A Jittery Undertow in Americans' Support for Attacking Iraq

Newhouse News Service ^

[RCW2001]

A Jittery Undertow in Americans' Support for Attacking Iraq

BY DAVID WOOD And CHUCK McCUTCHEON
c.2002 Newhouse News Service WASHINGTON -- Beneath the surface of Americans' public support for a war with Iraq runs a current of anxiety, driven by jitters about an unsettled future and specific worries about the potential cost in lives and unforeseen repercussions -- both at home and abroad.

"This is all happening so swiftly," worries Lorie Blanding, a 45-year-old hairdresser and peace activist from Easthampton, Mass., echoing comments heard across the country -- even from those who reluctantly agree that Iraq's Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to the United States and must be dealt with.

The uneasiness is growing evident to members of Congress, who this week open debate on a resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.

"I don't think there's anything I've ever heard that there's been as much anxiety expressed about," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The "overwhelming majority" of mail to Biden's office, an aide said, is from those opposed to any war with Iraq or those who are against invading without U.N. or allied support.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said she got 500 e-mails over two days last week, almost all of it strongly against an invasion.

Said Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., "I think there's maybe more anxiety out there than most people (in Congress) realize."

Most polls show that roughly two-thirds of Americans generally favor using force against Iraq -- but only under certain conditions.

In a survey of 1,900 American adults conducted Sept. 12-16, the Pew Research Center found that 64 percent favored U.S. military action against Iraq. But only 33 percent would approve a U.S. attack if our allies didn't join in.

Many are asking, why the rush to war? Or, with U.S. warplanes bombing Iraq weekly, are we already at war? Is the goal to topple Saddam or to disarm him? If we launch a bloody war against an Islamic people, will the United States reap a wildfire of suicide bombings here at home? Will the United States end up running Iraq after the war? For how long and at what cost? What will an American occupation of an Islamic country do for the U.S. image around the world, and how will that affect the war against terrorism?

"I am afraid that we don't know what's going to come" after the United States invades Iraq, said Marina Belknap, a 30-year-old accountant visiting Washington with her husband and two young children from Maryville, Tenn. "What we end up with could be worse."

A senior Navy officer at the Pentagon, requesting anonymity, put it this way: "It's easy to start a war. It's a lot harder to end one that actually improves U.S. national security."

Philip Gold, a Seattle man who describes himself as "a grumpy old Marine," is sleeplessly fretting about "the vortex we are approaching" without what he regards as solid evidence or direction from the White House.

"I am getting the same sense that I did in 1964 or 1965 that we are sleepwalking into this," he said. "What I'm seeing out here is below-the-radar-screen anxiety."

At the same time, he complained, the only message he's getting from Washington is "trust us."

"I am very skeptical of, `We have this information but we can't show it to you,"' Gold said. "We've seen this before."

Bush's new strategy of pre-emption, of course, justifies a war in the absence of hard proof that Saddam is wielding nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has wryly observed, if you insist on waiting for a "smoking gun" as proof, you have waited until the gun has already gone off.

But on other issues, the administration has seemed deliberately vague. In a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee last week, Rumsfeld was asked who would control Iraq's oil after the war, and whether oil revenues would be used to rebuild the country. "You'd certainly think so," was Rumsfeld's response.

And while he conceded that few other nations publicly support an invasion, he confided that "quite a large number are willing to say so privately."

The scarcity of hard answers hasn't set well with some members of Congress.

"Any decision to act against Iraq," said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., a veteran member of the Armed Services Committee, "must begin with answers to these questions about the strategy for achieving victory and the long-term responsibilities that come with doing so."

Americans clearly have been paying attention to the debate, with 55 percent in the Pew survey saying they have thought "a great deal" about Iraq.

Still, more than a third -- 37 percent -- said Bush has not clearly explained why the United States must attack.

"The president has made a very strong bully-pulpit pitch, and the polls do show rising support" for going to war, said John Isaacs, lobbyist for the Council for a Livable World, a peace and social action organization. "But I think those polls mask a deep concern about getting involved in another war."

Even so, Isaacs and others see no political or peace movement growing out of these concerns.

"These things take a while -- with the Vietnam War it took many years before much opposition developed," Isaacs said. "It's hard to see that opposition manifesting itself very strongly in this current situation."

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"This is all happening so swiftly," worries Lorie Blanding, a 45-year-old hairdresser and peace activist from Easthampton, Mass.,

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You moron! Have you been asleep since 1991, or are you just naturally stupid? "Swiftly", my Irish @$$!!!

[Tax Government]

I wonder if there are any goddamnocrats reading this, who, like their contemptible party leadership, play politics with national security and try to spin the Iraq crisis to their party's advantage.

Just in case, I'll be praying extra hard you all end up in hell, where you belong.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

NEVER FORGET

.."DEMOCRACY NOW" in IRAQ =

...A Safer America...

...in a new -Time of War-..

...in a new Century...

...with an Enemy that is now Within...

...BIG TIME.

NEVER FORGET

[sinkspur]

"I am very skeptical of, `We have this information but we can't show it to you,"' Gold said. "We've seen this before."

They've shown it to you, doofus.

You're just too braindead to realize what a threat Hussein is.

Bush ain't LBJ.

[Cicero]

Some of the people I know are nervous, including my wife. But my impression is that they are less nervous now than they were.

Needless to say, the press has done its best to fan these fears, most notably the lying New York Times.

People were also very nervous when we went into Afghanistan. Now, to your average lint-headed TV-watcher, Afghanistan is ho hum.

Iraq is more dangerous, IMHO, but not nearly as dangerous as not going in. If it's handled right, these fears will wear off no matter how hard the media try to fan them.

[Corin Stormhands]

Is it just me, or wouldn't it be more problematic if we didn't have jitters about going to war? I don't want to go either. But I know we must. And I'd be willing to bet those are the President's sentiments as well.

[tet68]

Never forget.
Tom Dasshole
Joe Biden
D*ck Gephart
and all the same faces
and all the same slogans
and all the obstruction
and all the playing politics
with the security of our country.

I won't forget.
I won't forget Jane Fonda
and Bill Clinton
and all of them.

When the attacks occur,
We will remember who is responsible.
And who must be brought to justice.

Never Forget.

[Alas Babylon!]

Dude, you forgot Algore!!!!

[Nick Danger]

Beneath the surface of Americans' public support for a war with Iraq runs a current of anxiety driven by jitters. Why, here's a peace activist right now... let's ask her. "Excuse me, ma'am, as a peace activist, are you jittery about going to war?"

"Oh yes, I am just so full of anxiety."

See that, folks? There are millions just like her. Statistics show that five out of every four peace activists are having trouble dealing with this debate over Iraq.

The President's policy has its doubters in the opposition party as well. Here's Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, the famous plagiarist. "So Senator, what do you think of this Republican President?"

"He sucks. People should elect Democrats instead. If it were a Democrat bombing Iraq, we'd be in favor of it. In fact, we were in favor of it when Clinton did it. Clinton said we needed to get rid of Saddam, and he was right. But Bush doing it? That's wrong."

There are many Democrats in Congress, and we don't have time to quote them all. But they're all opposed, and they all have jitters and fears.

There is a whole undercurrent of jitters and fears... a rising chorus of doubts... and increasing levels of concern. There are mounting frustrations, and escalating worries.

Many people wonder what will happen next. "They can't tell us what will happen in the future," said some liberal professor. "That's an objection right there."

"No one should do anything until there is an answer to the questions," said a lobbyist for a peace and social action organization. "We really shouldn't do anything, ever. It just disturbs the environment. Even breathing releases greenhouse gases, you know. I suppose if they nuke us we'll have to negotiate with them or send them flowers or something, but otherwise, let's talk about prescription drug benefits."

[terilyn]

LOL Excellent analysis!

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Very good!!! You nailed this phony "news story" to the wall- but do you want to bet that, if asked, these "reporters" would claim that they are "completely unbiased"???

[Cindy]

Links of Ingterest:

TOWNHALL.com: "TERRORISTS AT OUR UNIVERSITIES" -Column by Ben Shapiro (091902)

CAMPUS-WATCH.org

COLLEGE BRIEFING.org

WTOP.com News: "POLICE WORRIED ABOUT TERRORISTS USING PROTESTERS" (092002)

ANANOVA.com: "REPORT WEIGHS TERROR THREAT TO US FOOD SUPPLY" (092002)

BBC NEWS: "BLAIR OUTLINES IRAQ EVIDENCE" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "The dossier claims Iraq has: * Continued to produce chemical and biological agents. * Drawn up military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons. * Tried to acquire from Africa material and technology for the production of nuclear weapons. * Illegally retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles with a range of 650km, capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads. * Begun developing ballistic missiles with a range of more than 1,000km. * Learnt how to conceal equipment and documentation from weapons inspectors") (092402)

WHITE HOUSE.gov: "SADDAM HUSSEIN'S DECEPTION AND DEFIANCE We've Heard 'Unconditional' Before" (091702)

FOX NEWS.com: "DID GERMANY GIVE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY TO IRAQ?" (092402)

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH - INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL 2002: "STEALING THE FIRE" (NY Premiere) - "Stealing The Fire" is directed by John S. Friedman and Eric Nadler. This documentary video was produced in USA/Germany. (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Filmed over five years on four continents, Stealing the Fire focuses on Karl-Heinz Schaab, a German technician convicted of treason in 1999 for selling top secret nuclear weapons plans to Iraq. The film unflinchingly exposes a web of government and corporate intrigue and lays bare an unbroken chain of events and people that connects today's nuclear weapons underground with the atomic bomb program of Nazi Germany. Stealing the Fire investigates the 60-year history of a German multi-national corporation that directly profited from the Holocaust and in recent decades became a leading supplier of nuclear weapons technology to developing nations, including Iraq and Pakistan.")

MEMRI.org - MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE - "IRAQ NEWSWIRE No. 9" (091802)

PHOTO ESSAY AND DISCUSSION (091702)

GLOBAL SECURITY.org: "PUBLIC EYE PICTURE OF THE WEEK - 2002"

HAARETZ DAILY.com: "IRAQ STEPS UP ARMS, MONEY TO PALESTINIAN AREAS" by Amir Oren (091302)

TimesOnline.co.uk: "IRAQ 'WILL HAVE NUCLEAR BOMB IN MONTHS' (091602)

MEMRI.org - MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE Special Dispatch Series No.420: "SADDAM HUSSEIN'S MEETINGS WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY" (091302)

WHITE HOUSE.gov: PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH's REMARKS AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (091202)

ICBIRMINGHAM.icnetwork.co.uk: "IRAQIs TALK OF 'GOD'S PUNISHMENT'" (September 11, 2002)

MEMRI.org - MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE - SPECIAL ALERT No.3: "IRAQ CALLS FOR THE FORMATION OF SUICIDE SQUADS TO STRIKE AMERICAN TARGETS AND INTERESTS" (090902)

MEMRI.org - MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE - Special Dispatch Series No. 415: "PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AND IRAQI MEDIA ON IRAQI SUPPORT OF THE INTIFADA" (082702)

WASHINGTON TIMES.com: "IRAQ DEFENDS AID TO BOMBERS" by Joyce Howard Price (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations yesterday defended his country's aid to families of Palestinian suicide-bombers, saying the payments are an expression of Arab solidarity." (082502)

JERUSALEM POST.com: "SADDAM GIVES $120,000 TO FAMILIES OF HEBRON 'MARTYRS'" (081302)

ALBAWABA.com: "SADDAM SAYS AMERICAN TARGETS ALL ARABS; HAILS PALESTINIAN BOMBERS" [ARTICLE SNIPPET: "...Saddam also praised suicide attacks against Israel saying they will be "recorded in our history with shining letters."
"Whenever a (suicide) attack occurs against the enemy, I feel as if I carried it out myself and every Arab should look at these acts this way," Saddam said (Albawaba.com)"](071602)

FOX NEWS.com: "TRANSCRIPT: SADDAM HUSSEIN'S SPEECH" (080802)

"IRAQ: SOME LINKS TO TERROR"

DefenseLINK.mil: RUMSFELD: "'CONNECTING THE DOTS' BEFORE THE NEXT TRAGEDY" by Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service (091602)

CONGRESS ACTION.info: "AMERICA'S NEW FOREIGN POLICY" -Commentary by Mr. Kim Weissman (COMMENTARY SNIPPET: "Some have observed that the war with terrorism actually began in February, 1993 with the first attack on the World Trade Center; continued through Mogadishu and our retreat from Haiti in October, 1993; the bombings of our military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996; the bombings of our embassies in Africa in 1998; and the attack against our warship Cole in 2000. The American people simply didn't realize that we were in a war until September 11, 2001.") (091502)

Bottom line...How long will politicians be debating terrorism? How long will they debate Iraq?
stepping back in time...SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: ATTACK ON AMERICA!

[Kermit]

"Swiftly", my Irish @$$!!!

Shouldn't that be "Swiftly", my Royal Irish @$$!!! ;^)

[Undertow]

hmmm...I don't feel jittery...

[ALOHA RONNIE]

NEVER FORGET

...To see what the Vietnam War was really all about...

...join us in our Freerepublic.com Thread titled:

'Vietnamese officials onsidering punishment for actor in U.S. Film ["WE WERE SOLDIERS"]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/753996/posts

Signed:..ALOHA RONNIE / Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 / Landing Zone Falcon / http://www.lzxray.com

NEVER FORGET

[UnBlinkingEye]

The polls are BS as always.

Did anyone believe the huge numbers for Clinton as he sank deeper and deeper into scandal?

Why are these numbers any different?

I thought sheeple was a term reserved for democrats. Iraq has never attacked the U.S.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Funny, but I don't remember ANY debate BEFORE Clinton bombed the aspirin factory. I do however remember Presidents Ford and Bush 41 backing his actions. They would NOT speak out on the Commander in Chief.

When PAST VP's and Presidents do, they weaken our country in the eyes of the World. I consider Carter, Clinton and Gore as jealous traitors. Gore AND Clinton harmed our security by not allowing for a peaceful transfer of power. And now Gore and Clinton both are furthering that damage by speaking out against a current Commander in Chief and our country's leader.

It is one thing for a Senator or a Congressman/woman to speak out, but quite another for a previous VP or President to do so, especially when we are at war.

UnPRECEDENTED, and dangerous.

But then why am I not surprized. All the above mentioned persons have ALWAYS put their own personal wants and needs over this countries.

Does ANYONE remember Presidents Ford/Reagan/or Bush speaking out against a current Presidents policies like this? Of course not, they had WAY more class and intelligence.

This is a dangerous path for any past President to take. Some get it, others simply don't CARE!! Politics and greed for office over the good of our country come first. Sickening....