mort kondracke nails the big question in the november elections. will it be decided by views on iraq or on the war on terrorism? i believe that the answer will determine which party will be left standing at the end.
Republicans think they gain by calling the Democrats defeatists on Iraq and by asserting that Democrats are weak on terror because they opposed the NSA wiretap program and had qualms about efforts to track terrorist finances through the international banking system.
Who’s actually gaining in this struggle is hard to tell. Traditionally, Republicans lead Democrats in public trust on fighting terrorism by margins of 25 to 30 points, but recent polls have shown that advantage dropping to single digits.
A Pew poll last week showed that more Americans, 69 percent, are concerned Republicans would get the United States involved in new wars than the 57 percent who are worried that Democrats are weak on fighting terror.
This week, however, a Gallup Poll reported Bush’s overall approval rating rose to 42 percent from 37 percent over the two weeks since the London plot was stifled and, for his handling of terrorism, to 55 percent from 47 percent.
But for handling Iraq, he remained mired at 36 percent. And a CBS/New York Times poll showed Americans, by 51 percent to 32 percent, don’t think Iraq represents a major part of the war on terror.
If the election hinges on terror, Republicans may win. If it’s Iraq and things keep looking grim there, it’s a Democratic advantage. That will frame the argument through November.
that’s the disconnect. americans don’t see iraq as a major part of the war on terror. the bad news for president bush is that he has been unable to sell this connection, since saddam didn’t directly order 9/11 and there’s no concrete evidence that he knew about bin laden’s plans. it is an unwinnable battle trying to explain to the american people why iraq was a legitimate target even if it didn’t have a direct link to 9/11. so i’m not going to make that attempt.
this disconnect actually benefits republicans, since bush’s ratings on the overall war on terror vastly exceed his numbers on the war in iraq. that’s why the way the debate is framed makes a huge difference. of course there are other valid criticisms of the party in power, and we all know what those are, but iraq and the war on terror will still be the primary debate going into this midterm.
the final outcome of the iraq war will determine how aggressive we will be as a country in prosecuting the war on terror, and how future and current bad actors will view the resolve of the united states in dealing with threats to its security. you can argue about whether it was part of the war on terror in the beginning, but it certainly is now. our success or failure in iraq will have major consequences for the rest of the region. can we leave iraq a better place than we found it? what will our enemies say about us when the united states military finally leaves iraq? will they be convinced that we are serious about fighting terrorism? those are questions that we will answer, and the world is watching us.
this should not be a partisan snipe-fest. republicans and democrats alike should be equally committed to giving our government the tools it needs to fight this war on terror effectively and to protect us here at home. we should support candidates who take this view, and reject those who don’t.
tags: war on terror, iraq, republicans, democrats, ’06 election
“this should not be a partisan snipe-fest. republicans and democrats alike should be equally committed to giving our government the tools it needs to fight this war on terror effectively and to protect us here at home. we should support candidates who take this view, and reject those who dont.”
I’m in 100% agreement with you.
On the war and Iraq:
War sucks in general and this Iraq war sucks even worse — but we’re there!
If the President is right about anything (and he occassionally is) he was absolutely right when he theorized that Democratic nations don’t attack other Democratic nations so a Democratic Iraq would not be a threat to us. The flaw in that theory is that a democracy that is set up in a Moslem country is a frail excuse for a democracy that is not likely to last long. The people there understand one kind of rule, theocracy; and as soon as we are uninvolved that’s where the Iraq “democracy” is headed.
The problem with the democracy project is that American-style democracy is rather unique. We have, as you mentioned, cultural, religious, and social differences from Muslim countries that allow for individual freedoms for our citizens under that form of government. Having a democratic government does not always ensure those freedoms.
While spreading democracy to the rest of the world is an worthy goal, spreading freedom is much more desirable if your goal is to bring lasting change.
Lisa is correct, as usual.
As for the first post, its tough to take anyone seriously who spells ‘Muslim’ ‘Moslem.’
I pity the fool that actually believes that Iraq is a separate event, a ‘distraction,’ from the war on terror. I imagine an individual that believes such tripe must have difficulty putting his socks on without assistance.
Let’s get serious here. Even the terrorists admit that Iraq is THE front for the terror war. Yet, President Bush is a liar according to the Democrats. If Bush is lying about the war then Osama bin Laden must be lying about it as well.
Oh, but then, of course, Bush is an idiot for not getting bin Laden ‘dead or alive’ as he said he would.
Vote Democrat!
Kent, I love the snark, but I really do think that all of us agree that the democracy project is flawed on some level. Will Iraq become a theocracy? I hope not. But it’s not something I can predict either way. Love the Mr. T reference. That was clever. 😉
My comment is non-expert, but citizen sanity in support of your anti-war positions generally, and emphasis on the illegality of Bushs War declaration as properly viewed as NOT representing America, and NOT the duty of the authority bestowed to the President who is to adhere to Congress as the true body representing the people in times of war.
Unprovoked war is certainly not wanted by a majority of Americans.
I have written in 1985 for the FREEZE as a volunteer, and had the opportunity to interview what was then named Beyond War Movement out of California, locally represented by a Hartford Physician who was a member of the Beyond War movement, and noted the theme War is Obsolete due to the technology as being entirely out of proportion and not a proper conflict resolution. At that time, in 1985, new modes of thinking was what they claimed was needed.
My laymans non-expert view, with a pre-eminent attorney, Ralph Nader as a Proper Presidential candidate offering anti-war DIPLOMACY and withdrawal of the troops and humanitarian aid as the immediate need in Iraqis that sanity (The Freeze in 1985, soon thereafter changed their name to SANE/FREEZE and is now PEACEACTION, and likewise, the Beyond War Movement has changed to Global Community-at my last check, which is not current the themes are solid stop the production of nuclear weapons applied to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and still DOES! and the theme of the Beyond War movement that WAR IS OBSOLETE, is actually not only long overdue in 1985, but a proper view of human civilization. Civilized people should not expect to declare war, but instead seek diplomacy as the proper view of international policy as a FACT and CONSTANT.
The U.S. is not supposed to be a warmonger. We are supposed to be a self-sufficient, self-governing country properly attending to our own affairs.
Iran should be dealt with at the international level, and that is a proper place for attorneys to tender legal diplomacy. The U.N. is a great forum for proper intelligent, civilized, and self-respecting conversations about each countrys proper position in this field of nuclear weapons which are supposed to be STOPPED.
Bush had the support of the American people and the authorization of Congress. We could debate the question of whether that authorization covered both Iraq and Afghanistan, but he did ask Congress before going forward.
I agree with your premise that the American people do not support unprovoked war. They are more likely to support pre-emptive war when the circumstances call for it. Many people, including foreign leaders, felt that Saddam was a threat. And why not? He had previously invaded a neighboring country, used WMD on his own people, and paid off Palestinian suicide bombers. He was not a peaceful neighbor. There was legitimate reason to believe that Saddam would resume his nuclear ambitions after the UN sanctions were lifted. Knowing all this, wouldn’t it be foolish to ignore what we already knew about Saddam?
Diplomacy is great. But it’s only effective when dealing from a position of strength. That wouldn’t be the case if rogue nations recognize that there are no penalties for breaking agreements or defying UN resolutions. Empty threats do not produce any positive policy changes.
I do not believe the United States should be considered a “warmonger”. Part of tending to our own affairs means taking steps to protect our country and its people. We were attacked on September 11th, and it was a wake-up call to those of us who weren’t aware of the terrorist threat we have been facing for years (before Bush 43, and before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). When other countries support terrorism, it becomes our problem, because terrorists attacked us on 9/11, and could attack us again in the future.
You say that “The U.N. is a great forum for proper intelligent, civilized and self-respecting conversations…” I wish I had your confidence in the U.N.’s ability to solve problems in the international community. I don’t. They haven’t proven to me that they deserve that confidence or to be taken seriously when they attempt to discipline rogue states. If it weren’t for the UN refusing to enforce its own resolutions and monitor Iraq sanctions, we might not be in the situation we are in today with Iraq.
The UN can’t stop North Korea or Iran from getting nukes without co-operation from the rest of the international commmunity. I just don’t see many countries willing to take the necessary steps to stop North Korea and Iran. I hope that I’m wrong about that.