The analysis of the poll suggests there is a disconnect between the Bush Administration's view of the reasons for opposition and the actual reasons there is mounting opposition. I would like to see additional analysis of the poll results. Very useful information.

The story is I think an attempt to report fairly on a poll result that is certainly germane, since the Administration constantly characterizes the opposing view in a form of straw man argument. (Just as they have tried to make "cut and run" synonymous with "Democrat," when most Democrats do not favor precipitous withdrawal, and do favor a continuing U.S. military presence in the region.) However, there is a serious flaw in the story. Under the subhead "Bottom Line," we see this said about the 36 percent: "These individuals, most of whom identify themselves as Republicans . . " But, nowhere else in this story are we given statistics to show party affiliations. What percentage of the 36 percent are Republicans? What percentage of ... More »

This is quite refreshing--in lieu of a relatively dry more conventional article, this spells things out. With charts and percentages, this article is effective at giving--and breaking down--respondents' rationals for their views on either side of the issue.

An excellent article in which solid research yielded data more credible than all the biased journalism written to peddle justifications for the war: "So there weren’t weapons of mass destruction; will you believe a war on terrorism? Okay, so there weren’t any terrorists before we showed up; how about spreading democracy?" I have unequivocally opposed the invasion of Iraq from the moment it was announced, believing it to be an un-American war–our country usually doesn't cast itself as conquering hero: "...and they shall strew rose pedals at our feet." In face of administration rhetoric that never matched reality and massive efforts to discredit those daring to voice opposition, there were times I felt alone in the universe ... More »

Free access to this report may expire on 1/25/7. Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Jan. 15-18, 2007. One can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Good questions. I might have preferred that respondents be able to choose more than one reason for opposing or supporting the war, as this makes some reasons look less prevalent than they are. Additionally, it's hard for some people to understand that it's not a third of Americans who think the war in Iraq is stopping terrorists. It's a third of _war supporters._ This sort of thing should be emphasized in break-down studies like this, for people who hate math.

Information based articles have more impact than opinion based articles!!! There may be many caveats with regard to the article and to polls in general , but no on can argue that this is the result of actual data. It suggested to me why the opposing opinions are unable to convince their adversary. The Right has belatedly adopted the position that we must now fight terrorism (a noble cause) because of 9/11 whereas the Left suggest that Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq and the invasion was unjustified. My analogy is the Right is like a base runner who has drifted too far from the base and has been caught by the pitcher, now he must decide to try to beat the throw. The Right cannot wrap itself up in the flag and spout patriotic ... More »

It's reasonably good by mainstream media standards, but it isn't very rich, possibly because the survey items themselves were not more extensive. The best part, I thought, was the effort to characterize respondents' opinions and contrast the war's proponents and opponents - and how their views are similar to or divergent from how the Bush administration tells the story.