Nervous but Resolute, Americans Stand by Bush
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 8, 2001; Page A07
The United States entered its first war of the 21st century yesterday, with a firm resolve expressed by leaders of both parties to defeat the threat of terrorism but a palpable public nervousness about the risk of further attacks here at home.
The strong wave of public and political support for the actions ordered by President Bush is exactly what historians expected. Whenever landmark targets have been attacked in the past, the call for military action has been swift and strong. It happened after the Japanese assault on naval and air forces at Pearl Harbor, which brought the United States into World War II. It happened earlier when the battleship Maine was blown up, precipitating the Spanish-American War, and when the bombardment of Fort Sumter triggered the Civil War.
And so it was yesterday when the retaliation Bush had promised -- and Congress had endorsed with only a single dissenting vote -- began at midday, Washington time, with missiles and bombs hitting targets in Afghanistan.
What may be different this time is the skittishness some legislators and others have found about the possibility of further terrorist strikes in this country. The last few days' headlines have quoted members of Congress, who had been briefed by intelligence officials, as warning that "there is a 100 percent chance" of further attacks to retaliate for military action against Taliban forces.
That warning, along with the shock wave from the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, which produced history's largest single-day civilian casualties in the United States, has brought the risks of this war home in a different and more personal way than ever before.
"New Mexicans are asking how safe our two national labs and three military bases are -- and how safe they are themselves," said Sen. Pete V. Domenici, the veteran Republican lawmaker from that state. "But despite the gnawing concern about what may happen to them, I think support for the president's actions will be near-unanimous."
That conditioned but not necessarily contradictory response was evident in public opinion polls taken on the eve of yesterday's airstrikes. A number of surveys found that people expected further terrorist incidents within U.S. borders but supported actions that, as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld put it yesterday, would carry the battle to the enemy.
The resolve to punish Osama bin Laden and the network of terrorists blamed for the Sept. 11 assaults has united the country and, for the most part, squelched the partisan divisions that split the public in last year's election and fueled a series of legislative standoffs in this closely divided Congress.
Congressional leaders of both parties, who had been briefed in advance on the military plans, pledged in a joint statement of support for the president's actions to "continue to work together to do what is necessary to bring justice to these terrorists and those who harbor them."
Some in Congress suggested that with U.S. military forces now engaged in battle, there may be even less tolerance for politics as usual. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), for one, said, "I think there will be more pressure for Congress to reach bipartisan compromises."
The cooperation that was notable in the first three weeks after the terrorists struck had begun to erode last week, with Republicans and Democrats offering different prescriptions for airport safety and for economic stimulus. Domenici said, "I would not be surprised that these issues will be solved much more quickly than before. The big emphasis will be given now to supporting our military forces."
But agreement may not be easy. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who chairs the Senate Budget Committee on which Domenici is the senior Republican, complained that Bush had upset promising negotiations on the stimulus package by "making unilateral pronouncements" that help for the economy should principally take the form of tax cuts. "It is very important that he continue to listen to us, and not just address us, if we are going to work together," Conrad said.
On the other hand, Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), the deputy minority leader, said he was "disappointed at the reaction" of Democrats to suggestions that legislation to expand unemployment benefits be handled separately from other measures directly affecting domestic security. "We should be able to deal with matters that are truly urgent," he said, "and then work through the rest of the agenda."
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been struggling with the airport security issue, said he did not expect more agreement because of yesterday's actions. "I think the Democrats are drawing a bright line between national security and domestic issues," he said.
As might be expected, senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee gave strong support to the president's actions -- and positive appraisals of public opinion. Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the ranking minority member, were upbeat. Warner said he had "traveled extensively in my state" on Saturday and "I found the same calm and confidence I see in the president and Congress. People realize we are all in this together."
Levin said that when he went through the Detroit airport yesterday, people were gathered around television monitors, watching the news. The presence of National Guard members in the airport "had a calming effect," he said, "and people seem determined to go on with their lives. I think they realize this is the essential beginning of a long road."
Others, however, said they detected much higher levels of anxiety at home. "Life is normal," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) in a phone interview from Salt Lake City, "but everyone is nervous. Especially with the Olympics coming up in February, they know what an attractive target they would be, with the whole world here. I keep reassuring people that it will be safe, that the president will be here with all his security, and where would you feel safer than that?"
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said his state, which saw 92 casualties in the World Trade Center bombing, finds the situation "unsettling. There is a whole new level of insecurity in people, but most of them believe we have to try to destroy this enemy, or it will destroy us."
That sense of inevitability is widespread. Conrad said his North Dakota constituents "are always wary of foreign involvement, but they understand this is a totally different circumstance. There is no room to negotiate with these people. They are fanatics. They have taken actions that are impossible for people in my state to understand -- taking an airplane filled with innocent men and women and children and turning it into a flying bomb. It is so horrific, they feel we have to act."
Staff writer Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company |
