Posted on 07/11/2004 10:48:58 AM PDT by Military Chick
Some Key Conservatives Uneasy About Bush
SCOTT LINDLAW Associated Press
WASHINGTON - When an influential group of conservatives gathers in downtown Washington each week, they often get a political pep talk from a senior Bush administration official or campaign aide. They don't expect a fellow Republican to deliver a blistering critique of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war.
But nearly 150 conservatives listened in silence recently as a veteran of the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations ticked off a litany of missteps in Iraq by the Bush White House.
"This war is not going well," said Stefan Halper, a deputy assistant secretary of state under President Reagan.
"It's costing us a lot of money, isolating us from our allies and friends," said Halper, who gave $1,000 to George W. Bush's campaign and more than $83,000 to other GOP causes in 2000. "This is not the cakewalk the neoconservatives predicted. We were not greeted with flowers in the streets."
Conservatives, the backbone of Bush's political base, are increasingly uneasy about the Iraq conflict and the steady drumbeat of violence in postwar Iraq, Halper and some of his fellow Republicans say. The conservatives' anxiety was fueled by the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal and has not abated with the transfer of political power to the interim Iraqi government.
Some Republicans fear angry conservatives will stay home in November, undercutting Bush's re-election bid.
"I don't think there's any question that there is growing restiveness in the Republican base about this war," said Halper, the co-author of a new book, "America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order."
Some Republicans dismiss the rift as little more than an inside-the-Beltway spat among rival factions of the GOP intelligentsia. Indeed, conservatives nationwide are still firmly behind Bush. A Pew Research Center poll last month found that 97 percent of conservative Republicans favored Bush over Kerry.
But anger is simmering among some conservatives.
"I am bitterly disappointed in his actions with this war. It is a total travesty," said Tom Hutchinson, 69, a self-described conservative from Sturgeon, Mo., who posted yard signs and staffed campaign phone banks for the Republican in 2000. Hutchinson said he did not believe the administration's stated rationales for the war, in particular the argument that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Hutchinson, a retired businessman and former college professor, said his unease with Iraq may lead him to do something he has not done since 1956: avoid the voting booth in a presidential election.
Jack Walters, 59, a self-described "classical conservative" from Columbia, Mo., said he hadn't decided which candidate to vote for.
"Having been through Vietnam, I thought no, never again," Walters said. "But here comes the same thing again, and I'm old enough to recognize the lame reasons given for going into Iraq, and they made me ill."
The tension has been building in official Washington, where conservative members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees have pressed the administration for answers on combat operations; disagreed with the Pentagon on troop levels; and expressed frustration with an administration they feel has shown them disdain by withholding information.
Chief political adviser Karl Rove's formula for re-election is primarily to push Bush's conservative base to the polls.
Another administration official involved in Bush's re-election effort has voiced concern that angry conservatives will sit out the election.
But Matthew Dowd, the Bush-Cheney campaign's chief strategist, described the fear of losing conservative support as "just ludicrous."
Bush is "as strong among conservative Republicans as any Republican president has been" - higher than President Reagan's approval among conservatives during his re-election campaign of 1984, Dowd said.
Yet, Halper said his critical review on the administration's performance on Iraq last week was met with expressions of support in the conservatives' weekly meeting, which is closed to journalists.
The marquee speaker sent by the administration was Eric Ciliberti, who spent several weeks in Iraq this year and told the audience of broad progress being made there.
Ciliberti complained to the group that the news media was not reporting the positive developments out of Iraq. Ciliberti did not return several calls late in the past week from a reporter seeking his account.
FOFLOL. Very good. :)
Dane- here since 1998, and has revealed nothing at all of a personal nature-not even continent of habitat.
Well, what would one expect of conservatives, boos and cat calls? Conservatives are restrained and polite, unlike their liberal counterparts.
I agree that we shouldnt call mere opposition to Iraq War unAmerican. but ...
"We could have stopped Iraq from doing anything militarily with just our airpower."
How did our airpower stop Saddam from operating his two terrorist training camps (ie Salman Pak)?
How did our airpower stop his $10 billion oil-for-palaces corruption scheme to pay off terrorists and friendly companies and governments?
How did our airpower stop his violations of UN sanctions, his aquisition of banned missiles from RPNK, bio-weapons labs, etc.?
bottom line: Just as airpower doesnt win wars alone, it cant stop terrorist sponsorship and rogue nation's activities by itself.
We took the harder, but more certain and thorough approach to 100% deal with a threat. I'd take that over a 95% approach that still leaves 5% of nagging doubt as to what threat remained.
"We could have eliminated Saddam and his two boys without putting one single soldier on the ground in Iraq."
Possibly, but the Clinton admin made the coup plot of 1995 go FUBAR, and attempts to use missiles in mar 2003 failed, did they not. Saddam was a "hard target", if it was easy, we would have done it sooner.
Looks like the press toilet of lies is over-flowing as usual.
Well you are assuming issues really matter. Silly me, I thought it was all about getting votes and power, not actually standing up for one's principles.
They don't like President Bush because they think he is Jewish ...
You can keep mentioning my public policy views on gay marriage all you want. It won't get you any traction on this site (those views are well known, as are my views that it should not be done by judicial fiat), but don't let that stop you. I know you find it new and exciting.
Why bother to be rational when self righteous swill works so much better.
Precisely, and as Deb pointed out:
"What an asswipe. I knew he had to be a Richard Korb-type Reagan guy when he wrote "neoconservatives". A dead give-away we have a phony Republican lecturing us. Great find."
What is your recommendation for achieving your perceived "cakewalk" Stefan?
How many attacks on our country would it take for you to change your attitude toward Dubyas line of thinking in keeping the war (and it is a war) overseas and not in our country?
The balance of power in this struggle is the most important thing that can be imagined at this terrifying point in out history and even if President Bush doesn't have the luxury of a 60 vote Senate majority, at least Tom Daschle isn't in charge of setting the agenda.
Try reading up on how the government works before you attempt to make points.
UH, I don't change my screen names willy nilly. And have stated many times that I currently live in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area.
I see you're fighing a delaying action while waiting for the rest of your swarm to arrive. They'd better hurry, because you're losing.
How did our airpower stop Saddam from operating his two terrorist training camps (ie Salman Pak)?
Are you suggesting it couldn't have?
I>How did our airpower stop his violations of UN sanctions, his aquisition of banned missiles from RPNK, bio-weapons labs, etc.?
Are you kidding? Again airpower could have takin any missiles or labs out. If we wanted to, I'd would have been a piece of cake.
bottom line: Just as airpower doesnt win wars alone, it cant stop terrorist sponsorship and rogue nation's activities by itself.
Your bottom line is wrong.
Airpower could have taken out *anything* deemed militarily offensive on the ground routinely, on short notice. *Including* his capacity to produce oil for offensive purposes. Piece of cake. We've done it in other wars and it worked very well.
But how would we have taken out Saddam's WMD program in Libya when we didn't even know about it? It IS because we went into Iraq that led to that knowledge.
Here's something we can agree on. Ironically, they'd claim this was an unbiased piece of news reporting covering a speech to a political group. Not that I'd agree with them in the least.
"Voices that perhaps need to be heard?"
Whether these voices need to be heard or not-they will be heard over and over-they are saying exactly what the liberal media, the democrats and Snob and Throb, the DemocRATS candidates want to hear.
Which country's chickin Military are you a veteran of anyway?
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.