Democrats Overplaying their hand Again … Poll Says Americans Want Victory in Iraq


As so many times that they have been guilty of in the past, Democrats are once Support_our_troopsagain overplaying their hand and misreading the tea leaves when it comes to what Americans want with the War in Iraq. Democrats have mistaken their midterm 2006 victorious election to mean a retreat from Iraq. No, that is what the uber-left wants … not America.

Not so fast. During the 2006 midterms many Republicans and Independents were upset with how the war was bing handled, not because they wanted to retreat. Many Republicans & Independents were upset by Republican political scandal. Most importantly many Republicans & Independents were upset with GWB’s amnesty immigration policy. However, Democrats have once again misread the signs.

Now comes a poll that says … Americans want to win in Iraq! 

The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.

Most normal thinking Americans understand that a defeat in Iraq would be disastrous to America. Politicians better start thinking what is in the best interest of Americans, not themselves or their political aspirations.

Check out these poll numbers of what Americans are thinking:

  • By a 53 percent – 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.
  • By identical 57 percent – 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
  • Also, by a 56 percent – 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.

Hillary, Barack and the rest of the pull out at all cost Democrats better take a good look. See full article and poll numbers HERE. Stop playing politics with this issue. Our troops and our national security is not to be used for Presidential aspirations.

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Democratic Left Misreading the Torture Investigation Tea Leaves … Terrorists are Our Enemy, not GWB
  • Why Are We Not Surprised, NY Times Attempts to Give Obama & Liberals Shared Victory Credit In Iraq
  • USA Today/Gallup Poll Has Obama Job Approval Rating at 41%, How Low Can He Go?
  • Hey Pelosi and Democrats Take a Look at the Latest Poll Numbers on Troop Surge in Iraq
  • Nancy Pelosi Says Democrats Have Been Strong on Borders “All of Our Borders” … Also Called 9-11 Terror Attack an “Incident” (VIDEO)

  • Comments

    24 Responses to “Democrats Overplaying their hand Again … Poll Says Americans Want Victory in Iraq”

    1. Superg on February 20th, 2007 7:27 pm

      1. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, but with non-existing WMD
      2. The 9-11 Terrorist came from Saudi Arabia
      3. What does victory in Iraq look like anyway?
      4. Supporting troops does not mean support this sitting duck war
      5. The poll was carried out by the The Moriah Group. Check the yellow marks.
      And be honest. Do YOU FOR YOURSELF still believe in victory in Iraq?

    2. Mike on February 20th, 2007 7:35 pm

      Here’s a simple question:

      Do you want us to win or lose in Iraq?

      Seems no left wing democrats can answer this simple question.

      We leave now at best you have a base for Al-Qaeda at worst you have another killing fields.

    3. DennisAOK on February 20th, 2007 7:35 pm

      I am no fan of Democrats, who lacked the courage of their convictions and voted for the war, even after opposing the very justified Gulf War I, but this war was a strategic blunder, one that was highly forseeable. A truly “conservative” administration would have pursued Amarican security interests by seeking a balance of power in the region, and not embarked on a messianic mission to convert a Muslim country to Western democracy, a nearly impossible task.

    4. Scared Monkeys on February 20th, 2007 7:45 pm

      #1 … You mean you do not want victory in Iraq?

      Then you want, what? Defeat? NICE.

      BTW … did you bother to even read the post or is the anti-GWB fevor so cloud your judgement?

      You can honestly say that if a poll was done by any group that asked, Do you want victory in Iraq for US … the answer would not be “yes”.

      You may want to go back to DU and MyDD with the rest of the defeatists.

      Also … Supporting the troops does not mean taking away their funding!

    5. Superg on February 20th, 2007 7:48 pm

      Winning what? There is no winning or losing. There isn’t any army to defeat. So WHAT does a victory LOOK LIKE?
      And is it worth your son?

    6. Scared Monkeys on February 20th, 2007 7:52 pm

      #3 … This issue was going to have to be handled sooner or later. They idea it was never going to appear was nothing more than … not on my watch thinking. Much like what Clinton did.

      I can only imagine how the war on terror would look today if he had actually had the balls to do something after the first Trade Center attack or the Cole. Clinton was too afraid.

      Do I think the Iraq War has been handled well? No. But by the same token I have heard from too many people there, not MSM, a much different story.

      We should have went in there, if that was the approach, guns a blazing and take no prisoners and overwhelmed them. Not this BS “winning the hearts & minds” crap. Obviously we were never going to do that.

      A people who have been fighting since before time, know one thing.

      The answer know is to figure out the next best solution and that is not retreat and emboldening the enemy.

      Unfortunately in the US there are too many people who so hate GWB, they would compromise this country in order to see him lose. Which is truly sick.

    7. Scared Monkeys on February 20th, 2007 7:57 pm

      Supporting the Troops does not mean for the Congress to try and unconstitutionally micro-manage a war.

      Supporting the Troops does not mean cutting off their funding.

      “They ultimately plan to cut off funds for the troops,” the Senate’s top Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, told FOX News on Friday.

      He said Democrats were trying to micromanage the war, and “they want to substitute their judgment for that of Gen. [David] Petraeus,” who was confirmed in January to become the top U.S. military commander in Iraq.

      The Democrats’ top military hawk-turned Iraq war foe on Thursday outlined his plan that would limit the president’s plan to send an additional 21,500 troops into Iraq. Rep. John Murtha’s plan would do so by means of putting training and equipment restrictions on troops that would be sent, as well as requiring troops returning to Iraq to first get one year’s rest before being redeployed

    8. Superg on February 20th, 2007 7:59 pm

      @Scared Monkeys
      Yes I did read the post. It draws quite a number of conclusions out of poll nobody can verify, don’t you think.

      And off course people want some form of victory (no matter what it looks like). Question is: at what costs?

    9. Scared Monkeys on February 20th, 2007 8:08 pm

      Ahh .. No.

      The poll simply says that a majority of Americans want us to win in Iraq.

      Democrats have become the anti-war crowd even more so after the midterms.

      AT WHAT COST???

      Please tell me you do not understand that we will be fighting terrorism forever?

    10. mrs. red on February 20th, 2007 8:22 pm

      Should we just say to hell with New Orleans? I mean after Katrina the murder rate is rising and there is still unbelievable crime. Shouldn’t they have it all together by now?

      Why are we expecting Iraq to be perfect??? If we withdraw and cause the killing fields then we really will have another Vietnam, and isn’t that what so many of the media and liberals want…

      So if we are going to demand that people live “our way” … shouldn’t we demand it of our citizens first?

    11. katablog on February 20th, 2007 8:44 pm

      Isn’t it time for our Senators and Representatives to go back to work and stop the antics just to prove that they hate the Republican President?

      Politics has gotten way out of hand. It’s all about “sides” now. Not about honor, not about sticking together. If we are on the “other” side, we’ll even give aid and comfort to our enemies if it means our political backside.

      It’s time for all Americans to stand up and support the elected leader of the nation, support our troops and get Iraq over with.

      For those that believe Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq: Riddle me this batman, what are all the stories (by the MSM no less) about Al-Qaeda leaders being caught in Iraq?

    12. Scared Monkeys on February 20th, 2007 9:03 pm

      Still waiting for the Democratic plan to win the war.

      Not retreat, pull out and create the killing fields all over again.

      The ankle biters wanted control, well they have it. What ya gonna do?

      Trust me … what you do will be voted on in 2008.


    13. Miss-Underestimated on February 20th, 2007 9:17 pm

      It is amazing that we think that if we cut and pull that’ll be the end of it. The terrorist who live and propogate in Iraq, Iran, Afgan, etc, will come at us here in the US with a vengenace.

    14. Rob on February 20th, 2007 9:39 pm

      Had to come out of hibernation over the comments of number 1 .

      1. Everyone under the sun knows that Saddam Hussein had WMD. How do they know?
      He used them
      ON HIS OWN PEOPLE AND HE WAS HUNG OVER THAT. And according to Barzan Al-Tikriti ‘F the International Community’..his words not mine…Get your facts right… ‘Governments around the World sold them to him, especially the French and Russians while Iraq was under lock down. You can not have Global Security when your allies are stabbing you in the back. Saddam used them, and the real question is, where are they now?

      Russians moved the weapons out during the 14 month ‘RUSH TO WAR”… also an oxymoron… the ‘Rush to War’… LOL.. over 14 months….HAHAHA!! The weapons were moved to the Beccah Valley of Syria. Everyone knows it.

      2. 9-11 happened because of Saudi Arabia’s neglect. Wahabisim is the main problem here. Osama Bin Laden is actually from Yemen, but lived the majority of his life in SA.

      3. Victory in Iraq – A stable Democracy. What’s so hard to understand here? Why don’t you dummys get it?

      4. If the next President is a Democrat will you still say that there should be no support? I highly doubt it. Then it will be the greatest challenge ever imaged. Success will be right around the corner.

      5.Who gives an F ?

      Let me remind you.. Kennedy got America into the Vietnam War (and rightfully so IMO), Nixon ended it.

      If you think that Democrats have a better plan, prove it already. Simply talking to Dictators does nothing and puts us all at danger.

      I hear nothing!

      overall summary.. #1 is some sort of socialist / communist and dangerous.

    15. Scared Monkeys on February 20th, 2007 9:40 pm

      Suddenly by those on the Left Saddam should have been left alone because they claim he has no ties to Al-Qaeda and killing and raping his own people is some how OK.

      Yet when the Left talked of the Shah of Iran, he was somehow an evil man that the US should never have dealt with who controlled his people with an iron fist.

      Hmm … damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t. To those on the Left GWB could have discovered the cure for cancer and those that hate him would say what took you so long and why didn’t you use stem cells in your work.


    16. Rob on February 20th, 2007 9:49 pm

      Tied to Al-Qaida?

      Abu Nidal….it’s a fact…killed by the Iraqi Republican Guard right before the war started in his own home. check it out. He lived in Iraq for over 10 years.

    17. Rob on February 20th, 2007 9:53 pm

      meant to say ‘ties’ instead of ‘tied’… one letter makes a world of difference.

    18. Scared Monkeys on February 20th, 2007 10:16 pm

      #17 … It all depends was “is” is … ;)

    19. Rob on February 20th, 2007 10:25 pm


    20. joe bear on February 20th, 2007 10:32 pm

      It depends,do you want a nuclear war,just pull out.It will happen,quickly.The government of Isreal,will not tolerat iran’s programs.Turkey will take the northern 1-3 of Iraq to control Kurds and Iran will gobble the rest.I can not think of a postive ending,for anyone,if we leave.

    21. Bodo on February 20th, 2007 11:22 pm

      I think this “Associated Press-Ipsos poll” shows that the majority of folks are perplexed and uncertain about what to do:,4670,IraqPollMethod,00.html

    22. tuyvnsurvivor on February 21st, 2007 1:34 am

      I would like for some responsible media to run a poll asking how many think a war, or actually this national effort, should be ran by polls? Some of the questions in polls are well place to polarize those of the many of us, who do not ‘want’ any war…lot of things we “want” that have no chance. To, radicals run to take these polls, more average citizens do not go after them like a evening liqour.

      I have no idea why we need stratigests, weapons designers, generals, soldiers, political representation. And then stupid enough to let network news, fronted at times by a falling actor, run ‘do you really loooove war polls’ to out-influence them all. Should polls be weighted in value for the sum total of live brain matter…per yes or no? Oh sure that is a rediculous question. So let us run national stress situations with the plentiful weakest minds, whimps, and the combined evening news, which not only sells us a program, but tries their damnedest to include their own importance by ‘making’ news.

    23. kay zee ess on February 21st, 2007 8:41 am

      Of course we as Americans want our troops to be victorious against our enemies, in this case the forces of tyranny(Sadam et al) and a highly fanatic, psychotic religious ideology, in this case the extreme Islamic cults that threaten not only us but the Muslims that do not share their idiotic slant of the religion. We call them, appropriately, terrorists.

      It is just a shame that Donald Rumsfeld was so unqualified and inept for the position he held.

      In my opinion, he either didn’t have a clue of what to do or he willfully understaffed and underequipped(remember the cocky quip, paraphrasing “you fight with what is given to you” when the GI asked him about more armor) our troops so there would be no real gains made against these cretins. I do think that had a REAL military man been installed earlier instead of Rumsfeld, we would not be in the situation we are now.

      A fourteen year old child was brutally gang-raped and she and her family, including a 3 YEAR OLD shot dead in cold blood and burned and we see fit to only give the perpetrators 90 years? Great. Please remember, these men ARE NOT GIS, but criminals that dirtied the uniform they wore. It would have done much to the honor of our troops and good will towards the legitimate government of Iraq that, the evidence being indisputable, these pieces of debris either be handed over to Iraq for trial, or our military exact the sentence that is so deserving of this abominable crime. There is no doubt that would have helped our image there as being just.

      Also, the borders being wide open for the terrorists to waltz through these past going on 6 years didn’t show any form of seriousness on either the Republican or Democratic side to protect our nation. That is stupid to the point of gross neglegence.

      As much as you like to compare the parties as one being better than the other, it took a bipartisan effort to jazz this up to the point where it is now.

      Should we work our way to Iran, I would hope and pray that we have a better road map than the one Rumfeld sold us.

    24. ndc on February 21st, 2007 12:00 pm

      The same poll, which POS conducted for the Moriah Group, indcated that 67% of those polled (81%caucasian,82% over the age of 45, 59% moderate/liberal, 42%college+) believe that things (pollster’s word; non-defined) in the country have gotten seriously off track (67%), totally disapprove of the job George Bush is doing (60%), 51% totally disapprove the job Congress is doing, and believe the U.S. should hold talks with Iran regarding the Iraq situation (63%)Doesn’t sound to me like anyone is very happy. With a 3.5% margin of error plus or minus, I wouldn’t consider a 57% in favor of finishing the job a mandate, particularly considering 60% totally agree that Iraq will never become a stable democracy.

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It