Posted on 08/26/2002 3:10:20 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 08/26/2002 3:23:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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"
But, when WE ARE ATTACKED, and it becomes time for the US to exercise our force to advance the cause of civilization, then we are looked at as provoking instability in the world.
President Bush is not what the World Media (who mostly hates America) portrays him. He is no cowboy. He is rational, in-charge, and ever mindful of the role that history has thrust on America while he is in charge. And "we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
I'd like to see it as well. I hope that perhaps he's waiting to get everything in place, just so, before he reveals what is behind the curtain, if anything.
Well thanks for raising it, because that mind-set is the key to everything that's happening. I reckon that if we knew for sure that Bin Laden was dead none of this would be happening. The possibility that he's still out there somewhere has to be preying on peoples' minds. I know it is, on mine. I think September 11 is the date when this President has to dig deep for every ounce of character he possesses and bring some emotional closure to the nation over 911. Explain that the grieving is over, what happened will never be forgotten, but it's time for America to finally wipe away the tears, let the anger go, and get back to work.
You are going to have to be patient, and trust that I know what I am talking about. No one doubted the justice of our attack on Afghanistan (except the rabid peaceniks) and you will also be convinced when the President states his case. However, it will only be done when we are about ready to go in.
I suggest you read Cheney's speech that he made today in Tennessee. It pretty much states the case, although without details. I imagine the details will come with the President's speech.
I do not take war lightly, as I expect we will have terrorist attacks here. My son is old enough to be called for service, if it comes to that. My daughter and my nieces are of age to serve. My nephews would be called. My husband could be called to work in an industry that is critical, much as happened in WWII. And I worry about my grandchildren.
This threat is not simply a few nut cases. It is a large number of people intent on destroying western civilization, and putting us all under Sharia. I do not want my granddaughter in a Burqa.
So, please be patient. Character does indeed matter, and we have a President who has it in spades. He will do what is right for all of us. Just be patient.
But, you see he doesn't give a crap about polls. He os concerned about America and our soldiers and doing what he believes is right. And most Americans get that.
if he's got a smoking gun on Saddam then let's see it.
How much more clear do you need it to be? The case has been made that he has acted against international law numerous times. He is without doubt acting to gather and cotrol WMD. He has assisted terrorists including OBL-- more details will come out at the appropriate time. Saddam Hussein is one of a few "tinpots" out there with the potential for great evil, this FReeper wants him taken out before he gets more capabilities.
You are utterly clueless as to what is driving America at this point.
I for one could give a CRAP whether OBL is alive, dead or living in Sydney. I want to eliminate the forces in this world who do not wish to abide by the RULES OF CIVILIZATION-- the Terrorists. OBL was merely a wake-up call.
Unfortunately, the time to act was seven to ten years ago, but we had a Poll-Watching, Disgraced, Impeached, Serial Rapist, Euopean/UN-lovin'. America-Hatin' Pseudo-President at that low-point of American history.
And, the US(and the World) are paying for it now. But at least we are willing to still take on EVIL.
This is the other arm of the spin, the 'ungrateful world who won't support the US when the chips are down.' It's not true. Go and take a look at how many nations were involved in the attack on Afghanistan, even nations like France who invariably attract moronic scorn here on FR no matter what they do. A lot of conservative governments around the world will be risking their status because of their support for the US when this thing starts. This Iraq attack is a gift to the international Left- unless the president makes a clear unambivalent case for it. Over to you, GWB.
Dream on, Rob.
Despite GW's down-home bonhomie he's a politician, through and through.
Byron, you do not understand Americans at all. We will hunt these people down if it takes 50 years. We are not going to sing Kumbya and go back to things as they were. Forget it.
What part of "awakening a sleeping giant" do you fail to understand?
Bin Laden is only one of many. We are after them all. Bin Laden is just the poster boy.
"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
That is it in a nutshell. Either you are with us or with the terrorists. Plain and simple.
So, be patient and pay attention. If you can access Fox News in your part of the world, watch the President's speeches. Closure is not something Americans need or want. We want JUSTICE.
What 'people', Miss M? Terrorists? Iraqis? Iranians, like with your sister? Or, all Muslims?
As the mission creep on the Al-Qaeda campaign spins out of control, that's a fair question.
I think some American beliefs just do not translate well. Everybody hates the "Good Guy" sometimes because of the reflection in the mirror. Luckily, America can stand alone though.
Without us, the World would be a far different place today. Not that they'll ever admit that or thank us though. We just do what America always does. And, we'll do it again.
Selected evil, Rob. Back in April another tyrant, namely Robert Mugabe, flew to New York for a UN conference and some shopping on Fifth Avenue. Where was the presidential outrage then? Later this week Mugabe will adress the Conference on Sustainable Development in SA. Where's the outrage from a State Dept spokesman? Will the US pull out of the conference? Call me picky but there is some evil around that gets a free pass every time.
I can only conclude that you hope this cup passes from Australia, and that your country is not involved.
Well, I hope that you are not attacked as we were, for I do not wish that on anyone. But somehow, because you are descendents of the English colonists who settled you, I do not believe you are safe. Indonesia and the militant Islamacists there are not that far from your shores.
Recall the words of Churchill:
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
If the case is stated before our troops and plans are in place, Saddam has too much warning.
I cannot see how he can have any more warning than he already has.
Yeah, including A-R-A-B-I-A!
You know, the country that the "axis of evil" missed as it passed through Iraq, Iran, and NORTH KOREA!
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.