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

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

[JohnHuang2]

WASHINGTON - Since Sept. 11, we've been in a war with global dimensions. It's really World War III. Yet I've not seen it described as such. Indeed, even as the president reorganizes the government to cope better with the terrorist threat, and as he indicates he's considering an attack against Iraq, the public is going about life in a near business-as-usual manner. Continues.

=================================================================

Have Americans 'gone' Dovish on Iraq?

To hear the liberal media tell it, public support for U.S. military action in Iraq has all but collapsed. As public 'debate' in recent weeks intensified -- debate involving the costs, the benefits, the risks/rewards of ousting Saddam -- Americans are getting a severe case of 'cold feet', says the media.

Anti-war sentiment is on the rise, the peaceniks are on a roll, White House opponents are driving the debate, public resolve is in a free-fall, or so we're told.

"The polls coming out this week show that ... public support [for attacking Iraq] is dwindling", declared former Clinton strategist George Stephanopoulos Sunday on ABCNEWS' This Week, a show he now hosts.

"I think what we're seeing is the public reacting to the debate", said co-host Cokie Roberts, sporting a big smile, as if to say, 'hey, Georgie, we're winning this! The war-hawks are licking the dust! Yippee! Yippee!'.

Democrats, believing the media hype, increasingly parrot the anti-war line, or straddle the fence. "The American people are split right down the middle", Sen. Bill moist-finger-in-the-wind Nelson told CNN's Late Edition yesterday. In town hall meetings he's hosted, the "moms of this country ... want to know why their sons and daughters are going to be sent into battle."

Foreign policy by town hall, eh? This doofus must think Der Shlickmeister's still in the White House.

Even Sen. Joseph Lieberman, supposedly a 'strong' backer of military action, flashed his true colors on Friday, accusing the White House of failing to provide enough public evidence to warrant going to war.

"I think members of Congress are going to come back demanding more information", he told editors at the Journal-Inquirer of Manchester.

Without more "up-to-date evidence" on the status of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs, he would not vote in favor of military action, he 'explained'.

Folks, aren't you glad this fickle, waffling, trembling, blow-with-the-wind pathetic political chameleon isn't in charge?

Told that public support for war has plummeted, former U.S. Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, also on Late Edition, seemed puzzled, given that polls only days ago showed just the opposite, with strong majorities -- 69% or more -- supporting the use of force against Saddam.

Well, it just so happens that Sec. Weinberger is right -- right on the money, in fact.

At Pollingreport.com, under the heading In the News, you'll find an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 69% in favor of "U.S. forces take[ing] military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power." Only 22% opposed the use of force. The survey, conducted August 7-11, 2002, had a margin of sampling error of +/- 3%.

Scrolling down further, a CBS News poll pegged support for military action at 66%, with only 26% opposed. The survey was conducted August 6-7, 2002, and had a MOE (margin of error) of +/- 3%.

Still further down the page, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, conducted August 6-7, posted similar results, with 69% in favor of military action, and 22% opposed. The MOE in this survey was also +/- 3%.

Nor have the numbers noticeably changed over the months, either.

An April poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates, conducted for Newsweek, showed 68% supporting military action, 24% opposed.

Back in January, 71% supported the use of force, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll. Twenty-four percent opposed.

Again, not much difference.

So, what's going on here? Where's the much-ballyhooed "drop" in support?

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll last week sent shock waves across Washington, and sparked a barrage of news reports claiming a sea-change in public attitudes.

"The most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll", writes David W. Moore of the Gallup News Service, "finds that the public is more conflicted now over" the use of force in Iraq, as compared to immediately after 9/11.

"A bare majority of Americans, 53%, say they would favor sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf area in an attempt to remove Hussein from power, while 41% say they would oppose such action", he writes.

He adds that "by this past June, support had fallen to the 61% level, and opposition had risen to 31%."

So, support over the summer has dropped from 61% to 53%, right?

Er, not so fast.

From the archives at Pollingreport.com, the June survey results are posted as follows:

Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

59% favor, 34% oppose.

This poll was conducted by Gallup June 17-19, 2002, and has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.

So, rather than "falling" 8 percentage points, from 61% down to 53%, support for sending troops to the Persian Gulf is down only slightly, 6% percentage points over the period, from 59% to 53%, barely outside the survey's margin of error. Hardly what one would call a "sea-change".

But, wait a minute: What about all those other polls showing much higher levels of support for military action -- 69% or higher?

Ah, here we come to the nub of the problem, a difference in semantics, the basis for the glaring discrepancy.

Notice how Gallup -- and Gallup alone -- inserts the word "troops" in their MAIN survey question.

That makes all the difference in the world.

In the aforementioned ABC News/Washington Post poll, the 69% level of support for military action drops a whopping 12% points, to 57%, merely by inserting the word "troops" in the question. The same poll shows 36% would oppose military action.

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

To illustrate, back in March, 67% supported "using military air strikes but no U.S. ground troops" against Iraq, according to Gallup.

But when asked if they favor using "U.S. ground troops to invade Iraq", public support plummets a full 21% percentage points, from 67% to 46%!! The same poll shows a huge 50% would oppose such action.

Again, this survey was taken back in March, when war "fever" was sizzling -- supposedly more "heated" than currently.

So, in the end, all the media brouhaha about plunging support for war on Saddam is based on flawed or fallacious interpretation of polling data -- wishful thinking, not fact.

Incidentally, even last week's much-touted Gallup poll shows a huge media disconnect with the public.

The press pooh-poohs the notion of possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11, yet a majority of the public, 53%, believe Saddam Hussein "was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks". Only 34% think Saddam had no role in 9/11.

The media scoffs at evidence of possible Iraqi support for terrorist groups plotting attacks on the United States, yet no less than 86% believe "Saddam Hussein is involved" in such activities. Only 8% agree with the media.

Moreover, while "experts" debate whether Iraq currently has, or seeks to obtain, Weapons of Mass Destruction or not, a mindboggling 94% think Saddam either has, or is on his way to developing, such weapons of doom. Only 1% say Saddam is "not trying to develop" WMDs.

Anyway, that's...

My two cents...

"JohnHuang2"

[Miss Marple]

I didn't make myself clear. These are Iranians who are supposed to be selling rugs, but have no knowledge of rugs or merchandising. Highly unusual in our area.

[RobFromGa]

If Saddam really were a "tinpot dictator" who poses no real threat to the US or the World, you might have a point. But, since this is wishful thinking, you don't.

Have another Foster's-- why don't you just swallow the whole oil-can at once, you blowhard.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

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

Well if it's a good case, presenting:

*the sort of evidence you would expect from the superpower with the world's greatest array of intelligence gathering assets;

*proof of a Saddam-911 connection, (and perhaps, if the president wouldn't mind, an explanation as to why the Prague meeting was allowed to proceed unhindered), and;

*documented or physical proof of Saddam's current WMD program, as opposed to the tyrant's wishin' and hopin', and ingratiating reports from defectors who'll say just about anything to please their new hosts;

then I think you'd have near-100% support, here and everywhere else in the West.

[rwfromkansas]

Ever heard of the War Powers Resolution? The President can do what he wants as long as he explains it to Congress within 48 hours after the attack.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..why don't you just swallow the whole oil-can at once, you blowhard....

I'm having a mature duscussion with the lady, Rob.

So why don't you just sit on the sideline and keep your lightweight trap shut? Thanks in advance, By.

[eureka!]

Another nice dissection Dr. Huang2. The presstitutes' efforts to weaken US resolve is shameless, however, for naught. Cheney made that clear in his speech that duty does not allow this mess to be left to future administrations whoever that may be. Based on the shrill of the left and the heat of the debate, action in some fashion will be sooner than later...

[rwfromkansas]

I know there isn't much in the way of principles in your country, but here in America, sometimes there are things more important than politics.....like preventing an attack on our people.

[rwfromkansas]

It will still be 75% against it there. I don't really care what anybody thinks though. The rest of the world is so messed up their opinions don't matter to me.

[RobFromGa]

I want to know why this president is even considering jeopardising conservative political gains with this planned attack.

If the American People-- especially the Conservatives-- believed for even one minute that President Bush was not serious in his intentions to effect regime change in Iraq and liberate this country, there wouldn't be a "conservative political gain" pot to piss in.

Irrespective of anything else, there is right and wrong, good and evil, and Bush gets that better than most. Even though we have not chosen this time to be alive, it has been thrust upon us, and Bush gets that too. Polls be damned, our leaders have all the really good classified information anyway, they need to do their jobs.

Stop being a panty-waist, Byron. (If your name really is Byron, that probably explains a lot-- kids can be tough against those with such a pansy name). We need to take out this lunatic now before he has worse capabilitities, and most sane Americans (read non-liberals) UNDERSTAND THAT.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..these are Iranians who are supposed to be selling rugs, but have no knowledge of rugs or merchandising...

That situation alone does not suggest to me like they represent a terrorist threat, is all I can say. I think Homeland Security's principle aim with the TIPS program is to make Americans suspicious of one another, and thereby secure their own raison d'etre. All government departments do that, right?

[rwfromkansas]

CBS pointed out that oil supplies are dropping....just like they did before the Gulf War because they were put into reserve.

[RJCogburn]

Saddam has broken the treaty that he signed for peace in 1991, by kicking out the inspectors,

While I realize he might use that as justification, it is a real thin excuse, IMO

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

Proof that he was a significant player will do it for me.

[Miss Marple]

You are handicapped by not being able to follow the President day to day on Fox. If you were able to do so, you would know he is telling the truth.

I fully expect when the time comes, you will be given sufficient evidence. The difference between you and me is that I know enough about the President to know that he already has it. You will have to wait for the speech.

When it comes, you will be most grateful that this man and his team are in charge. And I know that the Aussies will be one of our most dependable allies.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...preventing an attack on our people....

RW, Saddam can't even secure his own borders. The north is run by the Kurds. There are overflights every day, and regular air attacks on Iraqi installations by US and British planes. The President has ordered the CIA to assassinate him. And you think he has the resources to somehow attack an enemy as powerful as the US? He can't even defend himself.

Let's keep some tenuous relationship with reality on this- please.

[Miss Marple]

Of course they may be loser rug merchants' sons who were sent to the Midwest as punishment. My point is NOT that they are necessarily terrorist threats. My point is that my sister, who has always been a go-along, get-along person, is vigilant and suspicious and is paying attention. She is, in other words, on war footing.

It is probably nothing, but it is most indicative of the mind-set of Americans, which is what I was trying to explain to you.

[Crazymonarch]

Howard may have it half right on immigration but he's a lap dog as far as US wars go,we'll have idiots blowing up in our shopping centres here soon enough,Im still waiting for any real proof on Bin Laden,prisoner confessions,transcript intercepts,intel reports made public, the video didn't wash with me sound quality was too poor and independant arab speaking analysts say theres a fair chance its dubbed.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..stop being a panty-waist, Byron....

Hey, if I was a panty-waist, I wouldn't go along to get along, like too many around here do. I don't sit here passively, comforting myself with the security blanket that my leader and my government know what's best for me.

I'm glad GW is president, rather than Gore, but the way some of you guys slavishly support everything he does is not just un-Freeperlike, it's unAmerican.

[meema]

I agree that Iraq isn't worth the risk. Not to our troops, not to our President, not our Pubbie Party. Every time this govt opens it's mouth about sadim and iraq, I get the shudders. I don't believe any of these so-called reasons are true, or from reliable sources. If Israel and it's supporters: Pearl, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummsfeld, Woolsey, etc. etc. etc.{men I used to admirefor a long time} wish to clobber Iraq, let these 5 men lead the way, in uniform and on the ground, for the Israelis.
Only God knows what may happen as a result of this.
We are not yet finished with Afganistan by any means. And remember Afgans are not Arabs.
I am so sorry that GW has allowed himself to be convinced by these people. He has no business sending OUR troops to fight for Israel. Sorry, but that's what this is all about. I have been watching and reading all this for even longer than September 11th. Billie Kristol and his Weekly Standard have been beating this kind of drumbeat since OUR GW toook office. As a founding subscriber to the WS, I had to cancel it last year. I Loved that mag! I canceled NR, too. It makes me so sad.
And yes. I was a broken glass Republican, and stayed at my puter for 37 days...literally not thinking about anything else. My first vote was for Richard Nixon in 1960.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..I fully expect when the time comes, you will be given sufficient evidence....

Miss M, I have enormous respect for your opinion, but I think that time is now. The polls are moving, against the president, and if he's got a smoking gun on Saddam then let's see it.

[eureka!]

"CBS pointed out that oil supplies are dropping....just like they did before the Gulf War because they were put into reserve."

There's lots of signs. It is inevitable. As far as when, W has 'em all guessing. He (and his camp) is good....