Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Majority Of Democrats, Republicans Agree With Obama Decision, Poll Finds

As the Republican presidential candidates prepare to debate foreign policy in South Carolina Saturday night, a new poll shows that three in four Americans support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Seventy-seven percent of Americas approve of President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw troops by the end of the year, according to a new CBS News poll, including 63 percent of Republicans.

Just 17 percent of Americans disapprove.

The poll follows on a Gallup poll earlier this month, which similarly found that three-quarters of Americans support the decision to withdraw troops.

In that poll, 96 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents, and 43 percent of Republicans supported Obama's decision.

At an event in South Carolina earlier this week, Michele Bachmann sharply criticized Obama's troop withdrawal decision.

"As President, my decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or Iraq would be based on military considerations and not on turns helping my personal political fortunes," she said, according to Patch.com's Greg Hambrick.

Bachmann's speech was interrupted by Occupy Wall Street protesters.

"You capitalize on dividing Americans. Claiming people that disagree with you are unpatriotic socialists. And you promote discrimination. This does not help the American People," they stated.

Comments

[RTIII]

11:10 AM on 12/04/2011

"Seventy-seven percent of Americas approve of President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw troops by the end of the year, according to a new CBS News poll, including 63 percent of Republicans."

A similar number would have approved if he had done it a month after being sworn in.

[jscratz]

05:26 AM on 11/30/2011

This war had nothing to do with 9/11. That was a convenient excuse.
THIS IS WHY AMERICA WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ:

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

[MasterKat]

11:44 PM on 11/13/2011

The withdraw was decided upon by Bush. America agreed to it, it's a good decision. Done deal. And, yes, the American public's opinion on a 10 year war should also merit some consideration. That's one of the best aspects of politics-- public opinion finally matters during the election cycle.

[scooter1]

10:52 PM on 11/13/2011

Of course. But once again Republicans said they wanted to stay in Iraq. They also said they want to invade Iran. of course they dont say anything about how they'd pay for it.

[dharmadhatuzoo]

01:40 AM on 11/14/2011

They would pay for it with tax cuts, obviously.

[scooter1]

09:21 AM on 11/14/2011

Thats what I dont understand about the debate moderators. Every time a Republican brings up some cockamamie idea like tax cuts, war in Iran etc. the moderator should immediately ask how they would pay for it.

[omega777]

09:02 PM on 11/13/2011

too bad the leaders and corporations don't

[sophiajim]

08:54 PM on 11/13/2011

The big thing that the two side agree on is the dems say the right is stopping every thing that could help the country now and the right agrees with that

[Jimbo2001]

10:19 PM on 11/13/2011

And of course, you libs have fun with your lies. The right is merely stopping those things that will continue to hurt the country even more than it was hurt during the 18 months democrats owned the presidency and the entire congress. But, because the dems still control the presidency and the Senate, we are unable to go much beyond stopping the bleeding.

[sophiajim]

12:38 AM on 11/14/2011

Lies, what about the 350 filibusters in the Senate since Obama Got in. If Obama's plans are so bad why does the house and the repubs in the senate stop them. With the filibuster the senate is not controled by the dems. The house and the repubs in the senate have stopped things that they was for just months before . Get some real facts

[sposton]

04:26 PM on 11/13/2011

I'd like to see a survey of Americans which asks the following question, "Do you think it was worth spending a few trillions of $$ in Iraq war?" ;-)

[Jimbo2001]

09:10 PM on 11/13/2011

You should ask that question of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi who are free now, not subject to murder, rape rooms, and torture.

[scooter1]

10:54 PM on 11/13/2011

Why? It wasn't Iraqi taxpayer money; it was American taxpayer money.

[SonOfUgh]

04:22 AM on 11/14/2011

Yes, ask them if they prefer things now that their homes and businesses have been destroyed, that their government is unstable and could quickly shift to something just as, if not more, tyrannical than Saddam's, that bombs go off weekly somewhere in their cities killing even more of their people. Yes, ask them.

[carbar4647]

03:50 PM on 11/13/2011

Leaving a thankless people in a thankless war is a good idea. Iraq will be back to the same situation it has been in for the last 1000 years. Good riddance. It is heartbreaking to remember the human lives, our soldiers, that were lost for nothing. We will never learn.

[Jimbo2001]

02:42 PM on 11/14/2011

My wife was born and raised in South Vietnam. At age 15 the socialists took over, after we deserted them because the dems cut the funding. Wife's father said, 'Don't worry, how bad can it be?" It didn't take long for them to figure it out, as cars, jobs, and food disappeared. A year later, he tried to help my future wife escape. She was caught and placed in prison, where her parents had to bring her food, clothing, and bedding or she would have died. When she was finally released, after months of interrogation and "re-education" which made waterboarding look like checkers, she was not allowed to go back to school, because she was a 'traitor'. Three years later, her family managed to escape. They spent four days like sardines on a fishing boat, and finally ended up on a tiny island off of Malaysia, where they lived for 9 months before a family sponsored her family to come to America. If you are really befuddled ino thinking it is wasted effort to fight these people, you need to talk to my wife. SHE HAS BEEN THERE, AND CONSIDERS YOU ALL TO BE TOTAL FOOLS.

[wildbill654]

02:42 PM on 11/13/2011

Whadda u know!!!!
Something that Congress can agree on!!!!!
As this was a"no bainer" and at least 80%+ of the people in the U.S. agree it's not too much of a start, but at least it's in the right direction. Obviously, the 10-20% that dis-agree are either defense contractors or others making money off Iraq and a few that don't know we are there.(course they don't know where they are either)
(the above covers the Republican candidates)
(I am not pleased with Obama, but he does know where both Iraq and Afganistan are and the next move should be get outta there)

[Mikesfreedomblog]

02:39 PM on 11/13/2011

The sad fact is that some tin-pot dictator will rise up to oppress the Iraqi people , based on his reliance on Sharia Law. We had no business there to begin with, and there were no WMD's which were a threat to the United States!

[vigoddess]

02:12 PM on 11/13/2011

So why are the Republican candidates, running for the presidency, for going
to war with Iran?? Or China as the next enemy of democracy? The next
enemy of democracy is the Bag party that took this nation down to the
level of being a third class country, with a two class system. That puts
us on an equal level with Haitii?? Hey, we all respect making money to
have a better life, enough food, a stable roof over our heads, movie money,
and a vacation once a year, but if the Republican party or the Dems
support going to war, they should be the first ones to go and serve the
nation for a change and earn some of the money they get paid for
doing nothing. Credo being - you pay for what you get. If we are not
getting service, regardless of what political party you are in, when
the majority speaks, you have to shut up and listen to the people
for a change.

[grover2hb]

02:19 PM on 11/13/2011

I'm not so sure the majority is sane enough to listen to, but you go ahead and follow.

[vigoddess]

02:36 PM on 11/13/2011

You are right, but it's the majority that is responding to the occupy movement
because it took 8 years for the two class system to become a fact. It's why
the occupy movement is filled with educated protesters. Many with master,s
doctorates, law degrees, and they are going after corporate greed and the
God is Money Club people, based on issues - and teh political system that
has to change by taking the money out of buying government. and the law.

[Jimbo2001]

12:03 PM on 11/14/2011

Interesting commentary. "The majority is (not) sane eough to listen to". Then who is sane enough? You? Obama? Your attitude is what has led to dictatorships since time immemorial. Why don't you just cut out the middle man and move directly to Venezuela, or Iran, or Cuba, or Vietnam?

[AkaFidelis]

02:07 PM on 11/13/2011

The tragedy of Iraq was that, while Congress jumped on the patriotic bandwagon, the investigative media was silent--not enough questions were asked--no debate was raised. And yes, Democratics did warn of an increasing danger from Iraq, but ultimately, most of the world was not with GWB as he made his case and as he built up our forces over there for months prior--war was a foregone conclusion with no waiting, no inspections--and look what happened. The whole thing was unnecessary--lengthy UN inspections would have verified there were no WMDs, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, et al said no--"We choose war." They then proceeded to trash that society and to destabilize the whole region.

[Jimbo2001]

09:30 PM on 11/13/2011

Liberal lies would be cute, if they weren't so tragic. You have probably forgotten, since MSNBC lies about it, that before we went to Iraq, the Democrats were chiding President Bush for not freeing the Iraqi people sooner. You've also forgotten that Hussein (the other one) was refusing to allow UN inspections, and was claiming he had WMDs. Also, when we went to Iraq, it was with the biggest international coalition the world has ever known.

[photobug90802]

01:01 AM on 11/14/2011

You better go check your facts, the big international coalition was under George's daddy with Powell at the helm. George Jr had a heck of a time pulling together a coalition.

[AkaFidelis]

04:09 AM on 11/14/2011

Yeah, Poland sent 194, Australia 2000, England 48,000, US 148,000. Sorry, but the world's biggest coalition happened in WW2 between the US, Russia, England, Canada and Australia et al. And, Saddam DENIED he had WMDs and he invited inspectors in at the last minute--but too late. And, Bush was only in office for 8 months and mostly on vacation before 9/11. Then, we went to Afghanistan first. Free the Iraqis?? The entire war was premised on WMDs. The freedom slant was not what sold the war to Congress, Jimbolaya. You are so brainwashed, there is no point.

[anilimili]

02:01 PM on 11/13/2011

Well, gee, wow... (not...).
About time the Rep agree on SOMETHING rather than be so invested in reflexively opposing anything brought up by Obama that they have distanced themselves from the rational public long ago. Of course, it doesn't hurt that they are getting to feel a bit squeezed with having to come up with something they are actualy FOR rather than only saying what they are NOT for. Elections are coming up, so they need to figure out some form of stuff they agree on. About time, too. If anyone's to blame for the continued difficulties of these past three years it is the repeated and reflexive refusals of the Rep party to do ANYTHING--being a whole lot more invested in seeing Obama fail than in having the country move forward.
The ruse is up. Now lets see them actually come up with solutions.

[vigoddess]

02:18 PM on 11/13/2011

Don't hold your breath.
When someone keeps doing the same thing over and over again without
worrying about consequences or if anyone agrees or disagrees with them,
it's a sure fire bet they have enough to retire ten times over and do not
care what the majority of the country thinks. It's like the wild west all over
again, and we need a posse, called the Dept. of Justice, to find out
why a pledge to one man is more important than people who vote you into
office? We need answers to that.

[anilimili]

08:46 PM on 11/13/2011

Not holding my breath... ;) Don't worry. I'm not THAT enamored with the Reps sudden ability to agree on something... As a group, these elected Reps don't have to worry about putting food on the table, they don't have to worry about healthcare (other than to worry that they might need to actually 'share' their healthcare with others who are not able to get any health coverage becuause of the way insurance companies are set up and the laws that enable them to discriminate at will). They don't want anyone messing with their wealth (or their stock options...say...in said health insurance companies...). Nope, they are not interested in what the 'common person' in the country thinks; or in what they ran for. They are interested in getting more political clout within their little groups and in finding ways to lie their way into an elected seat again, so that they can do nothnig for four more years.

[Mark Wesly Mason]

01:55 PM on 11/13/2011

The troop withdrawl is way over due, BTW we should be out of Afganistan too. We went in there to hunt down Bi Laden and that has been done, why are we still in that country? We CAN NOT contenue to build these nations and keep our country in a perment state of war, the people here at home will not tolerate it. That way of thinking flys in the face of our countrys moarals and values, if our leader don't do anything about it, the people will.

[vigoddess]

02:28 PM on 11/13/2011

look on a map and you will see the neighbor to Afghanistan is the problem Iran went to
war with Iraq when Bush Senior was president, and the situation with Pakistan is the
fact they have nuclear weaponary. Ted Kennedy gave them that when he crusaded for
them as an under dog, when India was buddy buddy to the Soviet Union.
So, it's not so much the terrorist scene, but more to keep Afghanistan an ally, which
will never happen. These countries are filled with fanatics and war lords. They sell
for the biggest price, and turn on a dime. It's a pandora's box actually.

[truthnolies42]

01:36 PM on 11/13/2011

I guess michelle has a problem with the bush administration, since the one responsible for the exit of troops from Iraq is they, who had a law passed, so Obama really has no choice. As for Afghanistan, a look at history should give a thinking person some clues. Obama had to get bin laden, since bush wouldn't. What is left? Who knows, since even bush went to war without any idea of what was the objective.