| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Attitudes on Iraq are changing
This is fantastic news:
WASHINGTON — The perception that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq has succeeded is changing some public views of the war, potentially blunting Democrats’ political edge on the issue.
Americans continue to judge the nearly five-year-old U.S. invasion of Iraq as a mistake, by margins that have barely budged. But in a notable shift, public perceptions of the current U.S. military effort there “have become significantly more positive over the past several months,” says a recent report from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It shows that almost half of Americans think the war effort is going well, and that the U.S. should keep its troops there, at least for the time being. Other polls echo the trend to varying degrees.
The results suggest that — barring another reversal in conditions — Democrats’ ability to use the war as a political weapon could be somewhat curtailed, particularly when the general-election campaign begins.
In part because of the shift in sentiment on the war, Democrats have turned more frequently to other issues — particularly the weakening economy. That has been true both on the campaign trail and on Capitol Hill.
The recent change in public opinion appears pronounced among independent voters, and independents who see progress in Iraq are much more likely to support Republican John McCain, at least so far.
In the short run, the change also could be helping Hillary Clinton gain a measure of traction against Barack Obama, a persistent war critic who has scored by pointing to her vote in favor of authorizing the war.
The lessening of concerns over the war “is one thing that has enabled her to stave off the Obama onslaught” as long as she has, says Ruy Teixeira, a public-opinion expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
[...]
In the most in-depth picture of the trend, the Pew report says that about half the public (48%) now says the Iraq war effort is going either very well or fairly well. That compares to a more than 2-1 majority who said it was going badly a year ago. Nearly half (47%) say the U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq until the situation there has stabilized — roughly the same as those (49%) who favor bringing troops home as soon as possible. A year ago, 53% favored rapid withdrawal versus 42% who favored keeping the troops in Iraq.
Pollsters first noticed an uptick in public perceptions of the war in the fall. But the change in February “struck me as, ‘Wow,’” said Andrew Kohut, the Pew Research Center director. The U.S. troop surge during 2007 sent 30,000 additional combat troops to Iraq to help quell growing violence. The last of the surge troops are scheduled to be withdrawn this summer.
Not only is it encouraging news for our troops, first and foremost, who need to know that Americans are behind them, but as the WSJ noted, it could be a thorn in the side mainly for BO but to a lesser extent, Hillary. Last night in Hillary’s victory speech in OH, she carefully worded her comments about Iraq, saying she would work to “end” the war in Iraq and “win” the war in Afghanistan. BO continues to harp that he was right on Iraq because of his 2002 speech, and the promise from him is to withdraw from Iraq in order to focus more on Afghanistan. The more the American people see the surge is working in Iraq and get a glimpse of the trickling of the good news the mediots are reporting about what’s happening, and see less reports of massive explosions, road side bombs, etc, then BO and Hillary both are going to have a tough sell with respect to their positions on Iraq.
McCain has a clear national security advantage and knows this, because the focal point of his speech last night was winning the war on terror, including the war in Iraq – in fact, Iraq was one of the first things (if not *the* first – I can’t remember) that he mentioned in his victory speech last night. I anticipate that if McCain can keep America’s eyes focused on where it needs to be, which is our national security, and Iraq keeps improving, BO and Hillary either one will have a hard time convincing the American people that they are the candidate (respectively) who has the best CIC credentials to lead in the GWOT. Hillary has essentially called General Petraeus a liar (remember the “willing suspension of disbelief” comments?), which I’m betting McCain will bring up should she become the nominee, and McCain was an early supporter of th surge when not many others were, and BO voted against the surge and in fact proposed his own plan which would have had combat units from Iraq back home by the end of this month, effectively meaning that the gains we’ve seen in the last year would not have happened. McCain needs to impress among the American people the stark differences between him and whoever the Dem nominee eventually is.
I heard Hillary on Fox News this morning and, including her speech last night, she has started to say things along the line of “Americans want to elect a Commander in Chief who …” etc rather than saying “America wants to elect a president.” It could very well be that Hillary’s people are telling her to expect McCain to shift the debate to national security, and she’s already gearing up for it by framing the debate in terms of who is going to be the next “CIC” which reminds people they are electing more than just a president.
Which may actually work in McCain’s favor.
Related reading on Iraq:
- Michael J. Totten – In the Slums of Fallujah
- Bill Ardolino – Inside Iraqi Politics (a 5-part series to date)
- Iraq Pundit – Secularism is returning to Iraq
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
26 Responses to “Attitudes on Iraq are changing”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Speaking of framing the debate, I’m not sure why the Dems haven’t focused on the astronomical cost of the war in Iraq along with an honest assessment on whether the surge really has gotten us any closer to leaving that country (which I think is what , ultimately, most Americans are really anxious for). Sure, violence is down, but the political landscape over there appears a house of cards that could come down with the next big bombing or an end to Sadr’s cease-fire. It isn’t such a good sign when Ahmadinejad is welcomed with open arms over there either.
I think most Americans realize that the war was a mistake and appreciate Obama’s judgement on that. It was what primarily did it for me. In spite of whatever tangible or superficial gains have been afforded by the surge, I don’t think it’s a situation that’s sustainable for very long. At the rate we’re going, we’ll bankrupt ourselves before we get to where we want to be over there (if it’s even possible). And i don’t think that bankrupting ourselves on a war that was a mistake is a politically popular position. Nevermind the fact that it’s what Osama was hoping for.
McCain said something in his victory speech last night that caught my attention. He said, in effect, that it doesn’t matter how and why we got into Iraq. We’re there now, and we needed to finish the job.
Exactly so.
To ChenZhen: I don’t think we need to worry about Sadr’s ending his ceasefire. Why would he? Ultimately, either Iraq will end up with with a Shi’ite majority, in which he will be playing a major role, or else he will have a major say in what becomes an independent Shi’ite state.
Why fire a shot when you don’t have to? (Cf. The increasing Chinese influence in the Central Asian states along the old Silk Road, that were once part of the Soviet Empire.)
Besides, he’s probably being paid to not fire shots.
As Butch Cassidy so famously put it: “If Mr. E.H. Harriman would pay me what he’s paying Those Guys to stop me from robbing him, I’d stop robbing him.”
I’m curious ChenZhen, why is it that we MUST leave Iraq. We still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy, and Bosnia (Clinton’s great accomplishment). Why is it that in THIS war we must pull out as soon as possible?
Indeed, however, for years all we have been hearing about is “VIOLENCE!! VIOLENCE!! VIOLENCE!!”. Now that violence is down we hear, “Who cares? The political process isn’t working fast enough!”
This is a country that has been ruled by fear, terror, and torture for decades, we aren’t going to turn it around in 60 days. Now that the violence is down, they can work on the politics, which may take some time. Just recently the Iraqi government passed the “Baathist reunification” which is expected to help the political process by leaps and bounds. It was something that many experts said would have great effect, so let’s let it work.
All the more reason to keep our influence in the country to make sure that Iran does not get a foothold in Iraq and use it for it’s own purposes.
Well, count me in the minority then, because I do not think the war was a mistake. Our MSM has made it their mission to turn people against this war. They have taken it upon themselves to create the news, rather than report it. Since the surge, violence has plummeted and strangely enough so have the media stories coming out of Iraq. Why do you suppose that is? Good news is bad news to our wonderful watchdog media. I think if Americans really knew about what was going on over there, there wouldn’t be so much discord about the war.
And I don’t think that turning tail and retreating is going to get us the desired results. What price do you put on assisting a fledgling democracy find stability? We spent millions rebuilding Germany and Japan after we devastated it. Was it worth it? It sure seems like it was now.
As for Osama, I don’t recall him ever saying that his goal was to bankrupt America. I do, however, recall him saying that he wanted to kill every American and Israeli on the planet. We retreated from Somalia after Clinton botched that mission and all Osama did was use it as propaganda that helped him recruit more terrorists. He bragged about how America was a paper tiger and would retreat as soon as they get a bloody nose. It sounds like you want to prove him right by abandoning Iraq. Do you think if we pull out of Iraq Osama will go away? Do you think the millions that think like he does will suddenly lose their hatred of America and become farmers?
More and more Iraqis are turning against Al Qaeda and the insurgents because they are finally seeing who is really trying to help them and who is slaughtering them indiscriminately for their so called “religion”.
Abandoning Iraq now would be a monumental mistake that we would pay for decades to come, and when I say “pay for” I certainly don’t mean money.
Except his “judgement” was basically politically driven.
I’m with NC Cop; I don’t think it was a mistake either. Do you think an Iraq with Saddam Hussein still in power, still working on nuclear weapons, and cooperating closely with al-Qaeda would be preferable to the progress we’re seeing today? You Obama-philes like to rhapsodize about “hope” – tell me, where’s the “hope” in that scenario?
It’s undeniable that there is hope in the current situation in Iraq – seems to me that if you were serious about wanting a better world, you’d be pressing for success there, not planning for the fastest way to hand the entire region over to the islamofascists.
If you’re so concerned about bankrupting America, then you ought to be talking about cutting the entitlement programs. The size of the redistribution schemes and outright giveaways dwarfs the cost of the entire defense budget, much less the cost of the Iraq operation.
You want to talk about a quagmire? How about 45 years of tossing money at one socialist boondoggle after another, with nothing to show for it except incidentals like weakening the family unit, destroying public education in the cities, and penalizing our most productive citizens? And yet – both Obama and Hillary want more of it, and ChenZhen of course will go along uncritically.
“Change”?? Sounds like more of the same to me.
GWR wrote, “If you’re so concerned about bankrupting America, then you ought to be talking about cutting the entitlement programs. The size of the redistribution schemes and outright giveaways dwarfs the cost of the entire defense budget, much less the cost of the Iraq operation.”
Yep. Entitlement programs are 56% of the federal budget and defense is about 20% of the federal budget. As each year passes that 56% grows. The defense budget was 50% of the budget 40 years ago.
Pretty soon we’ll be defenseless little piggies. Fat dumb and happy. All I can keep trying to do is put away 25% of my income towards the future each year…..
You know how there were surveys that showed conservatives give more to charity and are better tippers? I wonder if there are studies that show conservatives put away and plan better for their future? It’s as if we have a national re-distribution of wealth program from planners to whining cradle to grave babies in this country.
Ack… my negativity is too high today. Good night!
The circumstances surrounding the invasion (based on falsehoods), the specific culture of Iraq and the region and their perception make the difference. I don’t see us ever establishing a friendly base there. To voice our intention to stay long-term would inflame hostilities even more, and make us targets here at home. There’s something about western armies (which they probably view as Christian armies) occupying Muslim lands that gets these guys all riled up. I think we have to make it clear that it was not our intention to take over their country and maintain a permanent military presence. In fact, I don’t remember that being our original intention. Wait a second, what was our original intention? Oh yea, disarmament.
I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument as to why we should stay indefinitely, frankly. The Iraqis want us to leave sooner than later, which is the same sentiment here at home. A couple of Nimitz class carriers in the Persian Gulf could provide a base of operations in the region if we’re worried about various threats. In Iraq, we’d have some troops to guard the embassy, but that should be about it.
Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.
And that was back when we only had a few billion into it. He’s gotta be downright giddy by now. But by all means let’s stay there forever at $10 Billion a month. That’ll show ‘em!
Seriously, this was a mistake.
If you’re going to start with the same old tired leftist “Bush lied, kids died” nonsense, you’re going to have a tough time here. ST and the regulars here like to deal in facts, not your bumper sticker sloganeering.
Then by that logic, the surge – with the higher visibility of those “Christian armies” – should have riled up the average Iraqi even more. But it didn’t. Exactly the opposite, in fact.
Yep, they’re so riled up that they can’t sign on fast enough to help us rid their country of AQ. “Hope” for them is a real commodity, not a meaningless campaign catch phrase.
So…all those people who proudly and bravely displayed those purple fingers after voting did it because we were “taking over their country”? Nonsense.
You can’t complain that the political process in Iraq isn’t moving fast enough and simultaneously gripe about us taking over the country. You can’t have it both ways. And by the way, as NC Cop points out, their political process is moving ahead…the accomplishments of the current Iraq parliament compare favorably with, say, the current Democrat-controlled congress.
Only on the fringes of the left. The rest of us want to crush AQ and leave a stable Iraq.
Air power and sea power are no substitute for boots on the ground. If you get your way and there’s an al-Qaeda friendly government in Iraq, exactly what would you do with your carrier groups? Answer: nothing, and you know it.
Ah yes, the “Bush lied” mantra. Here are some quotes from some prominent democrats about Iraq, take a good read:
Quotes and Facts on Iraq
So I’m curious, were all those dems lying? Are they part of the “falsehoods” that helped justify the invasion.
But according to critics like you, the hostilities were already inflamed, how can they be inflamed “more”? As far as targets here at home, I’m not sure if you’ve been paying attention to world affairs for the last oh…..30 years, but we’ve been targets since the 70’s.
Indeed, it was our intention and we did disarm them and make sure they would NEVER restart their WMD program like they had been planning. I guess your plan would have been to ignore it like Clinton did and wait until they did get around sanctions, restart the program, and drop a WMD on Israel or perhaps hand it off to a terrorist organization. Great plan!!
You’ve already heard plenty, but since you don’t agree with them they don’t exist in your world. How…..predictable.
Never saw that story before, thank you. However, it is pretty irrelevant. Al Qaeda is being destroyed piece by piece in Iraq and will be an afterthought. If you had your way we would have bailed out years ago leaving the country to completely collapse on itself. Of course, you said we never should have invaded in the first place, so if you really had your way, mass graves would continue to be filled with tortured and executed men, women, and children.
That must be that liberal “compassion” I keep hearing about.
In your opinion, I happen to disagree.
Since were talking about quotes from Al Qaeda, here’s one you might like:
Al-Qaeda, Iran Celebrate Democrats’ Victory
Now why would Al Qaeda and Iran be happy about the democrats victory in 2006. Hmmmmmmm……America’s greatest enemies are happy the dems took over? Why is that?
I’m pretty sure I am not alone in resenting this class war crap from a couple that betwen them has four Ivy League degrees and makes over a million per year.
Not only do I resent it, I don’t buy it. I have one non Ivy League degree (and for the record I’d stack my school up against any of the self proclaimed “elite” universities back east) and make well under a mil. Which puts me in an even harder position that Weepy Michelle.
I call BS. I think I’m doing pretty well. Of course, the difference is that I like this country. I could live elsewhere, I’ve seen many of the alternatives and none of them appeal to me. I was born a citizen, but I choose to remain one.
Michelle’s full of it. And she’s going to discover, if the Obamessiah makes it to the general election, that most Americans will see that. Which she’ll no doubt chalk up to our essential meanness. But like all nearly all Democrats in public life, her approval of the US is strictly conditional. America is a good country only to the extent that it elects people like her.
Funny, I loath both Clintons, and yet never considered my attachment to the US weakened during eight years of Clinton Mk I. I didn’t despair of my nation ever again achieving greatness because my fellow citizens outvoted me. If it happens again I shall retain my residence and citizenship. No shrill hollow threats to move to Canada from me.
Hey, I thought I posted the above in the “Mean People Suck” thread. Darn.
The American people (and Congress) were presented an AUMF that was viewed as the best way to disarm Saddam and avoid hostilities, Bush viewed it as the best way to get his war. Bush said “hopefully no military action” the day he signed the darn thing. That was the lie. He had made up his mind to go in before the AUMF was even voted on.
I’m not going to contest previous statements by Dems. I don’t have to. The rest of the stuff about WMD’s and connections to terrorism was just part of the dog and pony show anyway. This is always about the bigger lie.
ChenZhen laughably wrote, “That was the lie.”
after writing, “Bush said “hopefully no military action” the day he signed the darn thing.”
So…. your argument is that you know what was in Bush’s head and you know that he didn’t “hope” that there wasn’t military action.
So… what am I thinking now? How about now? If I tell you what I’m thinking will you then tell me I’m lying and that you know better what is in my head than my own self?
Wow – you libs have guts…
Riiiiiiight, because the previous TWELVE years of the same thing had produced such fruitful results.
There goes that selective memory of yours, again. I seem to recall that on the eve of the invasion, Bush told Saddam again that he could avoid the war if he resigned and went into exile. Of course, after eight years of Clinton doing absolutely nothing Saddam figured the invasion was just saber rattling.
Of course you don’t. You’re only interested in your truth, not anybody else’s. As I said before, if the truth or facts do not fit your argument, then they do not exist. This statement proves that, thank you.
Wrong again, chief. It’s obvious that you didn’t read any of those quotes, I didn’t expect that you would. If you did, you would see that many of the quotes from the dems on Iraq came before 2001. That’s right, they came BEFORE Bush was in office. So either then dems were lying or Bush manipulated the intelligence while still governor of Texas.
Which is it?
Well, Baklava, I was basing that on revelations in the Downing Street Memo and other documents, along with statements from insiders. The DSM was dated 7/23/02, months before the AUMF passed:
So, no, I’m not a mind reader. But I think it’s fair to assume that the British administration wasn’t making this up.
Interestingly, the DSM also outlines the rationale for sending the inspectors back in (because it doesn’t make a lot to do that if you’re planning on invading anyway):
Indeed. The inspectors were the key. Congress wouldn’t have signed on to an AUMF without the condition allowing the inspectors in first, and Saddam was unlikely to allow the inspectors unless he knew the threat of force is real. So, in they went, and they stayed long enough to appear that they made the token effort outlined in the DSM. But , WMD or no, the administration was anxious to start bombing and finally get this thing underway, so:
The Germans,at the time, asked a good question:
There really aren’t that many dots to connect here gang. The majority of America figured this out a long time ago. There was never an intention for a peaceful solution.
Well, as it turned out, it did, didn’t it? I mean, he didn’t have WMD’s. There was certainly a sentiment in Congress that giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations. It was on this premise that they voted for the resolution. The AUMF, as it was written, was not an outright declaration of war on Iraq. It allowed Bush to determine when diplomatic efforts had failed.
Did Saddam accept exile offer before invasion? Seriously though, it might have worked if there was more than a 48 hour window to work out the details. It seemed pretty unrealistic to me at the time. I mean, most ordinary people can’t plan a vacation in 48 hours.
I haven’t denied that the intelligence community or the Dems thought that Iraq had a weapons program, or that they thought Saddam should be confronted over it. Everyone thought that he should have been. It’s an aside from the argument I’m making.
Again, this is about whether Bush lied about his intentions to resolve the situation peacefully, not whether he manipulated or fabricated the actual intelligence. Listing all these quotes doesn’t address my argument.
You like to argue the past.
Accept the present.
Try to think of good policy moving forward.
Another ignorant BDS afflicted liberal nutcase, still obsessing over the past, with no ideas for the future other than despair and dystopia.
Liberalism is indeed a mental illness. ChenZhen probably thinks his views are original and innovative and well thought out, but then delusions are common unfortunately. Every sheep thinks it’s a sheepdog apparently.
From ChenZhen’s own link:
In other words, he refused to cooperate until the bombs were on the way, and then made a half-hearted effort. For the ChenZhens of the world, any slight attempt by an anti-American dictator to be accomodating is sufficient for us to grovel before him. The problem is, what Saddam was saying was “just words”, to use a phrase the Obamaphiles are in love with right now. As soon as the military threat was gone, he’d have resumed his nuclear research, and you know it. The problem is that accepting that reality isn’t compatible with your BDS, so you ignore it.
If ChenZhen had his way, we’d have continually backed off from any action against Saddam (ever notice how liberals always find something appealing about anti-Semitic and America-hating thugs?) right up to the day he unwrapped a brand-new set of nukes. And then Chen would spend his time navel-gazing and wondering what evil thing WE did to bring this about.
Also – Baklava’s right. Chen hasn’t spoken one word to what needs to be done now, and hasn’t responded to a single comment from me or anyone else on that score. That’s because the left has no solutions to combatting terrorism other than to assume the fetal position, suck their thumbs, and blame someone else.
We got onto a tangent because people were challenging me on the “based on falsehoods” aspect of my original argument, which was very much grounded in the present in that we should pull troops out and not leave permanent bases behind.
Chen wrote, “We got onto a tangent because people were challenging me on the “based on falsehoods” aspect of my original argument,”
Yep. You know what is in Bush’s mind and pointed to other people who know what is in Bush’s mind. You all think that he hoped for war. Nice.
Grow UP! You nor anyone else know that Bush “hoped for no military action” or not. But you think that Bush doesn’t “care” for the poor and elderly also…. so I rest my case…
Chen wrote with no understanding of following consequences, “in that we should pull troops out and not leave permanent bases behind.”
We’ll handle it from here…. Many Democrats and leftists have acknowledged that would be bad policy and have said so in the NY Times and Wash Post. I certainly hope your wishes on anything never come true if this is the kind of thinking you have…. Irresponsible….
Indeed, but as usual libs never think past today. He had the infrastructure and the personnel ready to go as soon as he could skirt the sanctions, which he was actively doing.
Have to cut and paste it for some reason the link won’t work:
LINK
I’ll give you some of the best parts, though:
Here’s another story about the interview with Saddam:
Kessler Scoops 60 Minutes
So again, what’s your plan? Keep the sanctions on Iraq forever, even though they have killed millions:
Effect of Iraq Sanctions
So which is it, ChenZen? Do we keep the sanctions going forever? What if Saddam finds away around the sanctions like he was seeking?
You seem to have lots of criticism, but no answers.
Confronted? He had been confronted for 12 years and had simply given the inspectors the run around. So again, what’s the answer?
Ah, I see. So you knew his intentions? Please provide a link to “President Bush’s intentions”, because I’d love to see it.
Also, do the dems get a pass since they authorized the war? And please don’t give me that “We gave it to him, but we didn’t think he was going to USE it!” garbage that all the dems have been using. It is ignorant and a lie.
But you know what ChenZen? We’ll get to see how doing things “your way” goes with Iran, won’t we? Since all the dems and liberals are screaming “NO MILITARY ACTION”, we’ll see how well sanctions do in preventing them from acquiring a nuke.
Don’t just do something, STAND THERE!
As for Sadr, two recent sources have different stories. One says Sadr is “retiring” from his slot to pursue further Islamic study, another says he’s in a coma due to “food poisoning” and has been returned to Iraq from Iran for treatment. I heard the comatose rumor first, the retirement rumor makes it more believable. Something’s up.