A Washington Post-ABC News poll was released today. The WaPo summary is here. However, an interesting detail in the full polling report:

14. Do you support or oppose legislation that would set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring?

            Support     Oppose     No opinion
7/21/07       55          43             2

15. (IF SUPPORT, Q14) What if setting a deadline for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq (ITEM)? In that case would you support or oppose setting a deadline?

7/21/07 - Summary Table

                                     Support     Oppose     No opinion
a. increased the chance of Iraq going
into a full-scale civil war              65          32             2
b. increased the chance that Al Qaeda
could establish terrorist bases in Iraq  60          38             3

So, based on the Q15 summary table, which certain browsers might have some trouble seeing, 32% of those who support withdrawal would oppose it if it led to an "increased..chance of Iraq going into a full-scale civil war" and 38% of those who support withdrawal would oppose it if it lead to an "increased...chance that Al Qaeda could establish terrorist bases in Iraq."

Thus, while 55% of Americans support a forced timetable in the abstract (according to this poll), only 36% (55 x .65) would back a deadline-withdrawal if it heightened the risk of a civil war, and only 33% (55 x .60) would back a deadline-withdrawal if such a withdrawal increased the likelihood of Al Qaeda forming terrorist bases in Iraq. (This poll doesn't say how many would support a deadline-withdrawal if they believed it could increase the chance of both a civil war and increased terrorist bases.) So this poll might suggest that, in addition to reporting concrete advances in Iraq, the president might improve his chances of gaining public support for staying in Iraq by convincing Americans that a deadline-based withdrawal would lead to an increased chance of civil war and terrorist bases in Iraq. Of course, some argue that we are exacerbating both risks by being in Iraq (and some seem to back leaving Iraq even if this withdrawal does lead to civil war or genocide), so maybe withdrawal might not, in fact, increase those risks (and, even if Bush could establish the risks as likely, some would still not be convinced to stay). Just a point of political analysis...