Reply #33: Yes and no [View All]

[sangh0]

But we need to do is to change the attitude that "supporting the war" is the same as "supporting the troops."

The conflating of these two is an old traditioin in the US. It's not going to change in the next 15 months.

Bush's cutting of veterans' benefits and separation pay, the increase in the length of tours of duty, the premature calling an end to the war in Iraq and the incompentence in planning for the postwar, and his military posturing are resulting in a serious backlash against Bush within the military.

True but one doesn't need to have opposed the Iraqi resolution in order to make these isssues.

And the growing costs and lack of results is breeding resentment among those who supported the war. The costs in money and human life in Iraq are acceptable only if the American people are convinced it was done for the safety of the nation, and the Bush administration's reasoning is falling apart a little more every day. There is an incredble amount of resentment over the war that can shift very easily from "unnamed Arabs" to Bush as it becomes clear that he was pursuing a different agenda than the one he sold.

Again, true but I don't think that necesarily means that these swing voters are going to reject candidates the voted for the resolution, or accept those that opposed it.

Don't imagine that middle-American conservatives are simply "pro-war." They may be conditioned to dismiss "peaceniks," but they will rail against a war conducted for personal or political gain.

They may rail against the war eventually, but that doesn't mean they will support someone they perceive as a "peacenik". Many of them might be more attracted to someone like Clark, who opposed the war but cannot be (mis)portrayed as a "peacenik"