I asked this in another thread, but I didnt’ get a response and I really want an answer.
I know that conventional wisdom says that a war with Iraq would be good for Bush. What I do not understand is ** * why? * **
Exactly who is it here at home that is just so incredibly het up about Saddam that going after him (unprovoked, a distinctly un-American thing to do), is gonna be the thing that will guarantee their vote for George? With whom would such an action resonate, I wonder, aside from people who are already locked down tight for George to begin with? Who are these hoardes of fence-riders that would come down firmly on his side because he declares war on Iraq, but just might vote for Gore otherwise? Is there a single example Doper among us who fits this description?
I’m sincere in my curiosity here. It just seems to be a classic example of a conventional wisdom that no one really took the time to stop and think about, because once you do, you see the absurdity of it.
An excerpt: " In a series of interviews, supporters and opponents of [President Bush] alike criticized administration officials’ failure to deal deftly with economic policy. They contrasted that failure with the confident way Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have handled foreign and military policy and the aggressive stance Attorney General John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge, the president’s adviser, have taken on domestic security issues."
The point as I see it is that it becomes much more difficult to have open political discourse during a wartime situation. I.e., it would be much harder for Democrats to attack the President and their Republican opponents aligned with him, especially (but not solely) related to foreign policy in any way.
I predict that if we do invade Iraq in the next year, it will occur sometime between 2 and 6 weeks before this November’s elections.
Well just look at the last Gulf War. I don’t think was any huge support for it in advance but after the war Bush sr. was at 90% approval. Of course that didn’t last too long but that’s another story.
It is a simple matter of “rallying around the flag” and also the effect of victory. Public opinion in such a situation isn’t always rational. For instance President Bush’s economic policy approval ratings shot by some 30% immediately after 9-11 though he clearly hadn’t done much in that area during that period.
All this of course assumes that there is a reasonably quick victory. If there is a bloody quagmire it could be different.
Jshore
Your last sentence isn’t clear. Are you saying the US will attack this year or next year? I seriously doubt any invasion will be launched before this year’s elections.
To be honest, I think the entire concept is a fallacy.
The Gulf War was a unique event, and anyone who thinks a re-invasion of Iraq will evoke the same reaction in the general public is very likely in for a rude shock. The fact that Bush’s approval ratings went up during that war is by no means a guarantee, or even a very good indicator, that GWBush’s approval ratings will do the same in another Iraq war.
But then, I don’t believe there’s GOING to be another Iraq war.
Fact is, a lot of people think that a)Bush the Elder didn’t get the job done by getting Saddam during the Gulf War, and b)getting rid of Saddam will be an ultimately stabilizing influence in the Middle East.
I’m on the fence about all that, but even with that justification there is one other thing I am obliged to point out. Never in US history has there EVER been a case where the US people have failed to support the President in time of war. And yes, I said EVER. That counts LBJ, who decided not to run again on account of a very vocal but very small group pf people.
So yes, I do believe he’ll time it (if in fact it does happen) to coincide with elections. He does, however, have a certain amount of justification to do so, what with Saddam violating No-Fly Zones, not allowing weapons inspectors, making chemical weapons, etc.
IIRC, his popularity was something around 40 when he decided to hang up his hat. Plus, he’d had some actuaries figure out he would only live until 1972 (he died January 1973), and that could’ve affected his decision not to run as well. He had known for a while he wouldn’t live as long as most. He had a heart attack in 1957 and when someone suggested he stay in the House and become Speaker, he replied that he wouldn’t have the time.
Airman… can you cite an instance (and I’m not saying none exists, I’m asking because I don’t know) where we attacked a country that was neither
a) posing a direct immediate threat to us or an ally (a la Gulf)
b) having a civil war we have been asked to help with (a la Korea and VIetnam)
???
Because I can’t think of any. And unless George does some fancy-dancin’, creating some bogus ass reason (let’s save the 3 Kurds still alive in the hills!) it looks like that is exactly what we’ll be doing.
And it is hard to imagine widespread support for THAT. Mix it up in a pot with everything else this megalomaniac in the White House is doing and trying to do, and I think his non-hardcore support is going to melt away like a late spring snow.
That may be, but don’t forget that Nixon only got what, 40.2% or so when he won? And he would have been facing an incumbent President with relatively good social programs. Good health or not, I believe LBJ would have spanked Nixon.
LBJ lost because he quit, plain and simple.
Let’s not let this hijack the thread, though. I wanna see what people have to say on Stoid’s question.
You do make an interesting point, Nixon had more like 45 percent, but with LBJ, Wallace and Nixon in the race it would look like LBJ would win. Still, the left might’ve gone to a McCarthy third-party bid or something. Also, those polls were taken after the Tet Offensive, which was perceived by the public as a major failure, even though it’s what prevented the Viet Cong from winning for another 5 years.
And are you going to join the fantasy football league or what?
I am not a Bush fan by any means, but it disturbs me that so many people seem to think that he and his administration would actually start a war in order to win an election. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the fact remains that there is a contingent that believes Saddam Hussein to be enough of a destablizing force that the Middle East and the world at large would benefit by his ousting.
I see it as a combination of “cleaning house” (getting into all those dirty corners you’ve been putting off cleaning up for too long), and a new sense of paranoia regarding any anti-U.S. regime in the Middle East since the attacks last September.
Having said that, I am a bit confused as to whether the OP is actually suggesting that Bush is planning a war for the purposes of upping his approval rating, or simply wondering how such a war might benefit Bush, regardless of why the war is started to begin with.
from Brutus’ favorite magazine.
I don’t want to invoke that funny law, but it sure seems like I’ve read stuff like that paragraph in history books. JDM
It’s all about fear and demonization. The best way to get rid of someone who - horror of horrors! - doesn’t agree with you is to say lots of mean things about him and hope that everyone believes you.
