Milbank is beside himself. He can't figure out why Bush is still so popular. He is reduced now to claiming it is due to Bush's Oratory. Figures if must be all "smoke and mirrors." He is clueless. Funny!
Bush's Oratory Helps Maintain Support for War
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 25, 2004; Page A01
With skillful use of language and images, President Bush and his aides have kept the American public from turning against the war in Iraq despite the swelling number of U.S. casualties there.
Even with the loss of more than 700 U.S. troops in Iraq, recent uprisings against the U.S.-led occupation there, a dwindling number of allies and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, a majority of Americans still believe that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. By 52 percent to 41 percent, Americans trust Bush more than Democratic challenger John F. Kerry (Mass.) to handle the Iraq situation, according to last week's Washington Post/ABC News Poll -- a double-digit improvement for Bush from a month before.
Political strategists and public-opinion experts say a good part of this resilience of public support for Bush and the Iraq war stems from the president's oratory. They say Bush has convinced Americans of three key points that strongly influence overall support for the war: that the United States will prevail in Iraq; that the fighting in Iraq is related to the war against al Qaeda; and that most Iraqis and many foreign countries support U.S. actions in Iraq.
At the same time, the administration has limited damaging images of the cost of war in Iraq. While the president has met privately with the families of many of the war victims, Bush has not attended any funeral for fallen soldiers, and until last week the administration barred the public release of images of flag-draped caskets.
Bush's opponents say he is building support for the Iraq war -- and himself -- by deceiving the public. "He has not leveled with the American people about the true cost of the war, how long we'll be there, or the number of troops that will be needed," said Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "Americans would rather see sound policy rather than just positive rhetoric."
But others say that while support for the war has eroded, Bush deserves credit for keeping the bottom from falling out. "Administration rhetoric -- and more importantly, the reality that Bush is very resolved and is not afraid to show it -- has undoubtedly helped shore up public support," said Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who served on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council. "Moreover, administration rhetoric is tailored to address key features of public opinion -- not only the public's concern for success but even the specific indicators of success that resonate with the public."
Bush's chief campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, said "it's hard to say" how much the president's rhetoric shapes public impression. But he said support for the war would definitely have slipped further if Bush had wavered.
"He shows resolve, and the public wants resolve," Dowd said.
Dowd also said Bush has been aided by a Kerry position on Iraq that mixes support for the war with criticism of Bush. "The public has decided [Iraq] has problems. But whose vision do we support?" he asked. "Kerry has supported either no viable or no acceptable alternative."
This is not to say support for war in Iraq (or for Bush) is robust. Although 51 percent say the war in Iraq was worth fighting, that is down from 70 percent in April 2003. And although they say Bush is handling Iraq better than Kerry would, 54 percent disapprove of Bush's performance.
Though the administration's words and imagery have helped to keep a majority from turning against the war, strategists say that could easily happen if Iraq's stability deteriorates further with the June 30 handover of power. War support could also fall sharply if Kerry were to sharpen his criticism, as he did in a television ad last week.
But so far, Bush has been able to convince the country of several key points that pollsters have identified as indicators of public support for the war. For example, Bush has never wavered in his confidence in the success of the war effort. "We're carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not change: Iraq will be a free, independent country," Bush said at an April 13 news conference.
Bush has also encouraged a public perception that most Iraqis want Americans in Iraq -- another key support indicator. He said the uprising is the work of a "violent few" and is "not a popular uprising."
Bush also encouraged a view that there is broad foreign support for the war. "Other nations and international institutions are stepping up to their responsibilities in building a free and secure Iraq," he said.
Bush has also tied the Iraq war closely to the more popular war on terrorism. At the news conference, he spoke of "terrorists from other countries" who are in Iraq and said: "By helping to secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting their fellow citizens."
Finally, Bush has continued to assert that Iraq may have had weapons of mass destruction and that it had ties to al Qaeda. "They could still be there," Bush said at his news conference of Iraq's weapons.
All these assertions are debatable and highly disputed. But the public appears to have accepted Bush's views. For example, a poll released last week by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 60 percent of Americans thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction just before the war or thought it had a major weapons program. The poll also found that 57 percent thought Iraq gave "substantial support" to al Qaeda or thought Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The poll also found that 70 percent of those who believe Iraq was helping al Qaeda were supportive of the war in Iraq, and 87 percent who thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction backed the war.
While these public perceptions sustain support for the war despite mounting casualties, opinion experts warn that the support could collapse if the public stops agreeing with Bush on these points. "As people come to the perception that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction or links to al Qaeda, the benefits of going to war decline," said Steven Kull, author of the University of Maryland study. "As the costs rise, that could lead to a frustration or a dissatisfaction that could hurt the president."
It is likely that Democrats' challenges to Bush on Iraq will grow more fierce; they have intensified in recent weeks. The administration "misled Congress and the American people, because the administration knew that it could not obtain the consent of Congress for the war if all the facts were known," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in a speech earlier this month. "Saying whatever it takes to prevail has become a standard operating procedure in the Bush White House."
Last week's release by the Air Force of images of flag-draped caskets -- many of the Iraq war dead -- underscored the danger that public opinion could easily shift. The Pentagon moved quickly to block the release of more photos. A spokesman for Bush said that the president thought the photos of the dead were "a testament to their service" but suggested that the ban would remain because of the "privacy" of families.
Republican pollster Frank Luntz said Bush's public show of resolve has "absolutely" prevented such images of death and violence from swaying the public. "If he was halting, indecisive, the pictures would overwhelm the message," he said.
Still unknown is how long Bush's positive oratory can hold off negative imagery. Duke's Feaver said the show of determination "is no longer sufficient to prop up support" and warned: "The rhetoric has to match the reality in Iraq, and if the situation on the ground deteriorates, then the administration will face an increasingly Herculean task keeping public support strong."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company |
