GOP war support showing cracks

[sabra]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050911-100749-1243r.htm

GOP war support showing cracks

Staunch supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq have become more vocal with their concern over the way things are going.

Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and professor of international relations at Boston University, said he sees a marked shift.
"There are people who view themselves on the right, who were enthusiastic supporters of the war, who are now greatly concerned that the Bush administration or more in particular, the military, is losing its focus, its heart, and isn't fully committed," he told Fox News.

....

Peter Beinart, editor of The New Republic, said Republicans have become more vocal about needing clarification on the war strategy and a better explanation to the American public.

But Republican pollster David Winston cautioned against interpreting concern over war strategy as skittishness from the President's base and a lack of support for war overall.
"There is still support for this war," Winston said.
What people are looking for from the president, he said, are more specifics and measures for success.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. the cracks started tehe same way during Nam

just a historical factoid

[blue sky at night]

2. There is still support for this war.......

as long as my kids are not involved and my company's bottom line is doing just fine. What do these people crawl out from under......

[Veronicrat]

3. THE MONEY KEEPS THEM REPUGNICAN"S HAPPY + Pollsters LIE OUT LOUD

Firms with White House ties get Katrina contracts
FEMA taps Halliburton subsidiary, Shaw Group, Bechtel for cleanup

WASHINGTON - Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.

One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.

Bechtel National Inc., a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., has also been selected by FEMA to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Bush named Bechtel's CEO to his Export Council and put the former CEO of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

Experts say it has been common practice in both Republican and Democratic administrations for policy makers to take lobbying jobs once they leave office, and many of the same companies seeking contracts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have already received billions of dollars for work in Iraq.

Halliburton alone has earned more than $9 billion. Pentagon audits released by Democrats in June showed $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.

Watchdog groups take notice

But the web of Bush administration connections is attracting renewed attention from watchdog groups in the post-Katrina reconstruction rush. Congress has already appropriated more than $60 billion in emergency funding as a down payment on recovery efforts projected to cost well over $100 billion.

"The government has got to stop stacking senior positions with people who are repeatedly cashing in on the public trust in order to further private commercial interests," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

Bush appointees at Halliburton

Allbaugh formally registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root in February.

In lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate, Allbaugh said his goal was to "educate the congressional and executive branch on defense, disaster relief and homeland security issues affecting Kellogg Brown and Root."

Melissa Norcross, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said Allbaugh has not, since he was hired, "consulted on any specific contracts that the company is considering pursuing, nor has he been tasked by the company with any lobbying responsibilities."

Allbaugh is also a friend of Michael Brown, director of FEMA who was removed as head of Katrina disaster relief and sent back to Washington amid allegations he had padded his resume -- which he denies.

A few months after Allbaugh was hired by Halliburton, the company retained another high-level Bush appointee, Kirk Van Tine.

Van Tine registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton six months after resigning as deputy transportation secretary, a position he held from December 2003 to December 2004.

On Friday, Kellogg Brown & Root received $29.8 million in Pentagon contracts to begin rebuilding Navy bases in Louisiana and Mississippi. Norcross said the work was covered under a contract that the company negotiated before Allbaugh was hired.

Cheney's relationship with Halliburton

Halliburton continues to be a source of income for Cheney, who served as its chief executive officer from 1995 until 2000 when he joined the Republican ticket for the White House. According to tax filings released in April, Cheney's income included $194,852 in deferred pay from the company, which has also won billion-dollar government contracts in Iraq.

Cheney's office said the amount of deferred compensation is fixed and is not affected by Halliburton's current economic performance or earnings.

Allbaugh's other major client, Baton Rouge-based Shaw Group, has updated its Web site to say: "Hurricane Recovery Projects -- Apply Here!"

Shaw said on Thursday it has received a $100 million emergency FEMA contract for housing management and construction. Shaw also clinched a $100 million order on Friday from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Shaw Group spokesman Chris Sammons said Allbaugh was providing the company with "general consulting on business matters," and would not say whether he played a direct role in any of the Katrina deals. "We don't comment on specific consulting activities," he said.

[Carolab]

4. Do you have a link for this? n/t

[Arugula Latte]

19. Welcome to DU, Veronicrat!

:hi: :toast:

[marmar]

5. I love it when they eat their own...

THey should have realized this 2 1/2 years ago.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[The Kicker]

6. "There is still support for this war," WINSTON said.

This line could have come straight from the book 1984. Oh yeah,it's the Moonie Times.

[belle]

7. well, DUH, of course there is. From the people who started it.

hey, that was enough to launch it all by itself, so it certainly ought to be enough to keep it going!

[rodeodance]

8. well now maybe those centrist Dems will go on board?

[Gregorian]

9. But isn't the war over?

You know- MISSION BLABLABLA.

And besides, it's a little late. Ali already lost his arms. Sorry, come back for another war, and see if you can show cracks before it's too late. Thanks, GOP.


edit- I am sorry.
I promise to read the entire link from now on out before I post my response.
I promise to read the entire link from now on out before I post my response.
I promise to read the entire link from now on out before I post my response.
I promise to read the entire link from now on out before I post my response.
I promise to read the entire link from now on out before I post my response.
I promise to read the entire link from now on out before I post my response.

[Lexingtonian]

10. first of all,

the Moonie Times is a little late. The major Republican punditry openly stepped back from Victory In Iraq almost three weeks ago, around August 20. Hey, I was (regrettably) watching those idiots on the boob tube too.

And no, it's not a matter of "explaining" the war at this point. Liberal Democrats decided it was all foolish before the tanks ever rolled. Moderate Democrats walked away when there were no WMDs. Nonpartisan moderates, i.e. Indies, walked away from support because the "democracy" selling point couldn't be believed in anymore- when the January elections changed nothing about how Iraq was (not) running and ruled.

What's left is the "freedom" selling point. (Remember the 'freedom and democracy' slogan?) And the political demographic whose support is contingent on its implementation is moderate Republicans. The object of it is this attempt at an Iraqi constitution. If none is ratified, or there is one that is ratified but nothing actually changes (see the "democracy" selling point) within a few months...that's the end of their support. Moderate Republicans just don't like when the cost/benefit analysis proves it's really all costs and truly no returns.

Hardline Republicans hold magical beliefs about victory etc. Only when their High Priests contradict the relevant tenet of The Faith do they lose it (and then they truly Lose It). These people need constant "explaining" and such, that's true. But there aren't enough of them to keep Bush's Iraq policy viable once moderate Republicans walk away.

[daleo]

12. Moderate Republicans - there's a term you don't hear much anymore

But I agree that they still exist, and can affect the balance.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Yes, they still exist. Lieberman, Biden, Bayh... nt

[WCGreen]

11. Wait until the Shi'ite hits the fan

and the Kurds get in the way....

[dbt]

13. Pugs need clarification on the war strategery????

What part of making Dick Cheney MORE obscenely rich do they not understand?

Remember New Orleans.

[buzzsaw_23]

14. Bush War Supporters Question Iraq War Tactics (Rats are Deserting)

Bush Supporters Question Iraq War Tactics

Monday, September 12, 2005

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — When President Bush (search) meets with his Iraqi counterpart at the White House on Tuesday, the administration and its supporters are sure to extol the virtues and the wisdom of the American role in rebuilding Iraq.

Staunch supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq have become more vocal and public with their concern over the way things are going there, prompting observers to suggest that even Republicans are getting nervous.

"The Administration is now starting to lose its base on the war, and if this continues, it will come under increasing pressure to accelerate our withdrawal," said Larry Diamond (search), senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority (search) in Iraq. He recently penned the book, "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."

"I have been struck that so many of the intellectual, neo-conservative supporters of the war have been quite critical of the Bush administration's management, or mismanagement, of the post-war situation in Iraq, both politically and militarily," Diamond told FOXNews.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,169041,00.html

Only "the Tactics" are questioned not the morality.

[WhiteTara]

20. hey Buzzsaw, good post and

welcome to DU :hi:

[leesa]

15. There IS no better explanation fools! It was an illegal, immoral invasion

of a disarmed, non-hostile nation. Deal with it assholes!

[AlCzervik]

17. Notice the pollster said "Cautioned" instead of "denied" n/t

[goforit]

18. Dream on!!!

[yellowcanine]

22. Hmm... Washington Times article - a very conservative paper so it

may not be such a dream at all.

[Laughing Mirror]

21. "The U.S. Has Lost the Iraq War"

It's over. For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people while the first two are being done. None of these three seem any longer possible. First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil. Thirdly, the U.S. public is turning against the war because it sees no "light at the end of the tunnel."

As a result, the Bush regime is in an impossible position. It would like to withdraw in a dignified manner, asserting some semblance of victory. But, if it tries to do this, it will face ferocious anger and deception on the part of the war party at home. And if it does not, it will face ferocious anger on the part of the withdrawal party. It will end up satisfying neither, lose face precipitously, and be remembered in ignominy.

Let us see what is happening...
commentary by wise sage Immanuel Wallerstein, August 15 2005

[WhiteTara]

23. and this from the Washington Times? There

must be some truth to this and I say YEAH! Let it be in time!