It doesn’t. I have remarked in a past thread (and provided a cite) that shows that the US military, as a whole, represents a fairly even cross section of the US population base as a whole, based on ethnicity, educational background, and so forth.
However, apparently even some Democrats believe that the Republicans have managed to successfully portray themselves (the Republicans) as “stronger on National Defense”. Therefore, the military must support the Republicans, because the military members must surely want more money spent on National Defense.
Faulty logic, I think. Same as assuming that all military members support the decision to go into Iraq, or that they like to drop napalm on babies.
Well, specifically with regard to his Iraq policy…
Today’s local newspaper has several man-in-the-street-type opinions (you know—like The Onion has!) answering the question “What do you think of sending more troops to Iraq?” The majority are against it, but a couple support Bush on the basis that he has access to inside information. (“President Bush has a lot more military intelligence and information than the general public.” and “He’s surrounded by very good advisers and is listening to them.”)
Personally, I’d really really like to believe that Bush knows what he’s doing (just as I earlier hoped, with more justification, that Bush Sr. knew what he was doing during his Iraq war), and that his main failing was simply in convincing the rest of us that he knew what he was doing and that we would agree with him if we knew what he did. I have long since ceased to trust him, but I can understand wanting to.
I met one at a party a few weeks ago. he said if we do not kill them in Iraq they will kill us here. They did the towers and hate our freedom. I went for a beer.
I voted against Bush twice, but I certainly don’t buy into all the hysterical anti-Bush hype that has become fashionable. I’ve heard the same sort of thing with other presidents, particularly Reagan, but it’s always just gross exaggeration.
When I was about 20, at the height of Watergate, my girlfriend’s father was a dyed-in-the-wool Nixon backer. Even when the really bad stuff came out, he stuck by him. He was crushed when Dick resigned.
I am seeing the same signs of denial in Bush supporters today. Some people just are terrified by change, and will do anything to preserve their world view.
In a two-party system, it’s safe to say that a significant number of people interpret it as “would you still vote for him vs. a Democrat.”
I was never a big fan of Bush, never voted for him, and my opinion has lessened with time; and yet if forced to choose in a two-party race I’d still take him over 90% of democratic pols.
I wasn’t in Bangkok under most of Reagan’s tenure. Twenty years from now, the guys shouting about Bush will wonder what all the fuss was about, what with all the new and even more serious crises that will occur, just like I wonder now why I spent my youth raging against Reagan. That’s the way it’s always been.
Pretty much my impression. Maybe its the circles I travel in, but no one I know, not even fervent Republicans, seems to LIKE Bush all that much…they just like the alternatives the Dems serve up even less. Even my dad is not a big Bush fan, though he’s a died in the wool Republican from way back.
I may of course be skewed by my own dislike of the man of course, but IMHO the number of people who actually LIKE GW and think he’s a great guy and good President has got to be a fairly small minority even of those who ‘approve’ of him in the polls.
I don’t think that’s the case at all. We didn’t go to war in Iraq because of any claim that they had something to do with 9/11.
The analogy that I always use is that if I were to be mugged walking down the street one day, I might install deadbolts at my home later that week. Now, clearly getting mugged on the street has nothing to do with having my home broken into. There’s no direct link between the two. However, for the mugging to result in me taking steps to protect myself against danger in many ways is reasonable. It made me aware that the world is a dangerous place and I should take steps to protect myself.
9/11 made America aware that the world is a dangerous place and that ignoring terrorists won’t make them go away. IMO, a result of this change in attitude was the decision to invade Iraq to stop them from having WMD’s. Anyone paying attention to events knew that they weren’t behind 9/11. However, we probably would not have invaded Iraq had it not been for 9/11 and it’s effect on our general attitude towards terrorism.
That’s what I mean by a link between the two. Get it?
(Of course, everyone is going to jump on me now and start talking about how Bush misled people by mentioning Iraq and 9/11 together very often. Suffice it to say I disagree that this is misleading. The two are linked, not because of any tie between Saddam and the towers, but because they are both parts of the war on terror.)
No, he doesn’t. It was a typical rjung drive-by pot shot. After a full year here I would have thought that you would have been able to recognize it for what it was.
I do not consider myself a Bush supporter. However, currently, I agree with what we are doing in Iraq. Allow me to explain.
Initially, I thought our sending our troops into Iraq was misguided to say the least. It was like a bad fairy tale:
Bush: Little Sadaam Little Sadaam, let us in.
SH: Not by the hair of my chiny chin chin.
Bush: Then I will huff and puff and blow your house down.
Which is essentially what he had us do. Of course, being ignorant of foreign affairs, he had no idea what a can of worms he was opening.
So now we have essentially created and fed the threat that we were supposed to obliterate. It’s a gosh darn mess. We have several options and all of them suck. However, I really do believe the most practical thing to do at this point is not to bail and let the Iraqis fight it out but to make a last ditch effort to stabilize the country as best as we can and get the hell out of dodge. Can this be done? I have no idea but I am trying to be optimistic that Bush’s military advisers have a workable plan.
I do not think, as this thread seems to indicate, that the entire country is against the war and supporters of Bush do so for other reasons. I think there are intelligent people out there who have researched the issues of this war and have make a well thought out decision as to their position. Some might not agree with them but I think assuming everyone that agrees with Bush is an idiot is totally unjust.
For a lot of people, it has nothing to do with Bush’s policies, positions, or actions; they just believe that Bush is a deeply moral Christian who is doing the best he can with God’s guidance.
I’ve overheard three or four conversations in the past couple of years where someone was expressing relief that we at least have a “good, moral man” in the White House, as opposed to Clinton. Each time I’ve wanted to point out that I’d much rather have a President who cheats on his wife and lies about it than one who invades a sovereign country without making realistic plans for what to do afterward.
A lot of those same people don’t really have a handle on what a catastrophe Iraq is. It’s a mess now, they say, but it was a mess before, and a mess is a mess. Bush must be doing the right thing, because he’s asking God for guidance.
More serious crises? It’s hard to get more serious than a ham-handed move that destabilizes a region that has a substantial fraction of the world’s supply of a vital comodity on which the economy relies, oil. It’s hard to get more serious than a nut job who hints at taking on Iran while fully, and even over-fully, engaged in Iraq.
I’ve seen a number of crises come and go and I don’t see this Iraq thing as something that will be forgotten in twenty years, which, by the way, is the wink of an eye. Quite frankly, I don’s see the US ever recovering whatever good name we had before the disaster that GW has managed us into.
You don’t have a very good imagination. The situation in Iraq is serious, no doubt. But so serious that it’s impossible that anything of equal importance will ever occur? C’mon now.
Sam’s right. Twenty years from now something else will be going on and it will probably be just as important than this, and possible much more so.