CNN Poll: War casualites when war started?

[Dawgs]

Why is the YES number so high(75%)?

Are there really that many people out there that thought the numbers would get this high? Is it Republicans trying to downplay the casualtie totals, or is it Dems voting to inflate the numbers? I really don't remember anyone thinking the death toll would get this high.

or, maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

http://www.cnn.com

[LiberalVoice]

1. Well considering Cheney said it would take...

"6 months at the most" to liberate Iraq and spread democracy who knows.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Surprising. The war was supposed to be a cakewalk.

In and out in a short time.

[Ian David]

3. 27% didn't know Brown People could fight back

Or, they mistakenly thought our troops would go to war with the army they needed or wanted...

When the war in Iraq started, did you believe the U.S. would suffer so many casualties?
Yes


73%

164068 votes
No


27%

60752 votes
Total: 224820 votes

[stillcool]

4. weird....

i can't imagine anyone thinking we'd be where we are today, regardless of their pre-war thinking. Its as if they're saying they knew that thousands upon thousands were going to be killed, and they're okay with that.

[Igel]

5. The projected numbers were all over the place.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=63 gives a hint at it:
"Will the deaths number in the hundreds, as was the case in Desert Storm and as would be again if Saddam collapsed like a cheap umbrella? Or will they be closer to the 10,000 to 50,000 some experts have predicted? And is Saddam the clear and present danger that would justify asking our sons and daughters to give up their lives for their country?"

I think 3k or so was the usual number bandied about, at least it's the one I remember. But that was for the 'cakewalk' that the media decided it should be and derided when the troops got bogged down in the extended quagmire that was the seige of Baghdad, not the insurgency that wasn't expected widely. It's one thing to say that there were those that were right on any given point, but another to say that those were the one's judged most likely to be right by most people at the time. Those that were right didn't get much airplay, or taken seriously. That frequently happens.

The plan was also that it would take longer than it did to see Baghdad fall, that they'd attack through Turkey, and that many 100k refugees would go streaming across the border, that the Iraqi army and bureaucracy would be preserved intact. The UN set up large refugee camps that were closed a few months later when virtually nobody showed up.

So much for plans. And projections.

[edbermac]

6. I voted yes; I knew the Boy King would turn Iraq into a Vietnam.

:grr:

[meganmonkey]

7. Am I looking in the wrong place? I see this question:

(which is a horrible question, IMHO)

Should Wal-Mart design jobs to attract healthier workers?
Yes
No

[long_green]

8. If they had said it would take this long

and cost this much in blood and treasure (do not forget the total # of Coalition casualties), if they had the foresight to know what might happen and the inclination to tell us the truth, support for this tragedy/fiasco would have plummeted.