wink said:
Just because a supporter is not properly informed doesn't mean that they fall into the same catagory as the uninformed critic. Many supporters recognize that they can't adequtely know all they should to be truely critical, so they support the decisions and policies of their elected representatives and specialists that have that information and/or training.
If public opinion on the war has shifted as much as some report, then any politician that wishes to "break ranks" can be assured of majority public support. Nothing to fear. The fact is the American public is not as much anti Iraq war as they are anti losing. They will support troop losses as long as they are see progress to victory. You may argue that the administration hasn't done a very good job making the case and promoting the small vicotries along the way. But no poltician will get anywhere with a cut and run policy. Few serious political critics promote retreat for that reason. And the rest of the critical political class will not put forward any other alternatives to the current conduct of the war. Cowards! put up or sut up! Unless I am will to learn how to change a hydraulic pump and get in there and do it differently then the mech, I don't have any business telling him how to do his job.
Maybe some nice moderator (are you a moderator, Wink?) could split this off for us into another thread.
First, it's not true that politicians have nothing to fear. Congressmen are elected by roughly half a million voters, give or take. If the majority of those voters are either uneducated critics or uninformed supporters, then that Congressman had better toe the line with those voters. You know this, Wink--how much control parties have over their politicians, especially with a president like Mr. Bush, who is SOLIDLY popular in certain regions. Besides that, there's the new epithet that the right-wing smear machine has come up with for anyone who isn't omniscient from the day they take office:
flip-flopper . Chuck Hagel is a brave man, but one who doesn't stand for reelection until 2008, by which time the political landscape could change significantly.
I see no difference between the chattering masses against Pres. Bush now and the chattering masses against Pres. Clinton back 8 years ago. I also don't see why you would accept accept the option of supporting the administration's policy on, shall we say, faith, while saying that people who chose to believe folks like Hans Blix (no one knew better about Iraq's weapons programs than he did), Eric Shinseki, Anthony Zinni, Colin Powell (only recently; he's a flip-flopper), etc...
Finally, each politician has to deal with two things: reality and public opinion (which usually don't coincide). You're absolutely right that Americans don't want to lose, but you know what? That might just be too damn bad. We might very well be in a situation where victory by any measure previously set forth (democratic Iraq, stable Iraq, unified Iraq even) is just plain unforeseeable and perhaps impossible, no matter how hard Americans believe and wish it to be otherwise.
