:: Has the whole world gone mad or is it just me. ::

:: Saturday, September 13, 2003 ::

washingtonpost.com

Public Says $87 Billion Too Much

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 14, 2003; Page A01

A majority of Americans disapprove of President Bush's request to Congress for an additional $87 billion to fund military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year, amid growing doubts about the administration's policies at home and abroad, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Six in 10 Americans said they do not support the proposal, which the president first announced in his nationally televised address last Sunday night. That marks the most significant public rejection of a Bush initiative on national security or terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In a second rebuff to the administration, more Americans said that, if Congress decides to approve the additional money, lawmakers should roll back the president's tax cuts to pay for the increased spending, rather than add to the federal budget deficit or cut government spending.

The survey findings send a clear signal that many Americans are unwilling to give the administration a blank check on peacekeeping efforts in Iraq, despite continued strong backing for Bush's decision to go to war and public support for staying there to help stabilize and rebuild that nation.

The president's overall job approval rating remains stable and relatively strong, a reflection of broad confidence in his leadership despite increasing concerns about his policies. Fifty-eight percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 40 percent disapprove.

Bush's approval ratings on the war against terrorism and homeland security also remain strong. But on many domestic issues, he has fallen to the lowest point of his presidency, from his handling of the economy and health care to the federal budget.

Declining approval ratings on important issues suggest that the president may be vulnerable in his bid for reelection next year. Matched against a generic Democrat, the poll found Bush at 49 percent and a Democratic nominee at 44 percent.

However, when pitted against any of several Democratic candidates running for their party's nomination, Bush is the clear choice. None of the Democratic candidates has emerged as a significant challenger and, according to the poll, Bush comfortably leads all four tested, generally by a margin of about 15 percentage points. At this early stage of the campaign, few of these candidates' positions are widely known to the public.

A total of 1,104 randomly selected adults were interviewed between Sept. 10 and Sept. 13 for this survey. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A majority of Republicans -- 57 percent -- said they support Bush's $87 billion spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan; but 81 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents said they are opposed. Still, leading congressional Democrats and many of the presidential candidates say they are likely to support the funding. On the question of how to pay for the request, a majority of Democrats said roll back some of the tax cuts while a plurality of Republicans said cut other spending.

The partisan divide on Iraq spending is nearly matched by a gender gap. While seven in 10 women oppose Bush's $87 billion request, a slim majority of men -- 53 percent -- reject it.

The public's judgment of the way Bush is handling international affairs has never been lower, the Post-ABC News poll found. Slightly more than half -- 53 percent -- approve of the president's policies abroad, a precipitous fall from 67 percent barely two months ago.

That finding comes amid growing criticism, particularly from Democrats, that despite U.S. success in routing the Taliban in Afghanistan and driving Iraqi president Saddam Hussein from power, Bush has damaged relations with many allies and has caused the United States to lose the respect of countries around the world.

Declining support for Bush's policies in Iraq also has contributed to the overall erosion of support for his foreign policy. Barely half -- 52 percent -- said they approved of the way the president is handling the situation in Iraq, down slightly from a month ago and a 23-point decline since the war ended in April.

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe the United States should stay in Iraq, even if it means suffering continued military casualties, but the proportion who favor getting out has increased from 27 percent to 32 percent since late August.

At the same time, a 55 percent majority doubts Bush has a clear plan about what to do in Iraq, and more than eight in 10 -- 85 percent -- now fear the United States will get bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping effort there, up from 76 percent in less than three weeks.

The latest round of violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and growing political instability in the area, have further soured public perceptions of Bush's foreign policy. Just 46 percent of the public now approve of the way Bush is handling the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, an 8-point drop since April and the first time Bush's rating on this measure has fallen below 50 percent.

Bush faces growing disquiet at home, as well. Despite recent good news on the economic front, 56 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing handling the economy -- the highest negative rating on this key measure since he took office.

Nearly six in 10 disapprove of his handling of the federal budget, which will post a record deficit next year of at least $480 billion, according to forecasts, and half the country believes most Americans are worse off now than they were when Bush took office. Still, less than a third say that they personally are not doing as well as they were two years ago.

More than six in 10 are critical of the way Bush is dealing with the health care issue, again a new high in disapproval. For the first time, more than half of the public -- 54 percent -- said they disapproved of the job Bush is doing handling prescription drugs for the elderly. That could be a galvanizing issue for seniors as the presidential election year approaches, with Republicans in Congress still stymied from completing work on a Medicare drug bill by differences among themselves, despite the desire of White House officials to win passage heading into 2004.

As the election year approaches, no single issue clearly dominates the public's agenda. The economy, education, federal spending homeland security and health care top the list, a mix of concerns that offers hope to the president and to his Democratic challengers.

When asked which is more important, jobs and the economy or the war on terrorism, roughly six in 10 say jobs and the economy. At the time of the 2002 midterm elections, in which Republicans scored significant victories, voters judged the economy as only marginally more important than terrorism.

Looking at the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Post-ABC News poll found that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000, continues to lead the field of candidates, with 22 percent support among self-described Democrats.

Lieberman's nearest challengers were bunched together with 14 percent each: Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who leads in several polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the race is more developed. Support was in single digits for all other candidates , including retired general Wesley Clark, who is expected to decide this week whether to join the race.

Interest in the Democratic race has increased substantially since the spring, and there appears to be general satisfaction among Democrats with the field of candidates.

Assistant director of polling Claudia Deane contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 8:03 PM [+] ::
...

washingtonpost.com

Spy Agencies Warned of Iraq Resistance

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page A01

U.S. intelligence agencies warned Bush administration policymakers before the war in Iraq that there would be significant armed opposition to a U.S.-led occupation, according to administration and congressional sources familiar with the reports.

Although general in nature, the sources said, the intelligence agencies' concerns about the degree of resistance U.S. forces would encounter have proved broadly accurate in the months since the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his inner circle.

Among the threats outlined in the intelligence agencies' reporting was that "Iraqis probably would resort to obstruction, resistance and armed opposition if they perceived attempts to keep them dependent on the U.S. and the West," one senior congressional aide said. The general tenor of the reports, according to a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence, was that the postwar period would be more "problematic" than the war to overthrow Hussein.

As U.S. military casualties mount and resistance forces wage a campaign of targeted bombings in Iraq, some administration officials have begun to fault the CIA and other intelligence agencies for being overly optimistic and failing to anticipate such widespread and sustained opposition to a U.S. occupation. But several administration and congressional sources interviewed for this article said the opposite occurred. They said senior policymakers at the White House, Pentagon and elsewhere received classified analyses before the war warning about the dangers of the postwar period.

"Intelligence reports told them at some length about possibilities for unpleasantness," said a senior administration official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity. "The reports were written, but we don't know if they were read."

In the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, senior Pentagon officials were privately optimistic about postwar Iraq, and their assessment shaped calculations about the size of the occupation force that would be required and how long it would have to be there, as well as the overall cost of the U.S. management of Iraq after the fall of the Hussein government.

The more pessimistic view generally remained submerged, but the controversy did occasionally break into the open, most notably when then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki told Congress in February that several hundred thousand occupation troops would be needed. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz rejected his estimate at the time as "wildly off the mark."

Although the Pentagon has said it has no plans to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq -- now nearly 130,000 -- the Bush administration has launched a new diplomatic campaign to win foreign pledges of more troops to help stabilize the country.

Before the war, the CIA passed on intelligence that some members of Hussein's Republican Guard military units and his Baathist Party had plans to carry on resistance after the war, according to one senior intelligence official. "They had been given instructions should the regime fall," the official said. U.S. military and civilian leaders in Iraq have said they believe the daily attacks against U.S. forces are being carried out by Hussein loyalists.

CIA analysts last summer also expressed concerns that the "chaos after war would turn [Iraq] into a laboratory for terrorists," according to another former intelligence analyst. President Bush picked up on this theme in his nationally televised speech Sunday night, saying Iraq is attracting international terrorists and is now the "central front" in the war on terrorism.

There is not universal agreement about the clarity of the prewar intelligence that was forwarded by the CIA and its counterpart agencies at the Pentagon and State Department. Some administration officials said the intelligence was murkier than others now depict it.

"The possibility there would be armed opposition was based on inductive reasoning," one administration official said of reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency. "The analysts were guessing." Another congressional aide said the intelligence reports he had seen "were not very specific and had a range of outcomes and caveats depending on how the war would go."

However, the prevailing view within intelligence agencies, including the DIA, was that there would be resistance. Officials said this explained the thinking behind Shinseki's congressional testimony earlier this year. A DIA memo last fall said postwar Iraq would be "highly complex and driven by political and religious factions," according to one former Pentagon analyst. "They [Defense Intelligence Agency analysts] said it would be hard to keep the lid on and to keep the various areas of the country from falling apart."

Former Army secretary Thomas E. White said that during discussions he had in the Pentagon before the war, he was told "the situation once the war was over would be contentious." Although White said he did not see intelligence on postwar Iraq first hand, it was discussed in meetings with Shinseki, who said there were reports that "you could expect a major influx of Islamic fighters."

It was for those reasons, White said in a telephone interview, that Shinseki saw the need "to size the postwar force bigger than the wartime force."

Speaking of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, White said, "Their view of the intelligence was much different. Their notion of it was resistance would run away as the few remaining Saddam loyalists were hunted down."

White said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday that the postwar planning assumptions approved by senior Pentagon civilians were based on U.S. troops being "greeted in the streets by a euphoric public, glad of being rid of Saddam Hussein, and consequently we could very rapidly draw down the force structure."

White, who resigned his Army post in April, has published a new book sharply critical of the administration's Iraq policy.

Pentagon spokesmen did not immediately reply to telephone questions about the prewar intelligence.

A White House official said the administration is not surprised by the level of resistance U.S. forces are encountering. "It does not come as a surprise that some of the bitter fanatics continue to fight against a foregone conclusion and that foreign terrorists would seek to hold back progress made in Iraq over the last five months," the official said.

Several senior policymakers, however, have said recently that they were not totally prepared for what has occurred. On Sunday, for example, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was asked on CNN's "Late Edition" if there could have been better planning for the postwar period. She responded, "Obviously, there were things that were not foreseen. They have now -- [and] are now being addressed."

Before the war, intelligence analysts also questioned whether the administration would be able to achieve its goal of rapidly introducing democracy in Iraq, according to administration and congressional officials. Intelligence agencies reported that "any chance of achieving democracy was predicated on long-term active U.S. and Western military, political and economic involvement with the country," one administration official said.

On Feb. 26, the day Bush said in a speech that bringing democracy to Iraq would help democratize other Arab countries, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research completed a classified analysis that dismissed the idea.

The State Department analysis reportedly stated that "liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve" in Iraq and that "electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 5:39 AM [+] ::
...

 

 

 SAVE THIS |EMAIL THIS |Close  

 

 
California Recall Election
Poll: Support for recalling California governor appears to stall

By Erica Werner
ASSOCIATED PRESS

8:57 p.m. September 8, 2003

ORANGE – Support for the recall of Gov. Gray Davis has stalled, a new poll suggests, while Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante has opened a slim lead over Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Field Poll, set for release Tuesday, found that 55 percent of likely voters support the recall, down from 58 percent in an August poll, but the difference remained within the poll's margin of error. Forty percent said they opposed the recall, a gain of three percentage points from last month.

Meanwhile, a month ago Bustamante and Schwarzenegger were about even, but Bustamante has now opened a small lead – 30 percent to the actor's 25 percent, according to the poll.

State Sen. Tom McClintock, the leading conservative in the race, has strengthened his third-place position, receiving 13 percent, a gain of four points in recent weeks. But that too was within the error margin.

Former baseball commissioner and businessman Peter Ueberroth came in with 5 percent and columnist Arianna Huffington received support from 3 percent of those voters polled.

The poll, conducted over a five-day period ending Sunday, was drawn from telephone interviews with 505 likely voters, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

"We see support for the recall fading," said Gabriel Sanchez, spokesman for the Davis camp.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Todd Harris said the poll showed that among candidates to replace Davis "this is a two-man race" and Schwarzenegger is the only Republican with a chance to win.

The poll results come just 30 days before the Oct. 7 vote. Monday also was the first day of absentee voting in the recall election. Election officials say absentee voting is a growing trend and could account for up to a third of the votes in the election.

Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger held a town hall-style meeting at a college campus Monday night, taking another step toward settling into the role of a traditional candidate in the recall campaign. The Republican front-runner mimicked Davis' style in holding unscripted exchanges with guests at Chapman University.

Schwarzenegger said he had an honorary doctorate from the university and joked that "I'm not really a doctor ... but then again the reality of it is Gray Davis isn't really a governor."

In response to a law student's question about how he would protect public schools, Schwarzenegger said he understood the importance of education and would focus on giving local districts more control. He described Sacramento as "the schoolyard bully."

Schwarzenegger, who was criticized early in the campaign for not making himself available to reporters, has in recent days held extended news conferences during public appearances. His campaign also was planning three or four more town halls before the vote.

Schwarzenegger's wife, Maria Shriver, campaigned at a voter-registration event in a Sacramento suburb, but the event was countered by a dozen union members opposed to the recall.

At one point the group chanted, "Yes on pants, no on recall," a reference to a 1988 Playboy magazine interview in which Schwarzenegger said he inherited his father's distaste for women's slacks.

Shriver was peppered with questions about Schwarzenegger's past comments that have been criticized by some women's groups. The Kennedy relative said she is confident women will support her husband's campaign.

Davis, meanwhile, denounced the GOP recall backers during the latest in a series of town halls he's held in a bid to reconnect with Californians.

"The Republicans want to kick me out because of past problems. But they don't give a wit about past problems. They just want power. They want to steal the governorship on the eve of a presidential election," the governor told two dozen people during a forum in Los Angeles.

Davis' anti-recall campaign also announced in San Diego that it was working to bring former President Clinton to the state to help the governor try to retain his job.

"It is absolutely not nailed down, but I would expect news within the next couple of days," said Steve Smith, campaign director of Californians Against the Costly Recall.

Davis faced more fallout Monday from his criticism last week of Schwarzenegger's Austrian-accented pronunciation of the name California.

California Republican Party Chairman Duf Sundheim called for an apology, and Huffington, a Greek-born independent candidate, seized on the opportunity.

"Contrary to what Gov. Davis said, you can have an accent, you can pronounce California in the wrong way and still be governor of California," she told Orange Coast College students.

Elsewhere, McClintock campaigned on the airwaves, vowing during a television appearance in Oakland that he would not drop out to make way for Schwarzenegger.

Asked whether he might try to cut a deal with McClintock to clear the field, Schwarzenegger repeated past statements that mathematically it would be better to have fewer candidates.

"I'm not about to call him and say get out of the race," he said, terming that "very presumptuous."

 

 

 

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/recall/20030908-2057-davisrecall.html

 

 SAVE THIS |EMAIL THIS |Close  

 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

 

 
:: Beauxbeaux's Daddy 5:19 AM [+] ::
...