Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 8, 2003 By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - A nation is sharply divided over the president's job performance. Political opponents grumble about the economy. Growing numbers of Americans say going to war was a mistake. The time was summer 1967, the president was Lyndon B. Johnson and the war was Vietnam. The moment proved to be a tipping point in the Democrat's presidency. Months later, as the war raged and the public ranted, Johnson recognized he couldn't go on. He stunned the nation in March 1968 by announcing that he would not seek another term. Today, comparisons of the Iraq (news - web sites) war to Vietnam are growing louder and steady reports of American troops killed on the battlefield are having a corrosive effect on public opinion of President Bush (news - web sites). One of the most telling numbers of late: four in 10 Americans, 39 percent, think the United States made a mistake by sending troops into Iraq — roughly the same number that said that about Vietnam in the summer of 1967. Early on, people approved of Johnson's handling of Vietnam by a 2-1 margin, according to Gallup polls from 1965. By the summer of 1967, four in 10 thought Vietnam was a mistake, and people were evenly divided on Johnson's handling of the war. Public support then slipped steadily. The decline in public opinion about Iraq has come more quickly for Bush. In April, three-fourths approved of the way Bush was handling the war. In a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll released Thursday, 54 percent disapproved and 45 percent approved. The number who say it was a mistake to send in troops has almost doubled from the 22 percent who thought so in July. The steady trickle of U.S. troops dying in Iraq now totals more than 350 since the war began March 20. That number barely compares to Vietnam, in which thousands of U.S. troops had been killed by 1967 in a war that eventually claimed about 58,000. John Mueller, a political scientist who wrote the book, "War, Presidents and Public Opinion," said that while the death tolls differ, "there's a considerable similarity that you get in declining support as more casualties come in." Unlike the Vietnam era, today's public is more exposed to each violent incident because of the Internet and round-the-clock cable television news, compared to newspaper accounts and reports on the networks' evening news in the 1960s. "When there's more reporting of bad news, as there is with 24-7 news coverage, it can have more of an impact on public opinion," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "For Bush to improve in the polls, there has to be a sense that things are getting better and he will really be hurt if they get worse." New reports of deaths and casualties force people to assess how they feel about the war, weighing the costs against the benefits, said Steven Kull, a pollster who studies opinion on international affairs. Some 30 years ago, Johnson faced a rebellion over the war from the political left and presided over the slowing of a lengthy and robust economic expansion. Bush's political outlook is far different. With solid support from his Republican base, the incumbent has no GOP primary challengers and has amassed a hefty warchest that outranks his Democratic rivals. The economy is showing signs of revival. Still, footage of car bombings in Iraq, funerals at Arlington National Cemetery and grieving families are taking a toll. Some have even suggested that the Bush administration's descriptions of progress in Iraq compared to the escalating violence echoes the claims from the Vietnam era. Republican Sen. John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years in solitary confinement as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, told Newsweek, "This is the first time I have seen a parallel to Vietnam in terms of information the administration is putting out versus the actual situation on the ground." Speaking of the Bush administration, another decorated Vietnam War veteran, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), said last month, "At the rate that they're going, it reminds me of the 'light at the end of the tunnel' language during Vietnam." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...hoes_of_vietnam Well, gee, the press' CONSTANT comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam is actually making some people think that things are going badly. Gee, in other news, punching yourself in the head hurts. I love that even though the article ADMITS that the death tolls aren't comparable, the comparison is STILL CONSTANTLY made. And, I could care less if they were vets, McCain and Kerry are blithering idiots. EVERYBODY who has actually GONE OVER THERE state that the media's depiction of events is not close to being accurate. Even military guys can be total morons when it comes to military actions, apparently. Well, that, or their mutual disdain for Bush is blinding them. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2003 What was the actual news in this article? The death tolls are nowhere near Vietnam. I thought we all knew this. EVERYBODY who has actually GONE OVER THERE state that the media's depiction of events is not close to being accurate. Well, I doubt the Iraqi people are coming out in droves to celebrate some newfound sense of Democracy (look at the history of the middle east and you'll see that's not going to happen) or any of those other saccharine propaganda stories. It seems to me that while reactions are probably mixed in most of Iraq, but outside of the Sunni Triangle there's no violent resistance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2003 God, this whole thing was compared to Vietnam before the first soldier even set foot in Iraq... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted November 8, 2003 It was thirty-five years ago. Escape tactics and technology weren't nearly as good back then, and a lot of the people now who end up in the hospital with injuries would have died back then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2003 I'm an equal oppertunity mocker, so TheMikeSC, this one's for you: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted November 8, 2003 I talk to my friend who's over there on a fairly normal basis. It's night and day compared to what I hear from him and what I see on the news. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2003 I've also heard/read the most of the trouble is coming from some hot spots, and most of the country is doing fine. Gee, you mean to tell me the media has focused on the bad news and not the good? Next thing you know you'll tell me that John Kerry served in ... y'all know the rest... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 9, 2003 I've also heard/read the most of the trouble is coming from some hot spots, and most of the country is doing fine. Gee, you mean to tell me the media has focused on the bad news and not the good? Next thing you know you'll tell me that John Kerry served in ... y'all know the rest... WHAT? JOHN KERRY SERVED...you're right, it's been done. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2003 It was thirty-five years ago. Escape tactics and technology weren't nearly as good back then, and a lot of the people now who end up in the hospital with injuries would have died back then. All of which means precisely JACK SHIT when you're talking about numbers like 58,000 and 350. I would say "comparing numbers" there, but there's no comparison to be made, unless you're fond of running the Olympic Mile with misinformation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted November 9, 2003 My main point was that the Army has been helped by technology and just being better run. When you have ten percent less (23.6% vs. 14.8%) battlefield wounds end up as fatalities over thirty years, that's a big plus. Soldiers are alot better off. But they're two different wars at this point, one spanning twenty plus years and four countries. In 1964, there were about 214 deaths in Vietnam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2003 My main point was that the Army has been helped by technology and just being better run. When you have ten percent less (23.6% vs. 14.8%) battlefield wounds end up as fatalities over thirty years, that's a big plus. Soldiers are alot better off. But they're two different wars at this point, one spanning twenty plus years and four countries. In 1964, there were about 214 deaths in Vietnam. But there wasn't nearly the same amount of troops. That's a big factor here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
