War Support in US climbs to 76% (???)

I think a lot of people think that supporting the war and supporting the troops is the same thing.

 

APPROVE BUSH'S DECISION TO ATTACK

The article is fairly direct and specific,

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Thursday night finds more than three of four, 76%, approve of President Bush's decision to attack even though the United Nations Security Council did not support the use of force.

One more time, approve of Bush's decision to attack.

If you stay on BS long enough, you would think that the poll has it backwards, that 80% of the people are against the decision to attack, but you would be incorrect.

 

rally 'round the flag effect. this isn't surprising.

in fact, i'm going to make a bold prediction and say that at the beginning of the next 10 large wars the United States fights, public opinion will surge in support.

 

This is not surprising. Given that we're in there, these results have more to do with execution than principle at this point.

-- News coverage has generally been positive. Most everyone was giddy on Wed night when it looked like we might have killed Saddam with the first hit.
-- Everyone (except the TV network execs) wants this thing over with ASAP.
-- No one wants to see people killed, and the fact we've seen almost no coverage of deaths on either side improves the war's public perception.

If the war drags on and/or there are more casualties, the approval percentage will drop.

 

They just do. I mean, what new information has come out since that time when (roughly) 1/3 were against the war, 1/3 were for it, and 1/3 wanted UN approval? I guess some might argue that the French veto would cause some people to move from my 3rd group to the 2nd. But it's just a combination of rallying around our soldiers, and a feeling of, hey, let's get it over with so the stock market can rebound.

 

Over 40% of Americans also still think Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks according to an ABC News poll from earlier this month, so there ya go...

 

Or...34% of the people who are educated enough to know that Saddam WAS NOT BEHIND 9-11 support the war.

 

Can you say, Bandwagon? Sure. I knew you could.

 

That's exactly right, this country is populated with about 275 million sheep.

 

Once again, another patronizing reaction from a liberal who, because liberal, knows better than the hordes of the ignorant...

 

And...done

 

Just like they was all on the "No Wareace" bandwagon 2 weeks ago. That why I dont give a rat's ass either way.

 

Seriously, Karl, why do you have such an inferiority complex with regards to "liberals"? Did liberals give you swirlies and stuff you in your locker in high school? Did your girl leave you for a liberal? Do you view Hilary Cinton as an unapproachable fantasy goddess? You don't own any black trenchcoats by any chance, do you?

 

I spoke with a couple of friends of mine who aren't too knowledgeable about the issues. They support the war. They believe Saddam was responsable for 9-11. I asked if they knew for a fact that Saddam wasn't responsable for 9-11, would they still support the war. They all said yes. I would like to see a larger poll conducted with these questions. However, I wouldn't necessarily say that most Americans would oppose the war if they knew Saddam wasn't responsable for 9-11.

 

No, it's just that your reaction -- a vituperative loathing of folks who aren't as "knowledgable" -- is quite typical of the liberal contingent in this country. This is why a guy like John Kenneth Galbraith has such an appeal to folks like you -- it's not just the ideas, it's the way they are conveyed.

No, Hiliary Clinton is in many ways just like you in that she thinks she knows better than anybody else what's right for OTHER folks.

 

Sure it's factual, but equally factual is the fact that his tone is contemptuous, patronizing, and condescending.

 

Karl,
But seriously, how can you NOT be condescending to people who are so unaware of current events as to think that Iraqis were on those planes and that Saddam was behind the whole thing? Seriously, doesn't that strike you as dangerous ignorance, especially if these same people's opinions are going to be reported as significant by the press?

There's just no way NOT to talk down to such half-wits.

 

Funny, during the Clinton administration, Conservatives were complaining how dumb the American people were because Clinton was lying about cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. At the time, Liberals were defending the American people. Now its vice-versa. I agree that many Americans are uneducated and uninformed about political issues. I also think both sides have shown hypocricy.

 

Karl, I agree with the good Doctor. It's one thing to be contemptuous of people because they're not aware of the specifics of the inheritance tax. That's snobbery. It's quite another to shake your head at someone who's wrong about who perpetrated 9/11.

 

Quite a shame.

 

Oh please. Look, if someone is acting or believing out of ignorance of the facts, you're doing that person a favor by giving them those facts. If they stubbornly persist in being deliberately and aggressively ignorant what is someone supposed to do? Bow down to ignorance?

In this forum and in "the real world" there is no excuse for not educating yourself on the issues, especially if you're going to spout off on them. In fact, in a democratic country it is exactly your duty as a functioning adult citizen to so educate yourself. If someone can't be bothered to do at least a minimum of such and they wish to then engage in political debate, they can only expect to have their asses handed to them by whoever is on the opposing side. This is as true of conservatives as it is of liberals.

What makes me suspect your real issues are psychological is the fact that you believe that ONLY "liberals" are "arrogant, condescending eggheads" as if all conservatives are just paragons of modesty and avatars of self-effacing "aw shucks", down home Jimmy Stewart humility. That and the fact that you use verbatim the same cliches as every other passive-aggressive pesudo-populist conservative in American history who's ever had an inferiority complex regarding "intellectuals" and "liberals".

Well, Karl, you're just plain wrong and it's as "arrogant" for me to point this out as it is for a grade school teacher to grade his class's exams as if he's some kinda know-it-all big shot who's all superior to his students. In other words, it's not "arrogant" at all to tell the truth and correct people when they are mistaken.

Your accusations are meaningless because they are just as true of "conservatives" as they are of "liberals". I can't think of anyone more arrogant and condescending than a right-wing talk radio host. In fact, that's exactly part of the reason dittoheads love these guys. By providing a forum in which inconvenient facts and reason are not allowed to intervene, they let the ignorant dittohead fulfill his fantasy of beating the liberals intellectual debate and feeling all superior. What was the title of that Limbaugh book again? "They Way Things Ought To Be"? Why, Karl, what arrogance and condescention! How does he know how I or anyone else "ought to be"?

And it's not like conservatives are shy about letting the world know what's best for everyone. If anything the neoliberal free market proselytizers are more than match for even the most rabid religious missionaries in the zeal to tell everyone else what they ought to be doing and scolding whole nations like wayward children when those nations still wish to retain some semblance of political autonomy and freedom from the diktats of the free market kommisars of the WTO and IMF.

During the late 90s the smug triumphalism among the neoliberals was palpable in everything from Clinton speeches to the explosion of management theorists to the TV commercials on CNBC to the flood of neoliberal books and the mandatory genuflecting at the feet of such an economic bumbler as Milton Friedman. "The End of History"? It just doesn't get any more arrogant than that. Even the market setbacks of the past three years have not caused the True Believers to miss a beat in their contstant hectoring for sovereig nations to give up their autonomy to the Holy Market.

So only liberals are arrogant, condescending know-it-alls? Geez, Karl, if you want instant debunking of that notion, please go look in a mirror.

In the meantime, I will continue to call it as I see it and when someone tries to sell me an unsupported story that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 or that the people of 40 countries are rabidly supporting this war, I'm going to call Shenanigans whether you like it or not.

 

Karl, I hope you can re-read this post and note the terrific irony in it.

I have yet on BigSoccer to find anybody who approaches your contemptous, patronizing and condescending tone.

 

Chris Armas' mom is a big fan of it.

 

Could someone provide a link to this poll about Hussein and 9/11?