The speech didn’t work

January 11, 2007

If last night’s presidential address was Bush’s “last chance” to convince Americans that he has a sound and effective plan for the war in Iraq, the White House has a problem. Initial overnight polls show the speech wasn’t particularly persuasive.

A majority of Americans oppose sending additional troops to Iraq as outlined by President Bush in his nationally televised address Wednesday night, and just one-in-three Americans said the plan for more troops and a stepped up combat efforts by Iraqi forces make victory there more likely, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The findings of the survey, conducted after Bush’s primetime speech, represent an initial rebuke to the White House goal of generating additional public support for the mission in Iraq. The poll found that 61 percent of Americans oppose sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, with 52 percent saying they strongly oppose the plan. Just 36 percent said they back the president’s new proposal.

Bush did slightly better among those who watched the speech — of those who tuned it, 51% oppose troop escalation — but most of those viewers were Republicans.

Here’s the kicker: “The Post-ABC News poll found that 53 percent of Americans support Democrats’ efforts to cut off funds for additional troops.”

The radical, extremist idea that’s presented as being on the political fringe, enjoys majority support, including 51% of political independents.

A new AP poll, which apparently didn’t ask about whether Congress should cut off funding, nevertheless found similar results.

Americans overwhelmingly oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll that serves as a strong repudiation of President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 troops.

The opposition to boosting troop levels in Iraq reflects growing skepticism that the United States made the right decision in going to war in the first place and that a stable, democratic government can be established there. Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move. […]

Fully 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops, and a like number don’t think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there. The telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops. News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush wanted to boost U.S. forces in Iraq.

The Iraq situation continued to be drag on Bush’s overall job approval rating, which stood at 32 percent, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling.

In a broader context, these results will probably be passed around quickly in Washington, where some apparently thought it was possible that Bush won over some converts last night. He didn’t.

For Republicans who might be wavering on whether or not to back escalation, strong public disapproval might make a difference.

For Democrats who might be wavering on whether or not to push back hard against the White House, knowing that 53% of Americans support cutting off funding for an escalation should be a clue as to where the public is on the issue.

How about firing Bush by cutting funds for his pay and that of his staff? Basically eliminate all funding for the White House except for security. No food, no water, no electricity, no pay.

  • thomas…oh thomas?

    Here’s the kicker: “The Post-ABC News poll found that 53 percent of Americans support Democrats’ efforts to cut off funds for additional troops.”

    care to comment thomas? Still dare the congressional dems to cut off funding for additional troops?

  • What the polls represent is the overwhelming desire on the part of most americans to see competent adults take charge.

    Bush’s appearance lat night couldn’t possibly have won anyone over – he had his most terrified deer-in-the-headlights look. It did not inspire confidence.

  • “… knowing that 53% of Americans support cutting off funding for an escalation should be a clue as to where the public is on the issue.”

    Whether that’s enough to goad the Democrats into exercising their newly won (or at least obtained) majority power remains to be seen.

  • You make a very big and unfounded assumption that democratic institutions actually work in a time of war. Face it. There is a group of about a dozen men making all these decisions about war. These polls don’t mean a damn thing. The will of the people? What?

  • I agree with lou (@5) — the lunatics are running the asylum and it’s doubtful that any amount of hot air emanating from Congress on the matter is going to change much.

    Unless, of course, we take ml’s advice (@1) and cut the funding for the WH. As he says: all but the security. And the security ought to be posted outside the place, too, not inside. It’s the American people who need protection from Chimpy’s “brigade”, not the other way ’round.

  • I was very disappointed with Dick Durbin’s official Democratic response to the speech. Durbin repeated Bush’s old argument that “The Iraq government should stand up so that America can stand down.” He should have reminded the public about the non-existent WMD that were the original basis for invading Iraq, note the ever increasing violence and casualties in Iraq and point out that Bush’s “new” plan ignores most of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report.

    I give Bush’s speech higher marks than Durbin’s. As a Biggerbox said in an earlier comment: “He had an excellent speechwriter, and they had his meds tuned just right, so he sounded good and read the speech better than I thought he could anymore.”

  • The base is behind him.

    Had pollsters canvassed the Boiling Springs’ VFW Wednesday night, they would have recorded overwhelming support for President Bush’s retooled war plans.

    “He should’ve (sent more troops) a year ago,” said Wayne Fry, 74. “Once you’re there, you’re there.”

    The group watched quietly as Bush outlined plans for 21,000 additional troops to carry out refined battle plans. Afterward, most in the room agreed that war is not pretty and the president is right to press ahead.

    “Let (the troops) do what they’re trained to do,” said Bill Hartman, 44, retired from the Air Force. “We have the most sophisticated military on the planet. Get the politicians out. Get the media out and let them do the dirty deed that needs to be done.”

  • “Who cares what you think?” George Bush.

    As for cutting off funding, the Congress during Vietnam, didn’t cut funding (and only in half) until almost two years after we had pulled our troops out of Vietnam. So defunding while our troops are there isn’t likely.

    I think Bush shot himself in the foot with this Surge thing. He’s built it up as a surge, but it really isn’t. So now the opposition will gain ground, given something to resist that no one wants to do. Even calling it stay the course would have served him better.

  • There are few situations where the expression “this is like putting lipstick on a pig” is apt, but this is one of them. Bush isn’t fooling anyone with a brain that he is trying to gussy-up his personal failure into a “we’re giving it all we got” last heroic effort. You can’t snear at everyone for years saying “of course we’re winning” and then late in the game finally admit he f’ed up

    As for whether democracy will work in a time of war, there are compelling arguments it doesn’t. But just like a perfect politcal storm got us into this mess, the stars are aligning in ways to get us out. The ’08 presidential election with no incumbency factor in play will chang the debate on the war between now and then tremndously. Gore felt he had to be the anti-Clinton in 2000, and everyone in the presidential field will need to be the anti-Bush in ’08. The public mood will shift how we handle Iraq, but not necessarily in the most efficient manner.

  • Of course the speech didn’t work. Nothing Bush does works. Bush looked shaken and grim. I was struck that he longer stresses “belief” and he no longer dreams of victory. Only a desperate man looks to war with Iran for political cover.

  • I get where this thread is going, but justifying decisions based on public opinion polls can be tricky. How long did a majority of Americans think Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks? And two years ago, a substantial number elected Bush to a second term. Just sayin…

  • Shut off the military money. There is sufficient already appropriated to keep going for some months and to pay for the evacuation. If any troops on the ground ‘run out of bullets’ it’s because the administration wants them to.

    Fund the Civilian rebuilding but only if there is a stable government in Iraq to oversee it. That will give the Iraqis sufficient reason to create a stable government.

    Create laws to ABSOLUTELY forbid the administration’s ideas about building permanent US military installations anywhere in Iraq.

    Support and recognize a free and independent Kurdistan if that’s what the Kurds want. They have been on our side for over 50 years and they are not as crazy as the Arabs.

    Let the Iraqis do whatever they want with their oil in the free market. Remember ‘free market’? It’s a conservative fundament.

  • Bush can probably bull his way through opposition and get his “surge” (though I think it’s more like a squirt than a surge). The problem is that there’s a price to pay.

    The public has turned against the war and against Bush for continuing it. I think people are going to remember this behavior, and remember that it was a Republican president who ran amok and wouldn’t listen to anyone. Bush, already unpopular, is building up a large reservoir of absolutely toxic revulsion and distrust.

    In future elections, the first question every GOP presidential candidate will have to answer will be “How do we know you aren’t another Dubya?” And they’d better have a damn good answer. Because the Dems will be doing everything they can to tie the Bush millstone around any future GOP presidential nominee’s neck.

  • He’s the Decider, not the Persuader.

    Of course, successful presidents must be both. Has Bush ever changed the nation’s mind on anything–or even moved public opinion slightly in his direction? Since the 2004 election, he’s “gone to the country” (by which I mean, hand-picked audiences of syncophants screened for political loyalty) on a range of issues, most notably Iraq repeatedly and Social Security. Every time, his numbers have gone down.

    Then again, it’s tough to persuade people on a subject one doesn’t even understand–and harder still when, at core, you don’t believe their opinions count one whit. The unending grab for more executive-branch power is probably about this as much as anything else; dictators need never cajole, compromise or adjust, much less convince.

  • thomas…oh thomas?
    ———————————————–Edo

    Thomas sends his regrets. The Decider has ordered all of the flying monkeys to don their black sweatsuits and tennis shoes, drink a special brand of kool-aid, and patiently wait in their little bunk-beds for the spaceships to arrive.

    The spaceships are hiding behind behind that “Mission Accomplished” banner from over three years ago, by the way….

  • ml (#1) hs it right: How about firing Bush by cutting funds for his pay and that of his staff? Basically eliminate all funding for the White House except for security. No food, no water, no electricity, no pay.

    Add in “mothball Air Force One” and leave Georgie Porgie Pudd’n ‘n’ Pie where he belongs.

    • Comments are closed.