Posted on 10/29/2003 3:31:51 PM PST by blam
Support for Bush ebbs away because of growing violence
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
30 October 2003
The growing violence in Iraq and America's apparent inability to deal with it are eroding public support in the United States for the occupation.
A poll released yesterday suggests support for war has plunged since spring, when Saddam Hussein and his regime were ousted. The Gallup poll published by USA Today revealed that 52 per cent of Americans think the war was "worth it", compared with 71 per cent back in April.
With the election campaign gathering pace, such polls are a worry to White House strategists who had been counting on a swift and successful military operation in Iraq - something initially achieved - to cement and even boost the popularity of President George Bush.
After a spate of deadly and co-ordinated attacks, including a suicide bomb on Monday at the offices of the Red Cross in Baghdad, there is a growing realisation that such assumptions were misplaced.
That prompted Mr Bush to hold a press conference at the White House on Tuesday, during which he sought to present a positive spin on developments in Iraq and assure voters that America was standing firm. Aides said he had been planning such a press conference for several weeks, but after meeting his senior staff in the Oval Office early on Tuesday he decided to bring forward his address to the public.
Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, told The New York Times: "At these moments of testing, where the terrorists try to create chaos and fear, where they want America to blink, it's very important for the American public and the Iraqi people to hear that we are resolved to see this through." He added that the President's role was "to put it into context".
Reports suggest even senior Republicans are becoming concerned at Mr Bush's performance in selling the war to the public, wincing at his suggestion on Monday that the latest violence was a sign that "the more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react".
The Democratic presidential candidates have used the failure to secure the position in Iraq to attack Mr Bush, realising that could be the best chance to beat the President, especially if the economy continues its steady recovery.
Howard Dean, the Democrats' front-runner, said: "This President seems to lack the necessary leadership skills required to do what is necessary to successfully stabilise and reconstruct Iraq before the window of opportunity closes."
The Gallup poll also suggests that the problems in Iraq have affected the public confidence in Mr Bush's ability to deal with other "big problems".
Wow! What a statement! The author doesn't have any bias, does he.
Sure, there is some erosion of support for our efforts in Iraq, but only among those who never took the war on terror seriously, who believe that George W. Bush is more of a tyrant than Saddam Hussein, who believe that surrender is preferable to victory, and/or who think that serious problems can be solved in sixty minutes just like on TV.
------------------------
It's a repeat or close parallel to what happened in Viet Nam. We control the parade grounds and our propaganda machine, but we don't have control of the enemy or the countryside. We don't even admit the enemy is Islam.
By RALPH PETERS -- NY Post 10/29/03
October 29, 2003 -- LET'S leave the phony pieties and hand-wringing to the presidential aspirants and celebrity journalists. Here's the truth:
* Thirty-six dead in a series of suicide bombings in Baghdad? The chump change of strategy. Cold-blooded, but true.
* Another American soldier killed in a roadside bombing? Every lost service member matters, but at the present casualty rate it would take 15 years for our dead in Iraq to surpass the number of Americans butchered on 9/11. Better to fight like lions than to die like sheep.
* Iraq another Vietnam? Hell, even Vietnam wasn't the Vietnam of left-wing baby-talk politics and campus political astrology. Our Vietnamese enemies represented a mass movement. The Iraqi terrorists represent a small, bloodthirsty movement to oppress the masses.
* Did Operation Iraqi Freedom create terrorists? No. It terrorized the terrorists. Now it's flushing them out of their hiding places. We'll be killing and capturing them for years. But that's the only approach that works.
* Has the War on Terror made Americans less safe? Despite the dishonest claims of Democratic presidential hopefuls, the answer is an unequivocal "No!" Where is the evidence that we're in greater danger now? Where are the terrorist attacks on our cities?
In this war, the only measurement that matters is the absence of attacks. Since 9/11, our government has taken the war to the terrorists and kept us remarkably safe.
* They'll attack America again and prove the War on Terror was a failure. Bull. Oh, we'll eventually be hit again. No counter-terror effort will ever be 100 percent effective. But if Terrorist No. 500 gets through, it doesn't mean there was no value in stopping the first 499. The proof of our success in this war is the undisturbed routine of our daily lives.
* Isn't there some way to stop the attacks in Iraq? Not in the short term. We face those who wish to turn back the clock, in some cases to the days of Saddam's rule, in others to a primitive theocracy. Our enemies are fanatics in the truest sense of the word. Every one we kill is a service to humanity.
* Doesn't the continuation of the attacks mean our approach is flawed? No. There's no magic bullet. This isn't a movie. It's a deadly, long-term struggle for incalculably high stakes.
And there is no rational, responsible alternative to persevering. The only disastrous choice we could make would be to give up.
* How long can the Iraqi terrorists maintain this pace of attacks? We don't know. The Iraqi terrorists themselves don't know. But we should be encouraged, not discouraged, that the best they can do is to ram a few suicide wagons into public buildings. They're not overrunning our troops. They're desperately scraping up all the suicide drivers they can. It's only surprising that they've been able to find so few.
* Do the Iraqi people support the terrorists? No. The Iraqi people just want to live in peace - without Saddam. They don't want our troops to stay forever, but few want us to leave tomorrow. The terror attacks will keep reminding them why they don't want the old regime back. What should we expect in Iraq? Imperfect results. It's an imperfect world. But even a partial success in establishing basic human rights, the rule of law and some form of democracy would be an unprecedented triumph in the region.
* Why are so few nations willing to help us? Because many political leaders want us to fail. Because the United States has returned to its original ideals, supporting freedom, self-determination, the rights of the individual and simple human decency.
Our example terrifies every one of Iraq's neighboring governments and infuriates the Europeans - who long profited from their political love affairs with dictators, even as they damned America for similar behavior.
We have taken a stand for freedom. And freedom still has few friends in this world.
THERE is only one way in which the situation in Iraq resembles Vietnam: Our enemies realize that they can't win militarily. This is a contest of wills much more than a contest of weapons. The terrorists intend to wear us down.
Our enemies are employing media-genic bombings to leap over our soldiers and influence our political leaders and our elections - just as the Vietnamese did. The suicide bombers themselves are deluded madmen, but the men behind the terror campaign calculate that, if they can just maintain a sufficient level of camera-friendly attacks, our military successes and all the progress of our reconstruction efforts will be eclipsed by a mood of dejection in Washington.
If the terrorists turn out to be right, the butcher's bill in the coming years and decades will be vastly higher than the casualty count in Iraq.
These people are such fools. the election is a year away. An eternity in politics. If the situation gets worse, or stays as is for months and months, then this is a valid point. I doubt this will be the case. By next summer, the Iraqis have a government, they're providing more and more of their own security and GIs are coming home. What effect do you think the image of the 4th Infantry Division in a NYC ticker-tape parade will have. And the DOW over 10,000. Hell, throw in Saddam's capture or death and Daschle will commit suicide.
This is a contest of wills much more than a contest of weapons. The terrorists intend to wear us down.
It's interesting that the Democrats and their friends in the media are working toward the same end as our terrorist enemies in Iraq.
What are we doing in Afghanistan?
It's a quagmire.
It's just like Viet Nam.
Why don't we go after Saddam Hussein, he is clearly more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden.
When Afghanistan was sufficiently stabilized Bush then turned his attention to Iraq.
What are we doing in Iraq?
It's a quafmire.
It's just like Viet Nam.
Why don't we go after North Korea, they are clearly more dangerous than Saddan Hussein.
Bottom line: The world is too dangerous a place to trust our national security to Democrats.
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.