Posted on 03/19/2006 4:14:54 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
On the third anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, the US capital’s historic protest venues were surprisingly serene on Sunday. Outside the White House tourists had their pictures taken next to a cardboard cut-out of the president, families enjoyed the sun on the Mall and several bored-looking policemen stood guard outside the vice-president’s DC home. Not a placard in sight or a chant to be heard.
Americans may have turned decisively against the war in Iraq in recent months, but their change of heart has been largely expressed quietly to pollsters rather than in loud public protests. The micro-protests that have taken place around the third anniversary – including a few hundred who gathered to hear anti-war speeches in the affluent DC neighbourhood of Dupont Circle – pale by comparison with the monster demonstrations against the Vietnam war.
A clue to this curiously low-key response may be found in the bustling shopping centres. Despite the mounting cost of the war in Iraq, the economic consequences have remained relatively contained. There have been no signs of a decline in consumer confidence and no uptick in inflation.
Americans have not even been asked to stump up the cash for the war effort – at least not yet – with the administration and Congress opting for higher borrowing rather than higher taxes.
As of Friday military casualties had mounted to 2,313 killed and 17,000 wounded. This is enough to make many Americans question the conflict, but the toll still falls far short of the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam.
But the simmering concerns over the conflict have been taking a heavy toll on support for George W. Bush, dragging the president’s approval ratings close to the levels of support for President Richard Nixon in the wake of Watergate.
A poll for Newsweek magazine at the end of last week showed that just 29 per cent of Americans approve of the president’s handling of the war, down from 69 per cent in the months after the conflict began in March 2003. Almost 60 per cent of Americans now feel less confident that the war will come to a successful conclusion, with fears mounting that the country will slide into civil war.
The administration has launched a new campaign to rebuild support for the war. In a television interview on Sunday, Dick Cheney, the vice-president, said there was “overwhelming evidence” that the US was making progress in Iraq. Set-piece speeches are planned this week by both the president and vice-president.
Yet despite the reassurances, recent pronouncements of the president have had an uncharacteristically dour tone. In a speech over the weekend, Mr Bush acknowledged that there had been “horrific images from Iraq” and that a “tense situation” prevailed in parts of the country. He urged Americans to brace for “more fighting and sacrifice.” That is not what was being predicted three years ago.
Not in *my* case.
but their change of heart has been largely expressed quietly to pollsters rather than in loud public protests.
Nobody's asked *me* a damn thing.
Is the Fianacial Times like the British clone of Wall Street Journal? I remember it endorsed John F. Kerry.
Heh. He said a mouthful.
When the media is trying to paint a doom/gloom picture of huge throngs of people who "have turned decisively against the war", but are forced to acknowledge that the evidence for this is all in polls and not in reality (let alone active protests, etc.), they almost give the game away.
In short, the polls are leading and the public is coached, regualarly, day after day, by the media's drumbeat on what they are supposed to say.
He urged Americans to brace for “more fighting and sacrifice.” That is not what was being predicted three years ago.
Sure it was. The person who wrote this is ignorant or a liar.
I'm so sick of being lied to by propaganda hacks.
Funny how the US House voted 403-3 to KEEP THE TROOPS IN IRAQ until the job is done. Funny how THAT simple fact is never reported by these uber-rotting libnutmedia carcasses.
I no longer buy anything they shell out, media-wise. Every single story they "report" (i.e. make up) is suspect and a lie until proven otherwise.
The only disapproval is coming from old hippies who never grew up,communists that hate the U.S.,disgraceful Congressman that care more about winning their next election than our troops and our future,and the old media that create slanted polls and tout it as news.
This war has been won,the Iraqi military is improving quickly,when they are ready,then our troops will come home,to the thanks,the honor and the respect they all deserve./rant
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
The Financial Times - another leftist propaganda organ.
The headline should have been "War Protests Bomb", instead of that Orwellian spin.
Article after article after article is coming out tonight talking about how dissappointing the numbers were for these protests.
The media can spin this any way they would like, but all of the protesters the media showed up to report on, never bothered to show up themselves.
The massive anti war protests that the media promised us earlier this week, never happened. I wonder why?
"""Almost 60 per cent of Americans now feel less confident that the war will come to a successful conclusion, with fears mounting that the country will slide into civil war.""
with no help of course from the weak-knee american people....Al Qaeda knows us better than we know ourselves
I just finished talking to a close friend of mine who's a dyed-in-the-wool Dem. The occasion was the death of one his ex-wives and I called to express my sympathy. We were talking about various non-political things when he launched into a diatribe about/against the war in Iraq. I heard all the dishonest arguments that Dems have been spewing about how Hussein was no threat, more Iraqis have died since the war than all the years Hussein was ruler blah blah blah. My friend went from lib talking point to lib talking point.
When I tried to pin him down on all his "facts", he would quickly change topics and he finally announced that we shouldn't talk politics. He had been doing most of the talking, and butted in every time I started a counter argument.
We're still close friends, but all he reads and hears is lib propaganda. He thinks Al Franken is a great politcal analyst. He asked me why I wasn't still a Dem. (I changed parties about ten years ago). I answered because I finally started getting facts about how things actually were and not lib propaganda. We eventually changed topics from politics to personal matters.
This writer is either stupid or wasn't born three years ago. Pres. Bush told us from the start this would be a long, hard struggle, not some sort of 30-minute sit-com war. Dope.
You know, the administration was NOT prepared for this kind of resistance.
The longer this goes on, the more damgaed Bush will be.
That was part of the deal and I think everyone understood that.
The American people, for the most part, have shown quite a bit of patience. I think it's up to the administration to state it's case. Are they doing it effectively?
I'd be decisively against the Germans and French.
They've let the "Coalition of the Willing" make all the sacrifices in removing a brutal dictator who was thumbing his nose at the UN's regulations.
Shhhh. It is soo quiet that only the liberal media can hear it..Shhhh /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.