of our society either wants them to fail or doesn’t know if they want them to succeed. Even more chilling are the results regarding our currently dominant political party. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.

[Tchocky]

It's a needlessly politicised question, bad polling. The question brings in personal views on Bush as opposed to asking clearly defined questions about Iraq.

Even though we have some 150,000 troops in harm’s way and we universally profess to “support the troops,” over 1/3 of our society either wants them to fail or doesn’t know if they want them to succeed. Even more chilling are the results regarding our currently dominant political party. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.

You're falling for it, too. Personally, I'd prefer to see another plan succeed, because I believe Bush's plan will make things worse rather then better. So what hole do I punch? It can only be No or Don't Know.

I'm not surprised at Fox, though. This is rather insidious.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It's a needlessly politicised question, bad polling. The question brings in personal views on Bush as opposed to asking clearly defined questions about Iraq.

You're falling for it, too. Personally, I'd prefer to see another plan succeed, because I believe Bush's plan will make things worse rather then better. So what hole do I punch? It can only be No or Don't Know.

I'm not surprised at Fox, though. This is rather insidious.

OK, if I see another plan I can discuss its value. Unfortunately I haven't seen this 'other' plan. Perhaps you have. Please enlighten me. I'm open to the possibility.

[bradclark1]

Maybe someone should ask the new commanders what their ideas are.
To some the poll probably means "Should we send more troops over to Iraq"? What exactly is Bush's plan anyway?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by waste gate

OK, if I see another plan I can discuss its value. Unfortunately I haven't seen this 'other' plan. Perhaps you have. Please enlighten me. I'm open to the possibility.

I wasn't discussing the plan itself, I was using it to show how ther poll is biased. Someone, like me, who believes that Bush's plan would make things worse, would naturally select No or Dont Know. As we can see from the first post, they can then be unfairly labelled as wanting to lose the war. It's a dangerously slanted poll,

Why did you put other in quotation marks?

B/C I am looking for 'another' plan. 'Other' than the current Bush plan. prferably from a policy maker.

Are you still looking for one (an other plan) Tchocky?

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

B/C I am looking for 'another' plan. 'Other' than the current Bush plan. prferably from a policy maker.

Ah, so you don't know what Bush"s plan is either besides tossing in another twenty thousand troops that the generals did not want. I think a good plan would be to make Iraqi's do their jobs. I think that has been brought up quite a lot. Sounds like a plan to me.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Ah, so you don't know what Bush"s plan is either besides tossing in another twenty thousand troops that the generals did not want. I think a good plan would be to make Iraqi's do their jobs. I think that has been brought up quite a lot. Sounds like a plan to me.

That plan works for me. I'm looking for someone else to give another.

Like I said I'm open to other plans, I just haven't heard one that makes sense visa vis cut and run.
(re-deploy)

[Skybird]

Instead of
"Do you think the troop boost will succeed in what it intends?",
they ask
"Do you want our troops to fail?".

Reminds me of myself having said: "Iraq cannot be won for this and that reason", and people attacking me, saying "Skybird hopes and wishes for America to fail."

Suggestivfrage (leading question) this method of manipulation is called. Tells everything one needs to know about that poll. Oh, Fox News, you say? Okay, that explains all.

The German TV and print/online medias that I scan refer to other American polls regularly, once or twice a week. General mark: two out of three Americans doubt that Iraq will be successful (no one talks of victory anymore, even Bush has given up that phrase), or that a troop boost is helpful and desirable. Two longer TV docus since X-mas in German TV referred to field commanders saying: "This is far too little, and comes far too late."

Are all these Americans wishing that they hopefully will fail? Hardly. But a sense of realism finally seems to gain the upper hand over blind emotions. The one who thinks he can decide in a state of emotion, is wrong - he gets decided.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Instead of
"Do you think the troop boost will succeed in what it intends?",
they ask
"Do you want our troops to fail?".

Reminds me of myself having said: "Iraq cannot be won for this and that reason", and people attacking me, saying "Skybird hopes and wishes for America to fail."

Suggestivfrage (leading question) this method of manipulation is called. Tells everything one needs to know about that poll. Oh, Fox News, you say? Okay, that explains all.

The German TV and print/online medias that I scan refer to other American polls regularly, once or twice a week. General mark: two out of three Americans doubt that Iraq will be successful (no one talks of victory anymore, even Bush has given up that phrase), or that a troop boost is helpful and desirable. Two longer TV docus since X-mas in German TV referred to field commanders saying: "This is far too little, and comes far too late."

Are all these Americans wishing that they hopefully will fail? Hardly. But a sense of realism finally seems to gain the upper hand over blind emotions. The one who thinks he can decide in a state of emotion, is wrong - he gets decided.

Again what is the 'other' plan?

I'll give you the poll is flawed, like all others. But is cut and run the best plan and in the best interest of the US? Perhaps if you lived during the Carter presidency.

[Bort]

Like I said I'm open to other plans, I just haven't heard one that makes sense visa vis cut and run.
(re-deploy)

It's not cut and run, its not sending any more troops into the meat grinder, which is what Iraq has become, both in terms of human lives and the readiness and effectiveness of our military. I think that the time has come to face up to the fact that the US has done all it can, and all that remains is to determine how many more US, UK and other coalition soldiers will die before we finally buckle down and make the only real decision there is to make and leave. What I would advocate is a massive infusion of military equipment for the Iraqi army and a phased withdrawl with remaining coalition troops concentrating almost exclusively on training the Iraqi military. Its the worse possible choice, aside from all the others...

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Bort

It's not cut and run, its not sending any more troops into the meat grinder, which is what Iraq has become, both in terms of human lives and the readiness and effectiveness of our military. I think that the time has come to face up to the fact that the US has done all it can, and all that remains is to determine how many more US, UK and other coalition soldiers will die before we finally buckle down and make the only real decision there is to make and leave. What I would advocate is a massive infusion of military equipment for the Iraqi army and a phased withdrawl with remaining coalition troops concentrating almost exclusively on training the Iraqi military. Its the worse possible choice, aside from all the others...

The so called "meat-grinder" you describe as Iraq has "ground" less than 1% of all coalition forces deployed. I think there is what now, 3,200 deaths in how many years?? Thank God you people weren't around in 1942. Thank God this media was not around during the Battle of the Bulge, Midway, Coral Sea, etc.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I'll give you the poll is flawed, like all others. But is cut and run the best plan and in the best interest of the US? Perhaps if you lived during the Carter presidency.

The other plan? Wastegate, I have said it often enough, I think, that imo the attack already was the one deciding move that lost the match. What you do is like asking for how one could score more goals in order to finally win - after the referre has already whistled off the match. what is left for you now is this: think of the human interests of your men and women being there, and not wasting their health, life and psychological integrity and cause suffering to their families at home. Act in the interest of them - the Iraqi's interests are already beyond your reach. And the strategical interests of your country has been delivered the biggest and most serious blow since many, many decades. For that you better hold your president and the people behind him responsible, not me, or Europe or anybody else.

So, the other plan is this: save your fellow countrymen from being wasted headlessly - for innerpolitical interests of the parties only. There is no more price you could win in Iraq. It's over. The aftergame party will be organised by Iran, and others - and you Americans are not invited.

Really, I don't want to attack you with this my opinion, or attack America, or flame the Iraq issue again, so let it rest. I mean it serious what I say and feel for the men and women you have send there. I never had a quarrel with the soldiers you have send - only with your politicians and economical leaders. Your troop's lives get wasted, for party interests only. Bring them home, and learn from the mess Bush has created. The strategical costs of this folly will be felt for decades to come.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The so called "meat-grinder" you describe as Iraq has "ground" less than 1% of all coalition forces deployed. I think there is what now, 3,200 deaths in how many years?? Thank God you people weren't around in 1942. Thank God this media was not around during the Battle of the Bulge, Midway, Coral Sea, etc.

Great point Sea Demon!!! Yet I haven't heard another plan from these folks.
I will now assume they have none, and their opposition to the current Bush plan is their politics. Not' what is best for the US.