portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Support for a War With Iraq Grows After Bush's Speech

Support for a War With Iraq Grows After Bush's Speech
President Bush has reversed the downward drift in public support for war with Iraq despite widespread fears that the conflict would continue for many months and produce large numbers of U.S. casualties, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

After the president's State of the Union speech on Tuesday in which he laid out the case for a U.S.-led invasion, the survey found that 66 percent of Americans favor taking military action against Iraq, up from 57 percent two weeks ago and the most support for war since mid-September.

Slightly more than six in 10 Americans also approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq; two weeks ago, half the country endorsed the job that the president was doing. Bush's overall job approval rating stands at 62 percent, up slightly from mid-January.

And for the first time in Post-ABC News surveys, about half of all Americans say the United States should take military action even without the endorsement of the United Nations.

homepage: homepage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11942-2003Feb1.html

Ministry of Truth 02.Feb.2003 14:21

gullible guy

If the Washington Post said so it must be true!

ya 02.Feb.2003 15:30

ye

Bu$h & Co. will have their war,

support or no.

to be expected, but... 02.Feb.2003 16:01

ziggy

Bush and Co. will be contented by this, but they surely wanted a better showing. It is to be expected that after a high profile pounding over the head with much of the same lies rehashed in a new package that approval would increase. But 9 points on the Iraq front isn't much of an improvement. And it will fall once again -- relatively speaking, regardless of the accuracy of any specific poll/baseline.

The most unusual thing about the call-to-war half of the so-called State of the Union speech ("show" is more apropos) was the fact that Bush essentially put the stepping stones down for the hard sell act to be delivered by Secretary Powel.

If anyone here has found some good studies that make point-for-point rebuttal of the State of the Union speech, post some URLs here. I've started to do my own analysis, but it's time consuming and I'm game to cheat (errr... stand on the shoulders of giants :-). Pacifica's PeaceWatch had a radio commentary to this effect, but it was rather low octane on address of all facts. But stuff along those lines is what I'm thinking about.


That's a no brainer 02.Feb.2003 17:39

Bush Admirer

Bush is getting public support on this issue for one reason only:

He's right.

The opposition is wrong.

The public is smart enough to comrehend.

Left wing radicals are on in lala land as usual. Why am I not surprised?

That's a no brainer 02.Feb.2003 17:43

Bush Admirer

Bush is getting public support on this issue for one reason only:

He's right.

The opposition is wrong.

The public is smart enough to comrehend.

Left wing radicals are on in lala land as usual. Why am I not surprised?

That's a no brainer 02.Feb.2003 17:48

Bush Admirer

Bush is getting public support on this issue for one reason only:

He's right.

The opposition is wrong.

The public is smart enough to comrehend.

Left wing radicals are on in lala land as usual. Why am I not surprised?

B. A. = 'Brain Absent' 02.Feb.2003 18:22

Brig. Gen. (Ret) James J. David

. . . it's necessary to attack Iraq because Iraq is a threat to the United States, does he really think that smart Americans believe this? Does he really think that Iraq would attack the United States? Senator Lieberman must take you and me for a fool. Let me tell you why this is utter nonsense. No one can launch an intercontinental ballistic missile without the United States instantly knowing its exact location. Therefore, any small country that launches a missile in our direction will know that it is committing national suicide. The warheads on just one of our submarines could cause these small countries literally to cease to exist. How long did it take the United States to defeat Iraq in the Gulf War? The last time I looked it was 38 seconds, and that was with conventional warfare, not nuclear, which the United States has more of than all nations combined times 1000.
----------------

Does Sen Lieberman Take Us For Fools?
 http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=2816
By Brig. Gen. (Ret) James J. David
1-31-3

US President George W. Bush last month accused Baghdad, along with Iran and North Korea, of making up an "axis of evil" bent on backing international terrorism and developing weapons of mass destruction. It seems that Senator Joseph Lieberman has convinced the President that Bagdad is a threat to the United States and launching a military attack seems to be the only alternative. Other close advisors such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and the Defense Chairman of the Advisory Board, Richard Perle, are also calling for the bombing of Iraq as the only sure method of destroying this threat.

When Joseph Lieberman says that it's necessary to attack Iraq because Iraq is a threat to the United States, does he really think that smart Americans believe this? Does he really think that Iraq would attack the United States? Senator Lieberman must take you and me for a fool. Let me tell you why this is utter nonsense. No one can launch an intercontinental ballistic missile without the United States instantly knowing its exact location. Therefore, any small country that launches a missile in our direction will know that it is committing national suicide. The warheads on just one of our submarines could cause these small countries literally to cease to exist. How long did it take the United States to defeat Iraq in the Gulf War? The last time I looked it was 38 seconds, and that was with conventional warfare, not nuclear, which the United States has more of than all nations combined times 1000.

If Iraq hit the United States with one or two missiles, despite the loss of life, would strategically be nothing more than a pinprick. It would be like poking a sleeping bear. All you would do is make the bear mad. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that Iraq or Iran, or for that matter North Korea would trade national suicide for inflicting minimal damage on the United States. And building a force of ICBMs large enough to be [a] real threat is beyond the economic capabilities of those three countries.

So why did Senator Joseph Lieberman convince President Bush to focus on Iraq as a threat? I'll tell you why. It's not the United States that Senator Lieberman is concerned about. We know that Iraq is not a threat to the United States. Iraq is a threat to Israel. Senator Lieberman and other pro-Israelis in Washington don't want anyone else in the Middle East to own Nuclear weapons except Israel. It's Israel, not the United States, that Lieberman is concerned about. And he is willing to risk American lives and American money to insure that Israel is the super power in the Middle East. Isn't it odd that while Lieberman is pushing for a bombing of Iraq, it's the Israelis who are inflicting most of the casualties in Middle East with its current bombing campaign. In just the last 2 days the Israelis have killed 29 Palestinians, and most of them are innocent civilians including children. Iraq hasn't killed anyone since the Gulf War, and that's been 11 years ago. In just the last 17 months the Israelis have killed over 900 Palestinians and have demolished more than 300 homes causing more than 1500 children to become homeless. And the Israelis have been doing this with F-16 fighter jets, M1A1 Abram tanks, 155mm howitzers, Chaparral and Sidewinder missiles, and Apache and Cobra attack helicopters all supplied by the good 'ole United States.

When President Bush talks about the threat of countries with weapons of mass destruction, he always adds ``and our allies.'' Iraq and Iran are not a threat to the United States or to Europe. They are a threat to Israel. North Korea is not a threat to the United States, but the Israelis greatly fear that North Korea will sell missiles to Iran and Iraq. So when Senator Lieberman says that Iraq is a threat to the United States, he really means that Iraq is a threat to Israel. His loyalty isn't so much with the United States; its more with Israel, and that's not right. And you know what? I'll bet most of the people, including President Bush already understands that, but are too scared to challenge him. After all, to challenge or criticize Israel is political suicide. Too many politicians have learned the hard way in that criticizing Israel is like turning the lights off to one's political career. And in the meantime, partly to justify this boondoggle, the United States is embarking on a reckless foreign policy that is more likely to produce war than peace. We should be talking to the Iraqis, the Iranians and the North Koreans rather than making reckless statements on global television that amount to a declaration of war. It can prove to be a deadly mistake to start believing your own deceptions and propaganda.

We are not the Big Daddy Boss of the world, and just because others disagree with our policies or decline to jump when we tell them to jump doesn't mean they are our enemies. And that's why the United States is and will be so vulnerable for more attacks on its own soil. They will be vulnerable and they will be targeted, unless America wakes up. It's time for all of us to know the truth and act accordingly.

James J. David is a retired Brigadier General and a graduate of the US Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defense University, Washington DC. He served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in and around the Middle East from 1967-1969.


BA and freerepublic.com are moronic Liars 02.Feb.2003 19:11

Right Wing Christians are going Down

Bush admirer is a war-mongering whore!
With not enough of a brain to make any choice of his own, he is the ultra far right, radical christians.
Sheep hiding behind their propagandizing lies.
Wanting to Kill anything and everything that is not just like them, but would never be seen out on the front line.
The time is coming for the right to come down, when it comes to being right, they are all just plain wrong.
The Left is the side to be on for sure, but you would not comprehend, since you and your "freepers" cannot spell worth a damn, nor think on your own thoughts.
BA, go back on home to your freerepublic .com, where hate, lies, and illegality are the norm, for the killers whose brains are no bigger than a dime.

Wongo Mongo! 02.Feb.2003 20:37

Bush Admirer

>>> Bush admirer is a war-mongering whore! With not enough of a brain to make any choice of his own, he is the ultra far right, radical Christians.

I happen to be an Atheist, not a Christian. I'm a mainstream American kind of guy, not a right wing Christian. Sorry to disappoint you.

>>The Left is the side to be on for sure, but you would not comprehend, since you and your ?freepers? cannot spell worth a damn, nor think on your own thoughts.

The left is the side to be on?? You mean the side that aligns with Al Gore? With Hillary? With Barbara Boxer? With Martin Sheen? With Sheila Jackson Lee? Hahahahahahahahahahah. That's funny.

AMERICANS ARE A NATION OF FASCIST NAZIS 03.Feb.2003 04:45

Bush Killer

The American people support the invasion against Iraq because the American people are a nation of Fascist Nazis. Period.

It is about damn time that Peace activists stop deluding themselves into believing the All-America propaganda that that the America people are anything but a murderous nation of thugs, cretin, and scum. They support Bush. They support war. They support death. Bush Admirer is right when he says that he is a "Mainstream American."

It ain't Bush's genocidial War. Its America's genocidial war.

Digital Minds..the ones and zeros.. 03.Feb.2003 09:48

Analogician

Can we stop this Left and Right shit?

Right = BUSH
Left = GORE etc.

BOTH SUCK!!!!! Both are pro AVARICE!!!!

Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right, the march of destuction, Left, Right, Left, Right...

If you call yourself a liberal, you suck....if you call yourself a conservative, you suck!

There is even a label for those people in between...CENTRIST! Give me a break! We are human beings not product brands.

He's Coke, she's Pepsi...oh and that guy is Coke...those two are Pepsi...oh wait that guy is RC Cola...he is weird.

Republican and Democrat
Target and Wal Mart
Coke and Pepsi
Texaco and Chevron
Red and Blue
Red and Blue? Where is the white?
They both are white! Ha fuckin ha!

You are either THIS or THAT.....BULLSHIT!!!!!!!

That's "left"? 03.Feb.2003 09:55

Jack Straw

That's "left"? Hillary? Barbara Boxer? ...All those Democrats are "left"? Maybe the left wing of capital, but hardly the "left". And Bush killer, fuck off, in fact go join the Bush admirer imbecile (more like a gov't operative, actually), lots of Americans are not going along with the programming right now.