I agree with you 100%. The problem is the liberal/anti-war voice is the only voice that is heard by the mainstream today becasue MSM is virtually only reporting their side of the issue. There are no moderate voices. If the people were faced with the statements you listed, there would be a general concensus. But who will put such statements out there and then who would report the results without a biased spin. (See comment #8 for an example)

To be polite - bull poopy!

In most of the races where a Republican was defeated by a Democrat, the vote was very close - 53% to 47%, 51% to 49% - hardly a clear message at all! You only have to look at Joe Liberman as a perfect example. There probabaly isn’t a more ardent supporter of the war and Bush on the Democratic side than Joe, and he won his election without even having the support of his own party!

The polls are always suspect, but the is a message from thsi election. What do I think the people were trying to say? I think they are confused and divived, and don’t know who to trust to keep our solders out of harms way and WIN this effort.

I’ll bet most of them agree with the following:

1. Saddam may not have been as eminent a threat as we thought at the time, but it’s *good* thing that he’s gone.
2. We botched the war stategy, and continue to even today by not going full blast.
3. We failed to correctly anticipate what would happen between the factions when Saddam’s iron fist was removed.
4. Maybe some new voices in congress can shape this outcome better.
5. We don’t want to abandon Iraq. We want a stable country. It does not heve to be like our democracy, or even a democracy at all. It merely needs to be a responsible member of the world community, and not support terrorism.

That’s actually pretty sad. Seeing as Iraq is tiny compared to Vietnam, why should anyone think this? Vietnam didn’t cause us to lose the Cold War.

http://www.pos.org/

They are a Republican polling firm. The thing about polls is that one needs to see a bunch of them to get any idea of what the trends are. One poll tells us nothing. And of course, the only polls that matter are on election day.

Partisan polling firms have a place, but they exist to test out party strategy and party lines, not to provide information as to what the public wants. It’s like those Democrats who cited Harold Ford’s internal polls as proof that he was going to win. Internal, partisan polls are not reliable.

In the real world, then, the situation remains the same: most Americans do not like this war, they realize we cannot “win,” and that Bush seeks America’s defeat: because the more we stay in Iraq, the worse Iraq gets; ergo, Bush wants America to suffer a worse defeat.

Republicans are the party that wants America to be defeated and humiliated (by staying in Iraq and making things worse), while Democrats, the serious national-security party, want to salvage something from this mess.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

And watch just about any ‘war’ show on the History Channel and you can see that mistakes correlate with the sun coming up in the morning. Although I saw this at least a year ago I’ll never forget the German soldiers at Omaha Beach describing the sound of bombs exploding 1/2 to 1 mile BEHIND them. The aviation commanders were so concerned about friendly fire that they TARGETED not the bunkers the Germans were using but well behind them. The troops storming the beach had no air support and thousands were slaughtered.

If citing “Bush’s mistakes” is a way to keep the half of the Democrats that still want to win the war on our side that’s a price that Bush simply has to pay. The history books will be far kinder. I was told by a Democrat that history books will lead on the topic of the Iraq War with the intelligence debacle/WMDs. I followed up by asking him if the Tonkin Gulf incident similarly defines the Vietnam War. He, like most Americans, had no idea what the Tonkin Gulf incident was.