December 4, 2005
CAN'T CONTINUE THE POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS IF YOU DON'T WIN ON THE INITIAL POLITICS:
Bush's Speech on Iraq War Echoes Voice of an Analyst (SCOTT SHANE, 12/04/05, NY Times)
Despite the president's oft-stated aversion to polls, Dr. [Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who joined the N.S.C. staff as a special adviser in June and has closely studied public opinion on the war] was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented the administration with an analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004. They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believed it would ultimately succeed.That finding, which is questioned by other political scientists, was clearly behind the victory theme in the speech and the plan, in which the word appears six times in the table of contents alone, including sections titled "Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest" and "Our Strategy for Victory is Clear."
"This is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency," said Christopher F. Gelpi, Dr. Feaver's colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties. "The Pentagon doesn't need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion."
The Iraqis and the military have to defeat the Iraqi insurgency--the Administration has to defeat the domestic insurgency.
MORE:
Confidence in Terror War Jumps (NewsMax, 12/03/05)
President Bush's campaign to rebut claims by Democrats that the U.S. is losing the war on terror has already begun to pay big dividends - according to a new Rasmussen survey released Friday. [...]Just 39 percent of Americans believed the U.S. was winning in a survey taken in mid-October - with 34 percent believing that the terrorists were winning.
But in a survey completed on Dec. 1, 48 percent were confident of a U.S. victory - and only 28 percent said the terrorists were likely to win.
Of course, gas is under $2 a gallon.... Posted by Orrin Judd at December 4, 2005 9:50 AM
Nothing to do with the price of gas. Everything to do with the MSM on the one hand and the house vote on the Murtha fiasco on the other, not to downplay Bush's last stand.
Posted by: Genecis at December 4, 2005 11:52 AMThey needed a poll to tell them that Americans will fight for victory but not for defeat and retreat?
What is in the water in Washington? Hello, major Duh! moment happening!
Posted by: Mikey at December 4, 2005 3:20 PMSo the NYTimes strategy of downplaying successes and highlighting setbacks is the right one, for the loss it hopes for in Iraq.
Posted by: Steve at December 4, 2005 3:23 PMSteve, no doubt they think so and in my opinion it had been working for them until Bush et al pushed back. No question in my mind they want to undermine the December elections. Borders on sedition with our men in harms way.
Posted by: Genecis at December 4, 2005 4:09 PMThey've simply decided the war on terror is not a big enough issue to deserve bi-partisan support, if it impares the Democrats' return to power. It's not so much that the majority of them are against the U.S. in the war (though a few admittedly are), they've just made the bet that they can do stuff like this and get away with it for short-term gains without causing any long-term damage from an increased terror attack risk.
The really perverse thing is that in the Red State-Blue State divide, at least 75-80 percent of the "high profile" targets the terrorists really would want to attack to get the most world coverage are in the Blue States along the east and west coasts, including the bulk of the big media headquarters. So by trying to sabotage Bush's war effort, if their gamble were to pay off and people less concerned about the WOT did get into office, they're in the end causing a greater risk to their own safety than they are to the Red State people who voted Bush into office.
Posted by: John at December 4, 2005 7:46 PM