Polls: Opposition to Syria strikes on the rise

Polls: Opposition to Syria strikes on the rise
By Aaron Blake, Published: September 9 at 12:29 pm
Two new polls shows public opinion is increasingly stacked against the White House’s push for military action in Syria, with about six in 10 Americans now opposed.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll, 59 percent of Americans say Congress should vote against even a limited “use of force” resolution — one that would restrict the window for action to two or three months and prohibit any “boots on the ground.”
A USA Today/Pew Research Center poll, meanwhile, shows opposition to the use of force increasing from 48 percent last week to 63 percent today.
In the CNN poll, about seven in 10 say both that military action would not have a significant impact and that it is not in the national interest.
One area in which the White House is succeeding is convincing people that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people. While some in Congress and the international community have expressed a desire for more conclusive proof, eight in 10 Americans say they believe that’s a true statement.

The Pew poll shows opposition to military force increasing especially among Republicans. While last week Republicans were pretty evenly split on military action — 35 percent in favor, 40 percent opposed — they now oppose military action 70-21.
Opposition also rose significantly among political independents, from 50 percent to 66 percent.
A majority of Democrats remain opposed, though the split is similar to what it was last week.
The new polls echoes other polling from last week that showed Americans more opposed to than supportive of U.S. military action in Syria. A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed people from across the political spectrum are opposed to the idea.
A new Gallup poll shows the many reasons why people are opposed — with the most popular being that it’s not something that concerns the United States.
As of right now, the resolution appears to face an uphill battle in the House, with most members either opposing it or expressing skepticism.
This post has been updated with the Pew numbers. It was originally posted at 8:48 a.m.
Aaron BlakeAaron Blake covers national politics at the Washington Post, where he writes regularly for the paper’s Post Politics and The Fix blogs. A Minnesota native and graduate of the University of Minnesota, Aaron has also written for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and The Hill newspaper. He joined the Post in 2010. Aaron, his wife, Danielle, and his dog, Mauer, live in Northern Virginia. Follow him on Twitter at @AaronBlakeWP.

Obama endorses Cory Booker for Senate

Justice Department will challenge Texas Voter ID law

Report: Filner will resign as part of deal

McCain: “It is time” to assist Syrian people
« PREVIOUS NEXT »Heitkamp is sixth Senate Democrat to oppose Syria resolution
By Aaron Blake September 9, 2013 Lawmakers head to the White House to plot strategy on Syria
By Juliet Eilperin September 9, 2013
17 Comments
CommentDiscussion Policy | FAQ | About Discussions
Comments LiveSort:

vk5u
9/10/2013 9:11 AM PDT
So when Obama suggested striking Syria, who supported him?

Did the American people? No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/…

Did Congress? Not likely.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/09/10/obam…

Did the international community? Not even close.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2013/09/06/obama-fails-get-global-consensus-syria-strike/OsrbiNBHqXOn7Wttr0QSQJ/story.html

So the idea of striking Syria CAME from the WH – Barrack Obama and his minions, and was supported by virtually NO ONE.

Big win for the WH today.
LikeLiked by 2 readers · Reply · Share · Report Abuse

PRRWRITER
9/10/2013 7:33 AM PDT
Has anybody taken the time to consider what has happened in Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and now Syria?

BO and Hil have supported “Democratic” revolutions in each country. The outcome was the opposite.

1. Minorities (Christian, Muslim, etc.) have been slaughtered,, beaten, raped publically (in broad daylight) and their places of worship, education, hospitals, businesses & homes destroyed, They have been subjected to Sharia Law with respect to appearing in public unmasked, education, employment, etc. and all semblance of a free and democratic government denied.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda have pulled off a NAZI style putsch with all the trimmings for all minorities aided and abetted by BO & Hil

Only a 2nd revolt by the Egyptian people supported by the Army reversed the picture despite the threats by BO to withhold humanitarian aid.

The horror of all this is we the people have stood idly by and let it happen including Syria. Of the 37 revolutionary groups 30 are aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.. Who does OB-nazi go after – NOT THE SAME FOLKS WHO HAVE KILLED, MAIMED & WOUNDED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. I NOW BELIEVE THE GAS ATTACK WAS A SET UP TO BLAME THE EXISTING SYRIAN GOVERNMENT
Like · Reply · Share · Report Abuse

birchbank
9/10/2013 3:57 AM PDT
Although Assad is a monstrous miscreant for mass-murdering many of his own civilian people with chemical weapons, there is the problem of self-escalation, of sinking deeper into a greater military involvement (just as what happened in the quagmire of Iraq) if we retaliate militarily, because Assad’s regime seems to be stronger than that of other Mideast dictators toppled during the “Arab Spring” uprisings (unlike say Libya where it was clear that with a little military help from the US and our allies, the rebels could topple Gaddafi’s tyrannical regime).

Also, there is the issue that if Assad were overthrown, an anti-American militant Islamic regime would take over, such as pro-Assad and anti-American, anti-Israel Hezbollah.. or a Sunni terrorist faction involving al-Qaeda. But many Americans, from liberals to right-wingers, are sick of costly US involvement in wars and military entanglements.

So this is a complex issue and NOT a political or partisan one (that is, debating from conservative or liberal viewpoints), but rather a common-sense concern of getting into another military quagmire and/or fostering militant Islam, vs a humanitarian one of trying prevent further civilian mass-murders, as individual Repubs. and Dems in Congress show varying positions within their own parties.

Putin pens NYT op-ed urging ‘caution’ in Syria

[Right now, Putin is more credible than the elitists Obama and the Council on Foreign Relations.]

Putin pens NYT op-ed urging ‘caution’ in Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s op ed in the New York Times blames the Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, for chemical attacks as world leaders will meet in Geneva to discuss a potential Syrian chemical weapons disarmament. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. By Becky Bratu, Staff Writer, NBC News Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unusual direct appeal to American readers, lashed out Thursday against “alarming” military intervention and said it was “extremely dangerous” for the United States to see itself as an exceptional nation. Putin wrote an Op-Ed for The New York Times titled “A Plea for Caution from Russia.” He warned that a military attack on Syria by the U.S. could unleash terrorism, increase violence and further destabilize the Middle East. “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States,” Putin wrote. “Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it.” Former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta tells TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie that the New York Times op-ed piece written by President Vladimir Putin is the Russian leader’s effort to weaken the U.S. Advertise | AdChoices He continued: “Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us.’” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said the Obama administration was not surprised by Putin’s words and suggested the United States did not need to be lectured on human rights and democratic principles. “The fact is that Russia offers a stark contrast that demonstrates by America is exceptional,” he said. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on NBC’s TODAY that Putin was trying to hurt American resolve. “He was trying to, in his own way, weaken the United States and the effort to negotiate these issues,” Panetta said. Putin said that Syrian rebels, not the government of Bashar Assad, had used poison gas. He said that the rebels were trying to provoke intervention by their “powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.” Of Russia’s support of Assad, Putin wrote that he favored a “peaceful dialogue” under the provisions of the United Nations Security Council. “We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law,” he wrote, adding that any kind of military strike — even a limited one, as the Obama administration has argued for — would cause civilian casualties. Force, he wrote, is allowed under U.N. rules only for self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council, and anything else constitutes aggression. The Russian president listed countries in which the United States has intervened in the past — including Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq — and said that force had proved pointless there. “In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes,” he wrote. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Op-Ed carried “implicit threats” and described Putin as gloating. “One gets the sense that the vodka and caviar are flowing rather heavily in the Kremlin these days,” he said on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.” In Syria’s case, Putin emphasized, the two-year conflict is not a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between the regime of Assad and an assortment of “enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government” with the assistance of foreign weapons. Putin’s appeal, went which live online Wednesday night, came a day after Obama addressed the country in prime time, announcing that he would put off a military strike and work with Russia, China and American allies to get Syria to give up its chemical weapons. Russia reshaped the Syria crisis by proposing two days ago that Syria could try to avoid an American attack by handing its chemical weapons over to international control. But there are signs that Russia will complicate such a process. On Tuesday, Russia blocked a resolution crafted by the United States, France and Britain that would have called on Syria to turn over the weapons and threatened U.N. military enforcement. Putin said he welcomed Obama’s interest in continuing the dialogue on Russia’s proposal — but not before he cautioned against the case of American exceptionalism he said Obama made in his Tuesday speech. “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation,” he wrote. The White House had no official response to the piece, but one senior administration official said Putin needs to follow words with action. “President Putin has invested his credibility in transferring Assad’s chemical weapons to international control, and ultimately destroying them,” the official told NBC News. This story was originally published on Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:41 PM EDT

 

no war on syria