Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Support For Bush Ebbs Away Because Of Growing Violence
Independent (UK) ^ | 10-30-2003 | Andrew Buncombe

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".


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; ebbs; support; voilence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

1 posted on 10/29/2003 3:31:51 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
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.

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.

2 posted on 10/29/2003 3:41:28 PM PST by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I think it was a good day for Lincoln if he only lost a 100 soldiers. Imagine if we had the kind of idiot patience back then.
3 posted on 10/29/2003 3:45:59 PM PST by ingeborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam
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.

------------------------

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.

4 posted on 10/29/2003 3:49:51 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ingeborg
I've thought of that often. Imagine if you had told the commanding officers that they would lose 100 at Guadacanal, or Iwo Jima, or storming the beaches at Omaha. They would have said "Only 100? Man, we must be living right."
5 posted on 10/29/2003 3:53:37 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RLK
We know it but just don't broadcast it. Get with the program.
6 posted on 10/29/2003 3:53:49 PM PST by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Yeah, I see what you mean. Three or four hundred dead in Iraq is just exactly like 58,000 dead in Vietnam, taking the capital city of Baghdad in 3 weeks is just exactly like never taking the capital of N. Vietnam, a war that goes on for a few weeks with six months of reconstruction so far, mopping up dead-enders-- yup, that's just exactly like what, 12 years in Vietnam, with several of those years losing hundreds of Americans a week.

Amazing that I never saw all of the obvious parallels before. Thanks for your tremendous insight!
7 posted on 10/29/2003 3:57:09 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ingeborg
Speaking of Lincoln, the 1858 debates he had with Stephen Douglass lasted something like six hours -- two hours each to present their positions, and one hour each for counterpoint and rebuttal. Today's voters have no patience for such lengthy consideration of issues. Besides, a televised debate which goes longer than 90 minutes might infringe upon "Joe Millionaire."
8 posted on 10/29/2003 3:57:22 PM PST by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
I am sick to death of these polls. There were more people, unfortunately, killed in the World Trade Center than in Iraq. I think that the liberal media, and the wannabes of the demo party should remember this, and should shut, up and stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
9 posted on 10/29/2003 3:57:55 PM PST by mom-7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Clearly, many in the media and in the leftist enclaves of American politics were deeply disappointed that we didn't lose thousands during the actual war itself. They're still licking their chops for massive US casualties. They speak in deep tones of concern, but their glee at the prospect of "quagmire" makes them positively orgasmic. They love the prospect of American defeat so much that they even exaggerate the bad news coming out of Iraq.
10 posted on 10/29/2003 4:01:03 PM PST by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ingeborg
I recently heard James Brady (the writer) talking about just that. He was saying we really need to get past the national mourning for the one or two soldiers killed at a time. He told a story about coming home from Korea on a train. He came into Grand Central and they were unloading the coffins from the last couple of cars. They were stacking them up three or four high...and there had to be 50-60 of them.

Dont get me wrong. I think it is a shame that ANYONE has to die in a war--on either side. But, we need to get past this focus on body count and understand that if they aren't dying there--they will be dying here.
11 posted on 10/29/2003 4:01:37 PM PST by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RLK; walden
ANOTHER VIETNAM? NO

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.

12 posted on 10/29/2003 4:05:05 PM PST by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: walden
Just as what first happened in Nam, the people being killed are those not cooperating with the enemy. The killing of Amercans occurred later after we were isolated. When we could not guarantee the safety of th people, they had to support their oppressors to survive. Do you read history at all?
13 posted on 10/29/2003 4:05:40 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam
"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. "

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.

14 posted on 10/29/2003 4:06:50 PM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
A key sentence from Ralph Peters' column, posted above:

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.

15 posted on 10/29/2003 4:10:06 PM PST by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
After 9/11 the RATS waited to see what Bush would do. He, and pretty much all of us, knew that the hot spot was Afghanistan and we should start there. The RATS went into their predictable refrain:

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.

16 posted on 10/29/2003 4:13:16 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Peters is always good.
17 posted on 10/29/2003 4:13:29 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ingeborg
Bruce Herschensohn told Dennis Prager on the latter's radio program recently, that if we'd had television during WWII, we might have well lost that war.
18 posted on 10/29/2003 4:14:05 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: walden
Good sarcasm. Well stated.
19 posted on 10/29/2003 4:18:30 PM PST by arasina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Precisely. The Dems are a party of appeasement and naysaying. They were never serious about the War on Terror. Bush forced a vote on a resolution to go to war against Saddam before the elections in 2002 because he knew that if he'd waited until 2003, the Dems in Congress would never have voted for it.

Bottom line: The world is too dangerous a place to trust our national security to Democrats.

20 posted on 10/29/2003 4:22:44 PM PST by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson