Posted on 12/22/2003 7:48:33 AM PST by Zechariah11
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:11:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Americans believe 2-to-1 that going to war in Iraq was the right decision, rejecting Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's assertion that military action was wrong and should not have been taken, according to a national survey.
A poll of 1,001 adults conducted during three days last week for the Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs found increasing support for President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq, suggesting that Mr. Dean's antiwar views may be losing support just weeks before Democrats begin choosing their nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
What's really great is that Howard Dense is sticking to his plan A and going with his anti-war, anti-Bush schtick.
This is gonna be Gore(y) as hell for the Dims, and I will love every minute of it.
Don't be fooled by imitations; accept no "No" substitutes!
A poll of 1,001 adults conducted during three days last week for the Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs found increasing support for President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq, suggesting that Mr. Dean's antiwar views may be losing support just weeks before Democrats begin choosing their nominee.
The former Vermont governor has said from the outset he would not have voted for the congressional resolution that approved military action, and in a major address last week to explain his foreign-policy views, Mr. Dean said his "position on the war has not changed."
"The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time," he said.
The AP poll found that Americans by a substantial margin believe war was the right course of action. Sixty-seven percent said the Bush administration made the right decision in going to war with Iraq.
Sixty-three percent of respondents said they approved of the president's handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism, a jump from the 54 percent who expressed such views earlier this month. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points.
Notably, seven in 10 Americans said they believed the war was an important part of the battle against terrorism, and not a distraction from that effort, as Mr. Dean and other Democratic critics have charged.
The poll also found that 49 percent believed the war in Iraq had made future terrorist attacks in the United States less likely, compared with 40 percent who said more likely.
This finding seems to run counter to Mr. Dean's belief, expressed in his foreign-policy address, that "the capture of Saddam [Hussein] has not made America safer."
Jay Carson, Mr. Dean's chief spokesman, dismissed the AP poll, saying that "the governor has never based his foreign policies and decisions on polls."
"He believes, as do many, many others, that the United States is not safer today than we were before Saddam Hussein was captured.
"Let's not forget the reason that we went to war: stopping an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction that have not been found or proven," Mr. Carson said.
Mr. Dean drew support from the liberal wing of his party earlier this year when he began attacking Democratic rivals who had voted to support Mr. Bush's intention to go to war.
Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who backed the war resolution, are all trailing Mr. Dean in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests and in the national party's preference polls.
Mr. Dean's opponents have been attacking his opposition to the war, saying it raises doubts about his judgment on national-security issues. Mr. Lieberman has taken to calling Mr. Dean "Dr. No" and is telling Democratic audiences that if "Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a much more dangerous place."
The Democratic Leadership Council, one of Mr. Dean's most vociferous critics, also has been attacking Mr. Dean's statement that Saddam's capture was unimportant in the war on terrorism.
"As the details of Saddam's reign are systematically recounted in the days ahead, we should all be reminded that his removal from power was, and remains, a sufficient reason for coalition military action in Iraq," the DLC said in a memorandum last week.
"Saddam Hussein was Iraq's No. 1 weapon of mass destruction, and his arrest represents a major victory for human rights and international law," the centrist-leaning group said.
Saddam's capture "vindicates those Democrats ... who took the politically difficult course of supporting military action to topple the tyrant."
"Lest we forget, had those who opposed the war gotten their way, Saddam would still be in power, would still be tormenting the Iraqi people, would still be financing Palestinian terrorists, and would still be threatening peace, human rights and democracy along with America's vital interests in the Middle East," the DLC said.
While deftly forgetting what the President actually said, a quote which could easily be "Googled" by a three year old, but not Mr. Carson or Mr. Dean, apparently.
The only "quagmire" is the the self made one that Howie is quickly sinking into.
The last two weeks I've seeen Clark shift from being totally against the war to suggesting he would have done it differently.
Why watch Clark?
Because, I believe the mainstream Democratic leaders and consigliores will not allow Dean to win the nomination. Thus, I expect to see strong attacks against Dean in the upcoming weeks. I further expect Dean to win in New Hampshire but to lose in Iowa. Moreover, while conventional thinking says Gephardt would reap the benefits of this, I see Kerry and Clark gaining the most.
The Dem party race isn't over. I will bet that Dean collapses after winning New Hampshire thus opening the door to Clark.
Suck on that, Democrats!
Reality Check: However, just to play FR devil's advocate a bit, (and before anyone flames, think through what I am saying), something worries me that a lot of 21st Century Americans are now no more than "good time charlie" fair weather friend Americans at that.
Their support for war in far away places and doing the right thing, especially when it is TOUGH and LONG TERM, seems conditioned heavily by stunning, sudden, melodramatic victories. Everyone loves a winner....don't get me wrong, I welcome this. But it could be short-lived, and I hope not. (If) we once again start taking casulties in Iraq/Afghanistan--I hope not--and notice a big dip in the flag-waving and public opinion polls going down as they increasingly did in the May to December period, I worry and wonder, and it should not be this fickle. How deep is the American commitment to victory in the face of difficulties? I only wonder because it seems more conditioned and more tentative of a national sentiment of our American characteristic, than, say, 40 or 50 years ago. In many ways, it is a very short term, impatient, video game, soundbite, flashed images, docile and fickle America nowadays--and I hope that would change and we would get behind our boys, victory or defeat either way. I hold the negative, antiAmerican press responsible for a lot of this. They get on the bandwagon whichever way the wind blows...they know the American people want VICTORIES now near Christmas since they have begun to taste it, and the press suddenly starts shifting to a "positive spin". Don't fool yourself...they could just as easily move back to nay-saying and cynical, if there were major attacks against our troops or a major terrorist attack here. That is the level of their crass reporting and spinning, IMHO. And I think Joe Sixpack Sheeple, instant-victory/instant-gratification, impatient cultural thinking could then resonate on this further. Again, I HOPE NOT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.