Well duh. It's only news in the way that it is spun to paint Iraq as a unwinnable 'quagmire'.

Conducted by the Center for Peace and Global Studies... Hmmmm. I just wonder how many of those 700+ 'randomly selected' respondents were in front line units and how many were on FOBs in support jobs. Because if they wanted to paint a certain picture, all they would have to d ois ask the right people. Of course, they don't tell us who those people are...

Tough decision, touch situation. Hopefully we'll see some unprecedented diplomacy for positive change.

According to the poll 90% of the troop in Iraq think the war is in retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11.

This is amazing.

James, are the soldiers just plain stupid or are they being mislead by their superiors?

"James, are the soldiers just plain stupid or are they being mislead by their superiors? "

Or do they know more about it than we do...

Ken, why do I see that your question to James about our soldiers is almost the perfect Question ask about Liberals?

Ken:

90% of troops thinking the war in Iraq is retaliation does not extend to 90% of them thinking Iraq had a role in 9-11. Theres a big difference.

Are you just plain stupid or what?

Ken, it is good to hear from you. It is refreshing to know there is no subject on which you are not prepared to take a negative positon on.

90% of troops thinking the war in Iraq is retaliation does not extend to 90% of them thinking Iraq had a role in 9-11. Theres a big difference.

Hmmm.... you have a point. But it is not very complimentary of our leadership is it?

If they are thinking that Bush led them to retaliate against Iraq for 9/11 even though they know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 then that would explain why Bush is overwhelmingly despised by the good people in our military.

Do we have to go back and point out the shortcomings of the poll methodology all over again?

Bush is overwhelmingly despised by the good people in our military.

Care to elaborate?

Most military has been in and out of the Gulf so many times in the last two decades that they know the war started in 1990. Just because the press ignored it for most of a decade, does not mean it was not happening...
Ever heard of MEQ? They surrendered to US 25km NE of Bagdad.
Those were not the only terrorists based in Iraq prior to the fall. The smart ones left via Iran/Syria.

LJD, you have to bear in mind that Ken is reserving to himself the right to define the phrase "good people in our military." Remember that and it will all make ... er, sense.

Do y'all read the comments, or just go "ah, it's Ken" & write something at random?

Text from Zogby:

While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

Ken asked a reasonable question (& I think it's pretty clear he thinks the soldiers are being misled, not that they're dumb).

There's an alleged fact that is quite remarkable.

And none of you has anything intelligent to say in response?

It's a shame that OTB's commenters are so far below the level of its posters.

Too many tours not enough relief ... Asking a soldier in war if they want to stay longer than a year? Asking soldiers if they are serving so 9/11 doesn't happen again? Its a BS poll.

...existing polcy....

Precisely, though you'd never hear them and make that. And you'd certainly never see them print it.

Anderson, not being capable of information dissemination and critial thinking, you're NOT a very good lawyer are you? Or, maybe you're a pretty GOOD lawyer attempting to defend your 'client's' misunderstanding.

Look carefully at Ken's words:

'Iraq is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11.'

This is a far cry from Saddam being involved in 9/11.

So you say that they believe the war is to stop Al Qaeda in Iraq. Well, yeah. What's the problem here other than it going against your belief system?

So it is your assumption that the troops have been 'mislead'. Or in other words, they are stupid, incapable of deciding for themselves. Thanks for your support.

When are you lefties gonna get over the fact that you're wrong all the time?

You get to the point of defending Ken, then you need to stop and think about how far you're willing to go wearing a tin-foil hat...

LJD, please display your vaunted reasoning skills in distinguishing the following 2 phrases:

"Saddam's role in 9/11"

"Saddam's being involved in 9/11"

If I got up in the sleepiest of sleepy Mississippi trial courts & tried to distinguish these two phrases, as a matter of ordinary usage, the judge would wonder what I'd been smoking.

And in federal court, the judge would probably make me wish I hadn't gotten out of bed that day.

If you're going to condescend so, then not looking like an ignoramus yourself is an important first step.

You're placing too much stock in the wording of the question. Keep in mind this is a poll, and we don't know how the questions were asked, or who was asked (protected for 'security reasons'). I'm not willing to spend $19.99 to learn more about it.

There are inherent problems in verbal communication where a question was asked and an answer was recorded. It was not a written question and response as we see here. There is a BIG diffference. It leaves a lot of assumptions about how the respondents received and interpreted the question.

Basically, you're highlighting the wrong words. Try placing emphaisis on 'retaliation'. Believing you are retaliating for 9/11, is not cause and effect for Saddam's involvement in it. To put it more simply, they can belive they are being ordered to retaliate, they can think their Commander in Chief belives Saddam had a role in 9/11, but that does not go to say that they belive Saddam had a role in 9/11.

For f-sake, this is a poll, and a sloppy one at that. Oh yeah, and it was conducted by the LaMoyne Center for Peace and Global Studies. No motives there whatsoever.