Growing GOP Dissent on Iraq

cbsnews.com ^ | April 7, 2004 | David Paul Kuhn

[DayTripper]

President Bush is facing increasing dissent among leading conservative politicians and pundits in the face of mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq.

The war has become the long slog that some Republicans feared. Since Sunday, 32 Americans have been killed in fighting across Iraq. American body bags are on the front page of major U.S. newspapers.

The Washington Post and The New York Times brandished images of charred U.S. civilian remains last week. The networks are leading their nightly news broadcasts with stories of dead Americans.

"If we have two or three more weeks of this you are going to start to see Republican members of Congress who have never been critical of President Bush and the Iraq policy starting to get that way," said Charles Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Republican Party ranks are beginning to break and the White House is worried. Longtime GOP critics on Iraq are growing progressively more vocal in their condemnation.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, has strongly suggested that the Bush administration reconsider its June 30 deadline to transfer sovereignty from the interim government to Iraqis.

"How do you know, come June 30, that a civil war will not occur?" Lugar said on Voice of America radio. "After all, the coalition has not disarmed all of these militia that these religious groups have in various places. They still are armed and apparently ready to fight."

Usually loyal pundits are speaking out, too. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday, "U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient."

There are currently 135,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq – along with 24,000 international troops – and pressure is rising on the Bush administration to increase troop deployment. But the Department of Defense says it plans to decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by tens of thousands around the June 30 deadline.

The White House continues to claim that most Iraqis support the American presence. But even some ardent conservative backers of the president are voicing skepticism.

"I'm not buying this 'Iraqis are on the American side' right now," Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said on the Tuesday night broadcast of "The O’Reilly Factor." The leading conservative commentator repeatedly called the current conflict a "second war in Iraq."

O'Reilly added, "I think Rumsfeld has got a lot of explaining to do here. There's a lot of mistakes that are now killing American soldiers."

Fellow conservative pundit and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough of MSNBC was even more critical in his broadcast Tuesday.

Scarborough: "Do we need more troops in Iraq? Hell, yes, we do. ... Should June 30 handover date to the Iraqis be extended? You can bet your life on it ... because creating this false deadline in time for a presidential election is no way to win a war."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called the administration's June 30 deadline "arbitrary" in an NPR interview broadcast Wednesday. He also accused President Bush of not providing "Americans with a thorough understanding of exactly who we are turning the authority over to and precisely what the consequences of that will be."

The presumptive Democratic nominee's criticism of the president is no surprise. But for that criticism to be echoed by leaders of Mr. Bush's own party and top conservative pundits is a problem that could have grave affects on the president's hopes of winning reelection.

"Now that things aren't going so well, Republican critics are more open in their criticism," Cook said. "When there was a limit in how critical they could be of their own president before, even though they thoroughly disagreed."

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told CNN Tuesday that the Bush administration has "few good options" left regarding Iraq. The implication: the White House has dug a ditch that it possibly cannot get out of without getting its hands dirty.

The foundation of the president’s reelection campaign is the portrayal of Mr. Bush as the steady commander in chief successfully fighting the war on terror (the war in Iraq being one and the same to the Bush White House). Republicans questioning Mr. Bush's leadership in that war adds more fodder to Sen. Kerry's larger critique of the president.

A Pew Research Center national survey conducted this week shows that the majority of Americans now disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. Adding to the GOP dilemma, on Election Day there is more at stake for Republicans than the White House alone.

"For the first time in this election cycle there is some doubt about whether the Republicans will be able to hold onto the Senate," Cook said, adding his own critique of the Iraq war effort.

"Whether you agree about whether we should've done it or not, it is hard to say the war is being done well."

[weegee]

The networks are leading their nightly news broadcasts with stories of dead Americans.

This is evidence of nothing except that the liberal media elites are trying to oust President Bush from office.

The same man than made Perky Katie cry when she announced he won on election day.

The same man that made Dan Rather look fatigued when he announced that it looked like George W. Bush had won on election day (only to find new energy when Gore recanted his concession).

The same party that had an election sweep in 1994 that made Peter Jennings declare "America threw a temper tantrum last".

The same man that Peter Jennings said of on 9/11/01 "some presidents do this sort of thing well, (rolls eyes) while others (pause) do not."

[Support Free Republic]

Let the liberals cling to their myths of Camelot: Free Republic supports fidelity and family values!
Compare	Contrast
* Pro-Life * Commitment	- Pro-Abortion - Annulment
'nuff said?
Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to:         FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 Or you can use:                      PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-- Found in the breaking news sidebar! Fawnn

[Samurai_Jack]

"The O’Reilly Factor." The leading conservative commentator

I thought Rush Limbaugh was the 'leading conservative commentator'?

[weegee]

The "revived" public Media Schadenfreude and and Media Shenanigans lists:

Freepmail An Amused Spectator to get on/off this list.

[dawn53]

This article is so flawed in it's logic and arguments, not to mention it "out of context" interpretation of quotes cited, that it's hardly worth commenting on.

[DustyMoment]

Republican Party ranks are beginning to break and the White House is worried. Longtime GOP critics on Iraq are growing progressively more vocal in their condemnation.

True to form, CBS news remains rabidly anti-Bush. Most of this is wishful thinking on the part of CBS.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, has strongly suggested that the Bush administration reconsider its June 30 deadline to transfer sovereignty from the interim government to Iraqis.

Neither Lugar, nor the Senate has any wiggle room on this. The Dems pushed for an exit date on Iraq and got one - June 30. Bush has repeatedly said that this date will not change. Lugar and the rest of the 'Pubbies wenta along and let the Dems lead them - AGAIN! No one from EITHER party has ANY room to complain.

I would like to point out a substantial difference between Bush and his predecessor - when Clinton went into Bosnia, he promised that we would ONLY be there for one (1) year. Well, apparently, he was using another planet's calendar, because we have remained mired in Bosnia for well over one (1) EARTH calendar year. Bush says June 30, the date that the Dems and the UN pushed him to commit to, is the date and we will hand over control of the country to the Iraqis. While I don't believe that the situation will be totally stable at that time, Bush is a man of his word and will, unlike ANY Dem (other than Zell Miller), HONOR his commitment.

[weegee]

"I'm not buying this 'Iraqis are on the American side' right now," Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said on the Tuesday night broadcast of "The O’Reilly Factor."

I don't buy that the majority of muslims in America are on our side either:

Most U.S. Muslims see U.S. as immoral

"...the survey revealed that 85 percent disapprove of the job President Bush is doing."

[swilhelm73]

Heck, O'Reilly's not even a conservative.

But then the majority of the press is so far off in left field I guess a *real* moderate like O'Reilly looks about the same as Rush Limbaugh to them...

[Poundstone]

Interesting that, even if you accept the CBS report as 100% accurate, the Republican "dissidents" want to get even TOUGHER in Iraq than the administration; they want MORE troops to be dispatched.

They're hardly "breaking" with the Administration the way the Democrats have.

[billhilly]

If our political and military resolve fail in Iraq, this country will never again be capable of defending itself. Casualties are a part of war. A necessary part. Why do our young military men and women understand that so much better than politicians and news people?

[GraniteStateConservative]

Usually loyal pundits are speaking out, too. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday, "U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient."

There are currently 135,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq – along with 24,000 international troops – and pressure is rising on the Bush administration to increase troop deployment. But the Department of Defense says it plans to decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by tens of thousands around the June 30 deadline.

Does he think we'll have a draft? That's the only way we'll have a measurable increase in troop counts. We don't have enough now in reserve to boost our total in a significant way.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Scarborough: "Do we need more troops in Iraq? Hell, yes, we do. ... Should June 30 handover date to the Iraqis be extended? You can bet your life on it ... because creating this false deadline in time for a presidential election is no way to win a war."

It's about winning an election, Joe. This war won't be won for years and years. First things first.

[reformedliberal]

The Dems pushed for an exit date on Iraq and got one - June 30.

---

I believe this is the very first time ANYONE has said this. Thank You. I thought I had imagined it.

When they b!tch that this administration is *stubborn*, they mean that they cannot be rolled, although, as this date (and countless other) flap shows: they try.

It is the same w/the accusation of *secrecy*. If I knew there were burrowed Civil Service-protected Dem moles in every department of the government, I'd be secretive, too.

Lugar and Hegel are not supporters of the administration. They both can tick me off easily w/their siding w/the liberals.

And O'Reilly is not a Republican, although he has all but said he is voting for Bush because he cannot imagine Kerry as POTUS and he has recently said the same about Gore.

Scarborough: well, I haven't watched him in a long time. I could be wrong, but I stopped when he began to remind me of Savage. I notice they aren't including Savage, either. That must irritate him.

Calling these sources long time GOP critics is accurate.

[Psalm 73]

Sen. Richard Lugar (R - France)....

[rrrod]

"Scarborough: "Do we need more troops in Iraq? Hell, yes, we do. ... Should June 30 handover date to the Iraqis be extended? You can bet your life on it ... because creating this false deadline in time for a presidential election is no way to win a war." I think its been said over and over that if more troops are required by the command in Iraq, they will get them!...and June 30 turn over of the will put the pressure on Iraqi leaders..Its perfect...think about it folks

[DugwayDuke]

"The Dems pushed for an exit date on Iraq and got one - June 30."

It's not an "exit date". Our troops will remain in Iraq long past that date. They will continue to take their orders from Washington. This 30 June date is largely meaningless.

[an amused spectator]

Looks like See-BS finally decided it was safe to put up a seditious piece after the Fallujah counterattack. And they got to use "body bags"! Nothing tickles the treasonous soul of a Democrat "journalist" quite like using the phrase "body bags" to tear down US troop morale, and morale on the home front.

I can imagine these ghouls writing about Normandy, Tarawa and the Battle of the Bulge.

[TrueBeliever9]

"...the survey revealed that 85 percent disapprove of the job President Bush is doing."

I STRONGLY disapprove with the manner in which Muslims living in the USA have conducted themselves before and after 9/11! BUT no one is surveying me!

[Maine For Bush]

I agree. It's mostly symbolic. If people think that after June 30th our troops will be safe, they are leaving in a fantasy land. This is going to last for years, like Bosnia. But I think most people knew that going in.