YouGov and Huffington Post just published a poll of 1,000 adults in the United States, conducted August 26, 27. The summary result is no to providing military assistance and no to any obligation to prevent chemical weapons use in the conflict. These results are remarkable in and of themselves. However, the overwhelming belief (50%, see question 5) that the Syrian government was responsible for the attacks makes the public judgment against intervention all the more remarkable.
Will President Barack Obama heed the will of the people? Probably not, that would be setting a dangerous precedent. The risk Obama and the Republican amen chorus take in going forward with the punitive air strikes is significant in this Post-Snowden world.
There may be a definitive answer as to who actually perpetrated the chemical attack. If the strikes take place and it turns out the Syrian government is the proven perpetrator, that’s one thing. If the strikes take place and it turns out that the near “100% certainty” professed by the administration was nonsense, then there will be a heavy price that the administration will start paying immediately.
Previously, there was a plurality support by the public for the use of the U.S. military in the case that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. The public favored some action by 45% to 31% in April according to a Pew Poll.. That appears to have changed if YouGov is right at 31% 39% no to an obligation to act even if chemical weapons were used.
The political calculation on a U.S. military strike must take into account current approval levels for the president and Congress. Obama’s political capital is low with negatives over positives — and the positives are all below 50%. Congress is at an all time low of 8% approval. Why wouldn’t Congress take the lead in opposing the strikes?
The White House, aggressive on the need for unilateral military action, and Congress, less adamant, are both in high risk positions if the strikes take place.
Those who criticize the American public for ignorance or submissiveness need to wake up to the new reality, which has been in place for some time (see below). Citizens of the United States are making rational decisions based on their experience of past propaganda efforts, particularly the WMD lies before the Iraq invasion of 2003. Give the people just enough information and they will make a good decision.
END
Addendum:
The American people say no to Syria attack
Just because we voted doesn’t mean we have much of a say in how the govt. operates or doesn’t. That’s been proven so many times just this year alone it’s scary and sad.
If voting mattered, they wouldn’t let us do it. I forget who said that but I agree with your point.
Maybe I’m an optimist but there is a point at which the b.s. doesn’t go down anymore. They tried Libya in Syria and didn’t get their “no fly zone” attack approved. Now they’re grabbing an oldie, the invasion of Iraq, the apogee of what started with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It’s not working – the grab and pitch is off the rails. The close and the take won’t happen. What will the Money Party do next?
“What will the Money Party do next?”
Maybe run our own False Flag or get the Israelis to do it for us – if they haven’t already?
I think they’re going to take a scalding bath on this, the Money Party boys. There’s no appetite, it’s a distraction from the woes we face, and lots of people know the deal with Iraq WMD.
There is good news, however. The Agonist is Global in a big way. About 20% of our traffic for the last 4-5 days is from the UK, NewsNow.co.uk, the UK’s news aggregater, and a very fine service. Thank you NewsNow!!!
How many of these UK people are US expats?
A friend of mine way back, 70ish, had a variation of that quote.
‘If voting would make a difference it would be illegal.’ That was a long time ago and he would have a sign for all candidates on his lawn. He was also a government researcher and felt he had more influence with his ‘reports’ than he had with voting :}.
We need more like him. Having every candidate’s sign gets around open campaigning since it’s for everybody. LOL
So British gov is pushing back. Cameron is not getting his way.
The US will be on its own.
Britain is not on track, wow! There may be some sanity yet; but Obama seems set to go ahead anyway. Why?
I think false flag has already been run and not everyone is buying in. Coalition of the ‘we want Assad out’?
If the US cannot even get the UK on board what are they thinking world opinion will be? The French will make noise anyway and fly the colonial flag; they don’t forget easily :(.
Perhaps the bs isn’t going down with that spoon full of sugar. Putin must be grinning and Mary Poppins drinks vodka.
Wow, one thing the UK did right! Very surprised.
The KSA seemed to want to sway Russia http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
But Russia said nyet.
http://prorevnews.blogspot.ca/2013/08/russia-threatens-saudi-arabia.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+prorevfeed+(UNDERNEWS)
Take it as it is; sources are questionable.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of Obama’s support for the use of military force by political affiliation. I’m guessing more Republicans support him on this than Democrats or Independents!
[…] Along with the Republican leadership, they’re ignoring the strong opposition to any attack by citizens in both parties and […]
[…] Along with the Republican leadership, they’re ignoring the strong opposition to any attack by citizens in both parties and […]
[…] Along with the Republican leadership, they’re ignoring the strong opposition to any attack by citizens in both parties and […]