Change of heartland
On the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, many Hoosiers are no longer strongly behind the war
(By Charlie Savage, Boston Globe Staff March 19, 2006)
SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- The third anniversary of the Iraq invasion unleashed a surge of pessimism at a local farmers' market here, where stalwart Republicans, standing amid aisles of produce and miracle cures, said President Bush has messed up a war that looks more like Vietnam every day.
"It's chaos," said Roger Madaras, who voted twice for Bush. ''How many more people are going to be killed? We were going in to free the people of Iraq, but as far as I'm concerned, a lot of them are worse off today than they were under the dictatorship."
Madaras, the owner of a plumbing company, said he believed Bush when the president declared major combat to be over in May 2003, and is ''disgusted" that Bush's rhetoric was hollow. And he is far from alone.
Support for Bush and his handling of Iraq is sharply eroding across the American heartland, where the overcast skies and the muddy fields of late winter matched a sense of gloom about Bush and the war.
This month, the Indianapolis Star released poll findings that Bush's approval rating among Indiana voters stood at 37 percent -- a drop of 18 points over the past year. The numbers echoed national polls, but were particularly shocking in a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and where Democratic presidential contenders often do not bother to campaign.
''A 37 percent approval rating in Indiana for a Republican president is unheard of," said Brian Howey, who runs a newsletter for Indiana state political insiders. ''Those are Bill Clinton or John Kerry numbers in Indiana. So there is something seriously awry going on right now."
In scattered rural diners and small-town restaurants adorned with 9/11-vintage American flag posters, support for the troops remains high. But many in Indiana also say the war has not turned out the way they thought it would three years ago, and they question whether Bush has what it takes to lead the troops into a happy ending.
Read the full Globe story here.
posted by John Good @ 7:06 PM
5 Comments:
Imagine that, a bunch of weak-stomached armchair quarterbacks can't stand to finish what we started. And by WE, I mean the OVERWHELMING vote by both houses of congress to allow Dubya to engage in these kinds of scurmishes. Blame whoever you want, but until we clean house in Washington, the blood is on LOTS more hands than one lone Texan's.
The OVERWHELMING vote was based on flawed intelligence, which was purposely fed to us by an administration bent on revenge. Most senators and congressmen now state that they would never have voted for this "war" had they known the intelligence was false. Their fault was in beleiving that the POTUS would not lie to them regarding such a grave matter of national security. They were sadly mistaken.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the houses of congress authorize the President to use force if that was the POTUS's decision to do so? Couldn't the President have waited and been more cautious before engaging in war, or did he have no choice once the houses approved the measure? I would be careful about judging the armchair quarterbacks. I don't think they were the ones that said "let's invade Iraq today".
Oh, you're both right...
BUT:
John, hindsight is always 20/20...and you should can the conspiracy theory stuff...it makes it seem as if YOU are willing to believe all of the bullshit you are fed by the MSM. Right or wrong, it's not very becoming of you.
Stan: The armchair quarterbacks were all FINE with the ordeal until the coalition body count surpassed the losses of 9/11.
I stand by my statements.
Hindsight being 20/20 has nothing to do with the fact that we were LIED TO about the reasons for taking military action. That is no conspiracy theory, the facts are out there for all to see in black and white. I amy need to send you a required reading list, or start a daily posting here. hehehe
Post a Comment
<< Home