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.
Joe, actually my bottom line is right.
Saddam had bunkers and in any case we didnt know if and *where* to bomb. Those two terror camps I mentioned? One was salman pak. The other one - WE DISCOVERED ONLY AFTER WE INVADED IRAQ. It's trivial. We bomb one camp, they move it somewhere else and camaflauge it.
If bombing terror camps was enough to stop terrorism, we never would have had 9/11 (since we bombed bin laden in 1998 dontcha know).
Not following you. The post was in response to a comment about republicans controling the senate. If your can't get cooperation from one of your own senators (regardless of his reasons for voting the way he does or making the alliances he does) isn't control. That's what my counterpoint was intended to convey.
I suppose it took posts to get me off my behind and see what can be done to access my original login. Back in 1998 to be exact. I have only used to other handles, and would use second but for security reasons I decided on a catchy handle.
I think that folks should show a little more respect to a persons post then their time in FR. I appreciate my husband standing up for me but in the end some minds are made up and will never see anything else. No matter how truthful it is.
So I am a former AF meteorologist, daughter of a West Pointer and the proud wife of an Army Artillery Officer, who has fought for our freedoms. 'nuf said
But you haven't stated it on your own page, have you?
I always thought you were a resident of Denmark.
Then how do you explain the missiles that hit Kuwait? Or the ones we found after the invasion? Air Power is not the be-all end-all. Even the USAF is begining to realize that since Operation Allied Force (Balkans) and the hunt for UBL. You have to identify targets before you can bomb them. That's pretty tough to do in many circumstances for instance when you're after terrorists intermingled with the populace.
We currently reside near Ft. Leavenworth, KS where my husband is stationed. Why do you ask?
Oops was thinking something else as I typed. Sorry, I am a former AF metrologist.
"Using your logic, I guess we should have fought a more politically correct, humane war with Japan and Germany."
Um, we ended up with boots on the ground in both countries at the end of WWII. Nobody on FR is against air power when useful; we all think the 1991 (Iraq), 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq) air campaigns were awesome, and I'm on your side in appreciating the utility of bombing fallujah 'safe houses' (not safe now, he he he).
But we have yet to win a single war with air power alone.
And the Clinton "fire a missile and forget" policy left us with major negatives consequences.
Afghanistan 2001 was perhaps the ideal example of how future wars could be won: Major air component; use of special forces and intel on the ground; allies, and a 'few good men' to spearhead victory. But in the end, we dont take and hold air, we take and hold GROUND, so we need Boots on the Ground to do it.
He said that the Iraq war is "a war which will undoubtedly widen, perhaps even into world war,"
...since he has been PROVEN WRONG BY EVENTS will he come back to the fold?
hmmmm.
Good find!
I always thought you were a resident of Denmark
Hey, I don't want to use up FR bandwidth with what I think is superflorous stuff, tar and feather me.
Sounds like a bunch of RINO RATS to me.
Kuwait? Big deal. The ones after the invasion? Pfsst. Come on. Even if you empty out a bag of sand, there will still be some grains left in the bottom.
Speaking of RINOs it seems that if given the choice of a democrat or a RINO they will vote for the RINO.
I am not sure how much traction these folks will get, if the previous article/NY advertisement where top military leaders (retired) and former ambassadors came out against Bush and the war. It stopped the day it was published. I am betting in the end this will be old news.
You got a choice, Inaction with the Democrats or Action with George W BUSH.
Afganistan and Iraq are successes, inspite of what the media and Liberals try and paint it as.
Hey, tar and feather yourself, I have more important things to do.
Your shopping list of Important things, in a perfect world yeah we are concerned about it, but right now WE'RE busy with other stuff - like Keeping the Airplane from Crashing. Your list will take several more elections and Presidents to clean up.
1. Illegal immigration
2. The continuation of Abortion without end in site
3. A runaway court that he does nothing about
4. Foot dragging on gay marriage
5. The world court
I am certainly voting for Bush/Cheney and all the other GOP candidates. I am also proud of all the military and former military men and women who have replied to Free Republic. Keep up the good work and make your country, family and President proud.
"Why do you ask?"
I guess I asked, because it seemed from your posts that you were more trusting of Bush detractors, than of the Commander-in-Chief himself. I for one just happen to believe that G.W. Bush is the real deal. Says what he means-means what he says. I just don't believe he would lie.
I do not believe that anyone else, vieing for Bush's job, has the guts to see this war on terrorism through to victory, and anything less than victory is absolute defeat.
"Regardless of Spector's vote history his seat guarantees the GOP majority, which means Tom Daschle isn't in control of our government."
If our majority in the Senate depends on RINOs next year, they'll perform as awfully as they have this term.
Hopefully, that wont be the case, and we will have a few more conservative senators replacing the likes of Edwards, Hollings, whoever that Floriduh senator is, etc.
It's time to give support to a third, right-of-center party. The Constitution Party, I suggest, may be the correct choice.
The objective? Elect congresspeople, but not jeopardize a Republican presidential win in 2008.
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.