First, I find these A's, B's, and C's to be too difficult to keep track of, so I will be using the following from now on:

W16 = A = "to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months"

Wf = B = "to withdraw from Iraq as the facts on the ground permit"

Wp = C = "to withdraw from Iraq in strict compliance with a campaign promise"

To show my claim, I need only show that the polling data do not conclusively demonstrate that the American people want W16 and only W16 regardless of any facts on the ground in Iraq, and that the polling data do not conclusively demonstrate that the American people do not want Wf. If some of the polling data suggest that the American people do want Wf, so much the better for my claim.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll of June 26-29, 2008 does not show that the American people want W16 and only W16. It shows that the American people would "rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office" than "keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there."

The Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI on June 18-25, 2008 does not show that the American people want W16 and only W16. It shows that the American people believe that "the United States should bring most of the troops home from Iraq in the next year or two" given the alternative of "wait[ing] until Iraq is relatively stable, even if it takes four years or more." From this we can begin a list of facts on the ground that would not disqualify Wf. That list now consists of "relative instability in Iraq, especially if it would persist for four or more years."

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll of June 19-23, 2008 does not show that the American people want W16 and only W16. It shows that the American people are of the opinion that "the United States [should] withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or ... begin bringing troops home within the next year" instead of staying "for as long as it takes" to achieve an undefined win. Add "U.S. does not win in Iraq" to the list of facts that would not disqualify Wf.

The ABC News/Washington Post Poll of June 12-15, 2008 does not show that the American people want W16 and only W16. It shows that the American people think that "the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there." Add "civil order is not restored" to the list of facts that would not disqualify Wf, but note that a not insubstantial 41% do want to stay until civil order is restored.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R) on June 6-9, 2008 does not show that the American people want W16 and only W16. It shows that a narrow plurality holds a view that is closer to the claim that "the most responsible thing we can do is find a way to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009" rather than to the claim that "the most responsible thing we can do is to remain in Iraq until the situation in the country is stable." This is a particularly poorly worded poll, since it does very little to probe what the American people actually think is the most responsible course of action in Iraq. This poll could be very similar to asking people whether they would rather lose a hand or lose an eye. If a plurality says they would rather lose a hand than an eye, then it is still entirely inappropriate to conclude that most people want to lose a hand. Certainly, most people would prefer not to lose either, and might well chose another option were it offered. From the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll we cannot conclude that the American people think that the most responsible thing we can do is find a way to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009. An unknown number may be of the opinion that both options offered are irresponsible, or that they think an unmentioned option is the most responsible course of action.

The CBS News Poll of May 30-June 3, 2008 does not show that the American people want W16 and only W16. It shows that the American people would be "willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq" for less than one more year (42%) or for between one and two years (21%).

The USA Today/Gallup Poll of March 13, 2008 does not show that the American people want W16 and only W16. It shows that the American people do not want to "withdraw troops as soon as possible." It shows that they want to "set a timetable for gradual withdrawal." It also shows that the American people believe that "the United States ha[s] an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops." I count that one as polling data suggesting that the American people do want Wf, where "not establishing a reasonable level of stability and security" would disqualify Wf, withdrawing as the facts permit.

[split]

That takes us back through June, and I don't intend to track the polls back any further. What we have is 1) no polling data showing that the American people want W16 and only W16; 2) no polling data conclusively demonstrating that the American people do not want Wf; 3) polling data from the ABC News/Washington Post Poll and the USA Today/Gallup Poll suggesting that at least a substantial minority and perhaps a majority of Americans do not want W16 if not Wf, where the fact on the ground that would disqualify withdrawal is a lack of a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq. We also have a list of facts that the American people are willing to accept in Iraq while withdrawing most troops: 1) relative instability in Iraq, especially if it would persist for four or more years; 2) the U.S. does not win in Iraq; 3) civil order is not restored in Iraq. What the distinction is that makes a lack of a "reasonable level of stability and security" unacceptable while a lack of "relative instability" or "civil order" is acceptable isn't clear from the available data.

Also unclear is just which facts on the ground would disqualify Wf and which would be acceptable; however, I don't think you can credibly argue (and certainly not from the available polling data) that the American people want W16 and only W16 regardless of any facts or policy alternatives. For example, I find it impossible to believe that the American people would insist on withdrawal within 16 months and only withdrawal within 16 months, even if U.S. troops could be withdrawn with substantially greater security if the withdrawal took 17 months. In other words, there are potential facts on the ground which all but certainly would cause Americans to choose Wf over W16, even if it is not completely clear what the extent and limits of those facts are. The situation is something like the apocryphal tale of George Bernard Shaw asking a woman if she would sleep with him if he paid her a small amount of money. To her "certainly not!", Shaw replied with a question as to whether she would sleep with him for a substantial sum of money. When she paused, he is said to have replied, "We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling over the price." The insistence that the American people will accept absolutely nothing except withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months is not credible, and there may yet be considerable haggling over price if W16 cannot be accomplished free from some of the facts that might disqualify Wf.