Poll after poll is showing massive public support for Donald Rumsfeld in the wake of the prison abuse scandal. By a more than 2:1 margin, most Americans are oposed to the idea of Rumsfeld resigning. With good reason: he clearly hasn't done anything seriously wrong, and the scandal was being criminally investigated long before news of it broke. The only thing that's "news" is that photos got released, and apparently Rumsfeld wasn't in any rush for that to happen. Few but the most bitter partisans would see that as a capital offense.
Here's the truth of the matter: most Americans want to see us win in Iraq. Things like this don't make us think we need to quit. Most people realize that mistakes are going to be made, because that's the nature of human beings. What's important is how you address those mistakes.
Mind you, it's quite possible that something like this will cost Bush his job in November. Americans might indeed decide they want a change. However, here's the problem: Kerry, along with most of his fellow Democrats, have done nothing but criticize the President's policies, and consistently refused to state what their policies would be in more than very vague and evasive ways. It's apparent why this is so: they don't actually have any firm idea what they want to do, they simply want to jump on any mistakes that are made. So don't look for Kerry to propose anything solid or concrete before the Democratic National Convention at the earliest. Instead they'll all just keep hammering on why they think Bush and his people suck.
We'll see how well that works out for them. My own suspicion is that, just as the horrible hammering on Condoleeza Rice backfired, so too will the hammering on Rumsfeld: the more nasty and shrill the attacks on Rumsfeld, the more alienated people will become from the critics.
As the Wall Street Journal notes today, no matter how Americans feel or have felt about the decision to go to war, most Americans want us to succeed in Iraq.
That being the case, I have little doubt that we will.
While I have yet to see a concrete idea from the Kerry camp about what we *should* do in Iraq (other than get the UN in there as soon as possible to assist in the transition of power), I also have yet to see a concrete definition from the Bush camp of what "victory" will mean in Iraq.
If it's a democratic Iraq, I do not believe we can win that war.
If it's an Iraq without Saddam Hussein, we already won that war.
If it's an Iraq without terrorists, I seem to remember us losing that war on purpose to attract terrorists to Iraq. Not to mention the terrorists we've literally manufactured there.
Do you really think we'll win simply because we *want* to?
The beheading of Nick Berg shows that there are reasons other than political ones for keeping the prison photos underwraps while and investigation goes on. The media is once again becoming on the story by reporting on something that was known back in January, minus the pictures. The video of a beheading is unmeasureably worse than a photo of a woman pointing at a naked man. If the media doesn't find a way to commensurately condemn the beheading then they lose what credibility they have. (That's silly, they have nothing to lose)
John: Actually, victory in Iraq has already been defined: a stable, democratic government. And it has been made very clear by the administration that that is expected to take a few years.
Unstated is of course that we will maintain military bases there in order to continue to put the feet to the fire to other regimes in the region which look the other way at terrorist groups or ideologies that encourage them.
If you believe all that is unachievable, then I presume, John, then you would advocate... what? Pulling out now? Pulling out later?
It's easy enough to say "we are not doing the right things, and here's all the things that are not going perfectly." Until you can say, "If we did this instead, it would be better," and stand up and defend that, all you're doing is kvetching, and sapping morale to no purpose.
Rodney: I for one don't believe those prison photos had anything to do with Denton's execution. They were going to kill him regardless, the only question was the excuse they would use. The real purpose was to kill an American.
However, here's the problem: Kerry, along with most of his fellow Democrats, have done nothing but criticize the President's policies, and consistently refused to state what their policies would be in more than very vague and evasive ways.
Have you read http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/? I find it sad when people (of either or any camp) set up their candidate as the lesser of two evils and that is the reason you should chose them to lead your country.
And that, unfortunately, is exactly where the vast majority of Democrats find themselves right now. Ask them why Kerry, they have no answer. It's all about why they hate Bush.
This is what happens when as a party you no longer believe anything except that you belong in power and the other party doesn't.
I've been pointing this out for two years and Democrats just get mad at me and accuse me of attacking them. No, I'm not attacking them, I'm pointing out to them that they have a problem they shoudl be working on fixing.
Hello Dean.
Interesting how you leap from "public support for Donald Rumsfeld in the wake of the prison abuse scandal" to "most Americans want to see us win in Iraq" ("us"? As in US, or as in other then "them"? Really Dean, "us's" and "them's" tut, tut).
All to often lack of public condemnation is translated as "public support".
Read the actual poll data, not just Wall streets analysis. In fact, read a few polls while you're at it. There is a marked downward trend in optimism. Most Americans are probably actually busy being "dismayed", perhaps a little shellshocked, and even apathetic at the moment, it is a bit of stretch to squeeze "massive support's" and "want to wins's" out of melancholy.
I suppose there are two camps out there on the situation in Iraq. I believe there is a majority who truly wants us to "win". However that camp is divided in how they see victory. Some feel it is the development of a thriving democracy in that country. Some feel it is relinquishing control to the UN. Some feel it is simply no more casualties. All feel like stability in that region is the end result of a win.
On the other hand, there is a camp, albeit smaller, which desire the exact opposite. This camp is also divided but they do have some common desires: that more soldiers would die; that the terrorists become bolder and stronger; that the US ultimately flees the region in disgrace. Some of these want any outcome which harms the Bush adminstration. Others feel that our involvement in Iraq is imperialism and losing is the best thing for the world.
King of Fools
Well, I was going to ask if there was a third camp in your vision, but then I realised probably not, so I just wandered of to a nearby peak and pitched my tent on my own.
Then I lit a small campfire, and pondered upon your camps. Then I thought about my tent again, and as I hopped into my sleeping bag I thought, well hey, this is the best camp there is.
goodnight.
Dean, I've seen several comments to the effect that this is less a competition between Bush and Kerry, than a referendum on Bush.
This means, in a sick-humor, perverse, kind of way, the whole "notBush" thing makes some sort of backwards sense.
So in November vote for Bush, or one of the other guys.
When does the first class graduate from Rumsfeld Support High?
I don't see Kerry's poll numbers sky-rocketing, either.
I think those "dismayed" polls are taken of people who watch only mainstream "news" -- or the Daily Show. 6 of one...
Kerry has a pretty comprehensive plan for Iraq, which you can find at:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/
Kerry has been pushing hard for more UN involvment, which Bush has decided to adopt too.
I am not sure the UN is willing to co-operate with a man who called them "irrelevant" 14 months ago, but it worth a try.
We need all the help we can get. Preferably from Islamic nations that like us and have democracies. Are there any like that left?
Jim: I see only three paragraphs in that link you provided. Are they the comprehensive plan? And half of them have already been in the works for the last year.
As for the U.N. not working with us because they were called "irrelevant"--that's not how the UN operates.
Sorry that there is not more at that link, but it is quite a bit more than the nothing that you state. It is also more than Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Vietnam or Eisenhower's campaign promises on Korea.
He has also said that the US needs to bolster our troop comittment there.
As for the UN, it is composed of the member states, many of whom have been at the butt end of one or another Bush attack. Either being called "Old Europe" or "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" (okay, that wasn't Bush, but it the Republican Congress) or told "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" hasn't exactly improved America's standing in the world. The UN is not a very friendly place for US interests at this point.
I think a new American President will at the very least have a honeymoon period where he can try and convince the rest of the world shoulder some of the burdens of maintaining security in Iraq and rebuilding Iraq.
Dean, I've already said about 1,000 times what I thought would be a better idea: Focus our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda ACTUALLY ARE. Provide economic and/or military support to any civilian rebellion in Iraq against Saddam Hussein, because any truly representative government would be better than his, even if it's an Islamic state; and no people can truly be liberated unless they've liberated themselves. America liberated itself from Britain with help, granted, but we were the prime movers, not another colonial power. Put intense pressure on Saudi Arabia regarding its exportation of Wahabi Islam, which is the exact flavor of Islam that created Al Qaeda and stop buying their goddamn oil. Continue to work with the international community to catch terrorists wherever we can. Keep as much of our military at home as we can and use them to secure our borders.
Do I need to *sing* it, Dean? My Lord. You might know what the "other side" would rather do if you actually *listened*, instead of drowning us out with all your talk about how we have no ideas.
It's not like foreign policy was born with the Bush administration.
We cannot unbreak the egg John. While I agree that Iraq was an unneccesary divresion in the War on Terror, it is ours now and we have an obligation to clean up the mess we made and put in some kind of stable leadership before leaving. It had at least be better than what was in there before, if we want to maintain any kind of credibility in the Arab world.
It is illuminating to go to the John Kerry and George Bush websites and type "Iraq" into the search engines.
http://www.georgewbush.com/NationalSecurity/search.aspx
give me 47 hits. Number two is an attack on Kerry's Iraq proposals.
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp1001847f&sp-f=ISO-8859-1&sp-q=iraq&x=0&y=0
give me 362 hits, which I am not about to read through. Number one and two are the same exact thing. Number three is an attack on Bush's policies in Iraq. Most of the rest are speeches where Iraq is mentioned in passing.
I don't see any evidence here for either side to cliam much moral high ground.
If anyone knows what Bush's plans and policies for Iraq are, I would love to see it.