I'm not sure that I would count those as people who "to see Iraq dealt with without a war". Well in a sense it might be technically accurate to place them there but it is also misleading, as the implication is they don't want war but they are supporters of the war.
Casting nets is what interpreting polls is all about. The point, as originally framed, was about having "Iraq dealt with without a war." From the direction the wind is blowing your net it may seem misleading but it seems to me that there is a very clear distinction between those who support the war (or who support the President who wants the war) and those who really want war. Heck, once the war starts, I will "support" it, too, as will most Americans who don't want it.
From the way the wind blows my net, I, like Friedman, think there are few out-and-out hawks out there. The only one I know personally sent me an email the other day saying he has become a convert to isolationism.
Look at these poll results. Look at how many favor the war. Then look at how the numbers drop when people are asked whether they still favor war if various things happen, like people die. My point is not the absolute numbers. My point is that at least some of the alleged support seems mindless of the notion that people die in wars. Like, duh! How can a person answer that they favor the war in one question and then say that, no, they don't favor the war if anyone dies? Brain dead, they must be. Tim, the number of people who favor the war drops by two percent if thousands of IRAQI SOLDIERS die, for heaven's sake. I'm hard pressed to consider anyone who is not willing to support a war that kills Iraqi miliary a "supporter" of the war.
zogby.com |
