Bush's quiet green light on Iraq [Have Americans 'gone' Dovish on Iraq?]

Christian Science Monitor ^ | Monday, August 26, 2002 | By Godfrey Sperling

[JohnHuang2]

Monday, August 26, 2002

Quote of the Day by Eric in the Ozarks

[tomahawk]

Great analysis and very correct.

[fogarty]

We all know statistics are manipulated by both sides of the argument. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as we all know. The bottom lie is that if the President and Congress are relying solely on polls for sending our armed forces to combat, we've already lost....

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks.

[JohnHuang2]

The bottom lie is that if the President and Congress are relying solely on polls for sending our armed forces to combat, we've already lost....

You can rest assured this President darn sure isn't, unlike his immediate predecessor, who loathed the military and didn't give a lick for the men and women who serve.

[JohnHuang2]

Gotta run. See ya later tonight.

[mtngrl@vrwc]

I always love reading your two cents worth, John. Thanks for the ping!

[RJCogburn]

There is, as yet, no evidence of a storm of public controversy. Bush, it seems to me, has the green light.

To me, it seems he has no light of any color, red, amber, or green. I do not sense that people are really paying that much attention and will not until there is either an attack on Iraq, an attack on us, or if Bush lays out, in black and white, the case for the attack in which case I'll be an enthusiastic supporter.

I also don't much like the idea that Bush can do what he wants here, regardless. I understand that there will be politics galore with the Congress involved, but we are supposed to be a country of laws, not men, even good men like Bush.

[Robert_Paulson2]

surely you don't think the media would play with wording of questions to get the desired results, now do you John?

I am at your insinuation that they would pretest poll questions with specifically chosen words, in order to determine exactly what words to use, in order to gain a psychological advantage on the subject under question...

In fact, I can hardly believe it... ;-)

[MaeWest]

bump for the truth

[Byron_the_Aussie]

.."troops" evokes memories of Vietnam, and skews the survey results....

You gotta be kidding, John.

It's leaving the word 'troops' out, that skews the survey results. Let's do a real survey :

Dear Mr & Mrs Sixpack, do you want to see billions of your tax dollars wasted, and dead American boys shipped home in bodybags, all to see some tinpot dictator (who Pentagon insiders say represents no real threat at all) possibly removed?

[Aric2000]

Excellent dissertation, as usual, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Thanks John!!

[RJCogburn]

Well, Byron, I think we Americans have been "spoiled" by the low casualty, 'easy' successes in the Gulf and Afganistan. If the difficulties mount and the dead and wounded are significant in number, the opinions will likely change. Hopefully Bush and co will have plans, if they proceed, that recognize that. I agree with your implication that support is not that deeply felt yet.

[Aric2000]

Actually, President Bush can use 1 of the 2 following reasons to go into Iraq without anyones further permission. or both.

A: Saddam has broken the treaty that he signed for peace in 1991, by kicking out the inspectors, this opens him up to further attack from the Gulf war, open ended you might say. In other words it never really ended. Bush does not need permission to heat the gulf war back up. Operation desert Storm, CONTINUED...

B: Get the proof that Saddam had anything to do with 911, if he can prove that, his declaration is already in place.

So either A or B, President Bush has his permission, he can start the attack whenever he feels like it.

[Miss Marple]

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer,

Do you wish to see us do nothing until we suffer another attack like 9/11?

Sorry, Byron, you have NO idea what the American people think. My sister, a democrat, wants me to search out suspicious people who are dealing with her store. She is all for the Homeland Security Department, and she wants Iraq taken out ASAP.

Fortunately, I know that many Australians do not share your views. My brother-in-law lived and worked in Sydney for many years, and he has lots of friends still there.

[Brian Allen]

<< ..... if [America's] President [And Armed Forces Chief Of Staff, George Walker Bush, is] ..... relying solely on polls for sending our armed forces to combat, we've already lost .... >>

Relax.

He is not.

And we have not!

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...well, Byron, I think we Americans have been "spoiled" by the low casualty, 'easy' successes in the Gulf and Afganistan...

Hopefully those successes could be repeated, Rooster. I can't understand why American technology can't be used to take out Saddam and his retinue, rather than a full ground invasion. But before that question's addressed, I want to know why this president is even considering jeopardising conservative political gains with this planned attack. The one definite we know about war is that the results often evince themselves in unpredictable ways. Iraq just isn't worth that risk.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..my sister, a democrat, wants me to search out suspicious people who are dealing with her store. She is all for the Homeland Security Department...

I'd expect that kind of behaviour from a democrat, Miss M. What I'm talking about here are the concerns principled Americans should be airing. PS my commiserations, on your family's shame. :)

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...fortunately, I know that many Australians do not share your views....

Latest polls show about 57% of Aussies oppose the planned war. I expect that figure to steadily increase, every week that the president delays making a clear case for it.

[Miss Marple]

And when he does make the case for those who haven't been paying attention, what do you think the numbers will be?