SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (20621)6/7/2005 7:21:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361298
 
Post-ABC Poll: Americans Say War in Iraq Has Not Made U.S. Safer

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 5:11 PM

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, over half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in ten now believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominously, 52 percent said the war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it did. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion President Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and just three months ago 52 percent thought so.

Overall, more than half-- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job. A somewhat larger majority-56 percent-- disapproved of Republicans in Congress and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

However, there were signs that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in ten respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis died in May amid a rash of car bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorism. By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the war on terror, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating Bush has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.Some authorities on war and public opinion said the figures indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has reached a dangerous level. "It appears that Americans are coming to the realization that the war in Iraq is not being won and may well prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, now a professor at Boston University. "That conclusion bleeds over into a conviction that it may not have been necessary in the first place."

That's the view of poll respondent Margaret Boudreaux, 63, a casino worker living in Oakdale, La. "I don't think it's going well, there's too much killing," she said, worrying that the Iraq invasion could move more enemies to violence. "I think that some of the people, if they could, would get revenge for what we've done."

"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden. I don't think he [Bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . . He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse. "People are getting through airport security with things that are unbelievable. . . . I don't think he learned from 9/11."

While Bush has shelved his routine speeches about terrorism and Congress has turned to domestic issues, fear of terrorism has receded from the public consciousness. Only 12 percent called it the nation's top priority, behind the economy, Iraq, health care and Social Security.

The drop in Bush's war on terror approval ratings came disproportionately from political independents. In March, 63 percent of independents approved of Bush's job on terrorism. By April this had fallen to 54 percent. And in this weekend's survey, only 40 percent gave him good marks.

The poll suggests that views on the Iraq war's impact also remain highly partisan. Three in four Republicans said the Iraq invasion has boosted domestic security, while three in four Democrats said it has not. Political independents lean negative on the issue: about six in ten said the war has not made Americans safer.

Overall, Bush's 48 percent job approval rating was essentially unchanged from the 47 percent rating he received in a late April poll. And there was growth in the proportion of people who said the economy was doing well: 44 percent, up from 37 percent in April.

But the public took a generally gloomy view of the White House and Congress. A plurality said Bush is doing worse in his second term than in his first, and 58 percent said he is not concentrating on the things that matter most to them -- the worst showing Bush has had in this measure in Post polls.

Congress fared no better. The proportion of the public disapproving of the legislative body was at its highest since late 1998, during Bill Clinton's impeachment. More people said they would look at a candidate other than their sitting congressmen than at any point in nearly eight years. For the first time since April, 2001, Democrats (46 percent) were trusted more than Republicans (41 percent) to cope with the nation's problems. But at the same time, favorability ratings for the Democratic party, at 51 percent, tied their all time low.

A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone June 2-5 for this Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll also found disapproval or division when it came to Bush's performance on several other recent, high-profile issues. Only 33 percent supported the way the president is handling federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, while 55 percent did not. The public divided on the president's handling of judicial nominations, 46 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. And half said they were opposed to drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a proposal Bush has backed and which is now being debated in Congress.

But the most striking trend identified by the survey was the spreading impatience over Iraq and national security matters. While six in 10 were confident that the U.S. was not violating the rights of detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Americans were more skeptical that the government is protecting the rights of U.S. citizens at home. Only half said Americans' rights were being adequately protected, down from 69 percent in September, 2003.

James Burk, a sociologist at Texas A&M, said the disillusionment about Iraq may have grown to the point that policymakers will have difficulty reversing it. "People all across the country know people in Iraq [so] there's a direct connection to the war," he said. He sees a "disjuncture" between upbeat administration rhetoric and realities the public perceives. "These data suggest we will soon reach the point, if we haven't yet reached the point, where that kind of language will seem too out of touch."

washingtonpost.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (20621)6/7/2005 8:24:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361298
 
Karl Rove's Diary: Escaping the Lame Duck Trap

democraticunderground.com

<<... IRAQ WAR IMPLOSIONS ARE DANGEROUS

Now we get to a possible real vulnerable point. The goddamn war in Iraq. Not the war per se, as the fact that the traitorous media is revealing all sorts of things that were not meant for public exposure. Like how the Army has found that the Koran was indeed abused badly at Gitmo, urinated on, stepped on, defaced and so on; now we look ridiculous for making Newsweek stand in the corner and apologize for saying pretty much the same thing we're admitting. (Lucky for us Newsweek did a Rather and got a sourcing fact wrong.)

Sure, we want our interrogators at Gitmo and elsewhere to "break" those prisoners, by whatever means are required, but why can't the goddamn military keep their troops disciplined, by which I mean silent? Now the word's out and we're catching hell all over the globe. Thank God, there aren't any photos or videos of such behavior!

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the Red Cross and so on are all making a big stink about how we've turned into the Soviets and Nazis by mistreating, abusing, torturing and humiliating prisoners - even hiding some of them, "ghosting" them, from the designated international observers.

I wish we could come right out and just say it: "Yes, we have done all that, in our own little gulags; what are you going to do about it? These are killers and we need to keep them off the streets by whatever means necessary, including killing the worst ones if we have to, and disrespecting their holy book in order to make them know who's boss."

Instead, we have to deny all and feign outrage, denouncing the messenger, as usual, without confronting the message head-on. Oh well, such is politics in a politically-correct age.

But Rumsfeld and Cheney are almost worse than Dim Bulb; in recent days, each has made a terrible Freudian slip in calling the Gitmo detainees "prisoners of war," a big mistake since our whole policy for their not falling under Geneva Convention protections is that they are not POWs but "enemy combatants." Get back in line, fellas.

DOWNING STREET "SMOKING GUN" MEMO

The bad news is that the torture/Koran issue is melding with the revelations in the Downing Street Memo - that both Blair and Bush were engaged in a conspiracy to fool our respective citizens into believing that we in the Administration were truly interested in a diplomatic solution when the decision to attack Iraq actually had been made nearly a year before the invasion.

And when you add to that "smoking gun" the growth and sophistication of the insurgent forces in Iraq, and the increasing threat of ethnic civil strife erupting in that country, the Iraq War and our handling of it could build to critical mass in the public mind. The might even be willing to consider that maybe the U.S. should bug out of there stat. Can't have that now, can we?

RETURN OF THE "I" WORD

Given that liberal journalists are constantly bringing up the Administration's so-called sins of commission and omission, it's not surprising that the "I" word is starting to be bandied about again, as it was when Abu Ghraib broke. I don't think we need worry ourselves about impeachment during this second term - our GOP friends will hang tight in the Congress, even if they despise us; they know on which side their political bread is buttered, and will do nothing to harm their own holds on power and influence.

But there is a growing rumble out there, and not just from disgruntled and angry Democrats, that we in the Administration have grown too big for our britches and are taking the country way too far to the right - and "incompetently" at that - and need to be reined in. We sure did get our asses whupped by bowing to the fundamentalists in the Schiavo fiasco; and the House and Senate both passed funding bills for highway projects and stem-cell research despite the threat of a presidential veto - not good signs.)

Most importantly, the Dems are chomping at the bit to initiate impeachment hearings, especially over Iraq and how we got there, but, unless the public suddenly gets stirred up to take action against us in a big way - not bloody likely, as they're willing to let us do anything as long as we keep them safe - I think we can weather the storm.

Hell, our role-model here should be Tom DeLay; the liberals have nearly got the noose around his neck and can't wait for the lynching to start, but The Hammer keeps pounding, and confounding, his critics. Hang in there, Tom! (Whoops, bad choice of words.)

But what about after 2008? Unless Jeb or another leader we can count on is elected, we still might have to worry about facing criminal, civil and international war-crimes charges associated with our eight years of rule. Can't let that happen.

Gotta talk to Poppy and Jeb - and Wally over at Diebold...>>