59% of Americans now believe that the Iraq war is a mistake.
My question:
Is this because it was a mistake to go in, in the first place?
or
Because they're losing?
Talk amongst yourselves ...
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
All of the above.
Public perception IMHO has shifted dramatically since 2001. At that time, there seemed to be an overwhelming need to 'do something' in retaliation for the Sept 11 attacks, and Iraq was sold as being one of the lychpins in the war on terror.
But, since then, the sketchiness of the evidence used to make the case for the invasion has come to light, vocal critics of the administration have become even more vocal, and just about every prediction for Iraq has proven to be false (WMD? Greeted as liberators? Oil money would pay for reconstruction? Out in six months?) .. as well, there is no discernable benefit of the forces staying in Iraq, excpept, perhaps to protect the egos of administration officials.
Bush's popularity has fallen to all-time lows, the US economy is sputtering, oil prices are climbing, jobs are still being lost, and there have been even more egregious failures by the administration since then .. from the response to Hurricane Katrina, to the coverups in Mark Foley's situation, scandals with Haliburton's overbilling the Defence department .. etc, etc.
Great comments, Chris. You have a real nice handle on things... And you're bang on, of course.
I still wonder though .... [quite cynically, I admit] ... not changing any of the domestic failures of this administration, BUT let's say the Americans are WINNING the war in Iraq these days... What would Bush's approval numbers be then? Higher certainly, but by how much?
If the US were, in fact 'winning' (and what, exactly constitutes 'winning' anyway? How can you 'win' a war on terror?), I suspect Bush's approval would be higher. However, that would preclude there having been a plan in place to get the military out of Iraq in a timely manner, to minimize casualties, and to have been up-front with the public and both the Senate and Congress prior to the invasion .. and that's a whole lotta 'what if'.
Besides, this whole 'war on terror't thing is a sham to begin with. You can't declare war on a tactic. It would be like waging a 'war on flanking attacks' or a 'war on daylight bombing'. Terrorism has been around for centuries and it works because it allows a weak opponent to gain power over a strong one .. and given the fiasco developing in Iraq it would seem that it's succeeded nicely, once again.
If you want to get *really* cynical .. listen to some of the Democrats' suggestions now that if they regain control of the house and/or senate, that they likely won't proceed with impeachment. Their reasoning seems to be that gien how divisive and damaging it was when Clinton was impeached, it would do far more harm than good to their political fortunes. CBC had a discussion just a few days ago in which apparantly some Republicans are hoping the Democrats gain power in 2006, and proceed with articles of impeachment, so they can beat the Democrats over the head with it when the presidential elections come around in 2008.
4 comments:
All of the above.
Public perception IMHO has shifted dramatically since 2001. At that time, there seemed to be an overwhelming need to 'do something' in retaliation for the Sept 11 attacks, and Iraq was sold as being one of the lychpins in the war on terror.
But, since then, the sketchiness of the evidence used to make the case for the invasion has come to light, vocal critics of the administration have become even more vocal, and just about every prediction for Iraq has proven to be false (WMD? Greeted as liberators? Oil money would pay for reconstruction? Out in six months?) .. as well, there is no discernable benefit of the forces staying in Iraq, excpept, perhaps to protect the egos of administration officials.
Bush's popularity has fallen to all-time lows, the US economy is sputtering, oil prices are climbing, jobs are still being lost, and there have been even more egregious failures by the administration since then .. from the response to Hurricane Katrina, to the coverups in Mark Foley's situation, scandals with Haliburton's overbilling the Defence department .. etc, etc.
In a nutshell .. that's what's happened
-- Chris
Actually, there is one more reason ..
Check out ..
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
103 US deaths in this month alone .. 107 deaths altogether.
October 2006 has been the deadliest month of the year, so far for US and coalition personnel, averaging over 3 per day.
If that doesn't sink public approval, likely nothing will
-- Chris
Great comments, Chris. You have a real nice handle on things... And you're bang on, of course.
I still wonder though .... [quite cynically, I admit] ... not changing any of the domestic failures of this administration, BUT let's say the Americans are WINNING the war in Iraq these days... What would Bush's approval numbers be then? Higher certainly, but by how much?
If the US were, in fact 'winning' (and what, exactly constitutes 'winning' anyway? How can you 'win' a war on terror?), I suspect Bush's approval would be higher. However, that would preclude there having been a plan in place to get the military out of Iraq in a timely manner, to minimize casualties, and to have been up-front with the public and both the Senate and Congress prior to the invasion .. and that's a whole lotta 'what if'.
Besides, this whole 'war on terror't thing is a sham to begin with. You can't declare war on a tactic. It would be like waging a 'war on flanking attacks' or a 'war on daylight bombing'. Terrorism has been around for centuries and it works because it allows a weak opponent to gain power over a strong one .. and given the fiasco developing in Iraq it would seem that it's succeeded nicely, once again.
If you want to get *really* cynical .. listen to some of the Democrats' suggestions now that if they regain control of the house and/or senate, that they likely won't proceed with impeachment. Their reasoning seems to be that gien how divisive and damaging it was when Clinton was impeached, it would do far more harm than good to their political fortunes. CBC had a discussion just a few days ago in which apparantly some Republicans are hoping the Democrats gain power in 2006, and proceed with articles of impeachment, so they can beat the Democrats over the head with it when the presidential elections come around in 2008.
Makes ya kind of sad, don't it?
-- Chris
Post a Comment