The public already knows the score

September 9, 2007

I get the sense that congressional Democrats are deeply worried about how best to respond to tomorrow’s testimony from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Everyone seems well aware of what we’re likely to hear in terms of their assessment, but challenging their conclusions seems trickier.

If opponents of the war treat Petraeus and Crocker with kid gloves, the administration’s public-relations offensive will have succeeded and dubious conclusions about conditions in Iraq will be largely embraced as the conventional wisdom. If war critics are overly aggressive, the right will characterize Democrats’ skepticism as some kind of anti-military animus.

So, how do Dems convince Americans that the assessment from Petraeus and Crocker is really just a continuation of the White House line? As it turns out, they don’t have to — Americans are already there.

Most Americans think this week’s report from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus will exaggerate progress in Iraq, and few expect it to result in a major shift in President Bush’s policy. […]

[T]hough the public assessment of progress in Iraq remains largely negative, most expected Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to express a rosier view when he begins his congressional testimony tomorrow. Only about four in 10 said they expect the general to give an accurate accounting of the situation in Iraq. A majority, 53 percent, said they think his report will try to make the situation in Iraq look better than it really is.

What’s more, 66% of respondents in the Post/ABC poll said the president will “stick with his Iraq policy no matter what the Petraeus report says.”

It is not a public looking to Petraeus to convince them that Bush is on the right track.

Indeed, the antipathy is strong and widespread.

Fifty-eight percent, a new high, said they want to decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. And most of those who advocated a troop reduction said they want the drawdown to begin either right away or by the end of the year. A majority, 55 percent, supported legislation that would set a deadline of next spring for the withdrawal of American combat forces. That figure is unchanged from July.

Only about a third believed the United States is making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq, most said the buildup has not made much difference, and a majority said they do not expect the troop increase to improve the security situation over the next few months. Just one-third were confident the Iraqi government can meet its political and security goals.

This is not to say that the White House’s p.r. offensive has been a complete wash. There was an uptick in the number of people who believe conditions in Iraq may have improved, but it was overwhelmed by public pessimism.

The public’s baseline judgment on the war is little changed — more than six in 10 said the war is not worth fighting, a sentiment that has been a majority view for nearly three years. […]

There remains only limited support for key elements of the administration’s rationale for continuing the fight. Two-thirds said the risk of a terrorist attack occurring in the United States would be about the same whether U.S. forces stay in Iraq or withdraw, 54 percent said anti-terrorism efforts can succeed without winning in Iraq, and 52 percent said the Iraq war has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

The public has already concluded that Democrats are right about Iraq policy. Now all Dems have to do is articulate it well and not back down.

“Now all Dems have to do is articulate it well and not back down.”

Well, phooey, you had to go and ruin my good feeling.

  • Our best hope is these Democratic Congresspeople back from time with their constituents in their home districts heard an earful about our collective national dissatisfaction with Iraq. In the most cynical terms, I hope the Congresscritters realize the most politically savvy thing to do is to challenge this very unpopular administration and capitulating to a very weak George Bush is the least wise thing for the political future.

  • “There go my followers, and I must run after them, for I am their leader!”

    What is so damn hard for those fools masquerading as Democrats in Washington to figure out? Do they have to have a spine-ectomy as well as a lobotomy inorder to go to Washington????????

    Actually, what happens is, we do elect a good politician, but then the night of victory they go to sleep and are replaced by a “pod person.” Invasion of the Body Snatchers indeed.

  • If opponents of the war treat Petraeus and Crocker with kid gloves, the administration’s public-relations offensive will have succeeded and dubious conclusions about conditions in Iraq will be largely embraced as the conventional wisdom. If war critics are overly aggressive, the right will characterize Democrats’ skepticism as some kind of anti-military animus.

    But given the public sentiment, this is an easy needle to thread. The best way to neutralize Petreaus is to (a) treat him like a non-event (aggression makes his report look too important) and (b) making it the public, not Congressional Dems, who are reacting.

    For example, after the report, Senator Dem O. Cratic (D-Generic) should go to the nearest press microphone and say something like:

    “There was nothing here we didn’t expect, particularly given the Bush White House’s role in the report. Regardless of this report, the public can read the papers and see the reports and make their own decisions about whether Iraq is really making progress and whether it is worth more of our sons and daughters lives or a deficit on our children and grandchildren. From what I’ve seen of recent polls, the public has already drawn some conclusions on that issue, and they don’t favor Mr. Bush and his mishandling of Iraq. I don’t see today’s rather predictable report changing much of anything, particularly given the other reports like the indepdent GAO report providing a different impression.”

    Not particularly harsh, but packs in a number of high points for the public to read. The more blase and almost bored the speaker can sound in delivering it, the better.

  • Congressional Democrats are almost certainly worried about their response to Crocker and Petraeus but, not for the reason that seems most obvious. I’m beginning to suspect that their timidity has more to do with protecting their anticipated victories in 2008 than anything else. The result is a mentality that says, “Things are going our way, let’s not mess it up.”

    Although Democrats will challenge some of the conclusions in both reports, the troop levels in Iraq and the funding for the war will remain whatever the administration wants them to be. The ensuing drawdown of a brigade here and a brigade there, due to necessity rather than policy, will be spun as proof of success. We will suddenly become substantially more successful next Summer when the seasonal decrease in violence will be touted as the winding down of the insurgency. Look for the removal of even higher numbers of troops in September and October. Also look for those same troops to be sent back “Because I listen to my generals,” or “To mop up the dead-enders,” shortly after the election.

  • Why are we allowing a draft dodger who can barely complete a sentence dictate our global military strategy?

  • I really think the Republicans are just counting on the Democrats being too scared to try to pass something that ties funding to timelines for withdrawal. If you think about it, if the Congress passed something like this, for Bush to ignore it, he’d have to pull off something like a coup. I just don’t think Bush and his people have enough balls to try this, and the political consequences for them would be insurmountable. The Dems really just have to try to pass something again and again, and the Repubs will start to get on board. Nobody sane wants this war to last forever.

  • Goddam worthless, spineless Democrats! We’re about to have this Petraeus-Crocker dog-and-pony show that will be no different from all the other White House stunts in the past. And the Democrats are already stampeding to fall for it again! As soon as the testimony is over, Congressmen will be nodding wisely and saying “Yes, yes! We’ll have to give it more time (plus another $50 billion dollars!). The next six months will be critical.”

    How many times can people be suckered in with the same bullshit? The “next six months” have been “critical” every few months since the FIRST six months, four and a half years ago! Another six months: another 600 dead Americans. Another 10,000 dead Iraqis. Another $75 billion up in smoke. Attention, Congressional Democrats: WAKE THE HELL UP!

  • I wrote:

    If you think about it, if the Congress passed something like this, for Bush to ignore it, he’d have to pull off something like a coup.

    That is, and if the Democrats kept sending it back to him if he vetoed it.

  • Probably the likeliest way to a coup would then be to issue an executive order, declaring that Congress was unconstitutionally violating the President’s war powers by refusing to fund-to-fight rather than fund-to-withdraw in the middle of a big war, and thereby undermining national security. The EO would claim that the Treasury has to fund anyway. Then the Dems could challenge the EO in court, unless Bush used force to try to prevent this, and if the courts returned a result unfavorable to Bush, Bush would then have to take the next step of trying to get his way illegally. A lot would depend on whether the Court would back up Bush on this. Or, Bush could pull some dirty tricks, and, for example, try to frame key Democratic lawmakers, if he thought locking them up would somehow stifle the Congress. Whatever happened, martial law would be pretty hard to enforce in the United States if it came to that. Bush would somehow have to sell the whole nation on the idea that his was the only legitimate authority.

    I think if the Dems push it, it’s a really tough pitch for Bush to get to the plate.

  • Back in May, when Congress sent Bush that funding bill for Iraq with withdrawal timetables, the one that he vetoed, polls showed that a clear majority of Americans:

    Supported beginning withdrawal of troops from Iraq
    Believed that Congress, not Bush, should have final say in making that decision
    Supported a funding bill for Iraq that included withdrawal timetables
    Blamed Congress, not Bush, for Bush’s veto of the bill that included timetables
    Opposed cutting off funds for Iraq operations if Bush would not sign a bill with timetables

    This suggests to me that people were conflicted about the idea to the point that it was more appealing in the abstract than in the prospect at that point — kind of like if you ask someone if they’d like to have a pony and they say yes, but when you say here’s your pony, they say I live in an apartment. You could argue that Democrats did not do a good job of bringing the public along and certainly the Republicans’ PR machine is still extremely effective at keeping people confused. But I also think people have a basic understanding that bad things are going to happen when we withdraw from Iraq and need time to sort through their feelings about that.

    I still believe as I said at the time that sending that bill to the president in May had value, even if only as a publicity stunt, because it began moving the idea out of the realm of abstraction and got a lot people thinking and talking about it about it in much more real terms than they had dared to before. But if we hope to accomplish more than publicity stunts in the next round then Democrats are going to have to thread a needle. As good as a frontal attack might feel, and I admit it would feel pretty damned good, I wouldn’t rule out that a more circumspect approach might not be more effective. Either way, beginning the discussion with overtures of compromise and concilliation might not be a bad way to start. If nothing else it could make adopting a more aggressive stance later, if/when Republicans refuse to budge, a lot easier to sell to the public at large.

    Sorry for the long post.

  • Bush would then have to take the next step of trying to get his way illegally.

    I got it! He could have mercenaries in the NSA work with drug lords in Latin America to smuggle drugs, then use the profits to buy arms to sell illegally to Iran, and use those profits to fund his illegal war without Congress even knowing about it! The whole thing could be self-funding, self-contained, and “kind of neat”.

    Oh, wait, nevermind. It’s been done already.

  • A few weeks ago I chanced to read the blog that follows the ABC online news. it was pretty shocking to me as I was expecting a more balnced group of discussion. It was pretty vicious and ignorant to a great extent so anybody considering a poll that includes ABC news should take this into consideration.
    David Chisholm

  • Not sure if the Dems are going to put up much of a fight to the GOP and Petreus. Mostly lip service I’m sure. In the end, the Dems will capitulate and give Bush and Cheney more money to continue the war.

    What else is new?

    • Comments are closed.