Bush Iraq pitch: home vs. abroad

President Bush's urgent explanation of why a war against Iraq may be necessary has changed some opinions at home, but few - if any - abroad.

Perhaps the difference was the man and the setting. Americans are used to both politicians with flat country twangs and the ritualistic grandeur of the annual State of the Union address.

To other nations these things might be grating - especially in combination.

Perhaps the difference is Sept. 11. On that day the United States was wrenched from complacent feelings that terror happened elsewhere to a sense of special vulnerability. To raise the specter of further attacks, as Bush did in his speech, is to pluck at a chord that resonates less in nations that have long lived with such danger.

Perhaps the difference is simply context. In America war seems an onrushing train. Reservists are leaving their homes all across the nation; administration spokesmen hammer at Saddam Hussein in every news cycle. In Paris and London, conflict perhaps seems more distant, and less inevitable.

But whatever the reasons, at least Bush seems able to rally some domestic support, while much of the rest of the world remains obdurate in its insistence that war now is a waste.

In his State of the Union the President "was doing two things: indicating resolve, and still trying to build whatever support he could for the resolve he was indicating," says Robert Pfaltzgraff, a professor of International Security Studies at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

This is not to say that opinion in the United States has now shifted in favor of war. Polls continue to show that Americans want to work against Iraq within the United Nations - something that seems unlikely at this point.

Domestic attitudes remain malleable, however. Initial surveys show that opinions shifted somewhat, at least for now, in the wake of Tuesday's address.

A CNN/USA Thursday/Gallup poll taken Tuesday night showed that 84 percent of viewers had a positive reaction to the State of the Union. Some 67 percent of respondents said that Bush made a convincing case about the need for the US to take military action. This represented a significant shift, as prior to the address only 47 percent of the same group of people said that the administration had made such a case.

Opinion in the US is also split regionally. Areas in the Northeast and mideast that went for Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 election remain less inclined to go to war than states that voted for Bush.

Across the Western high plains into the snowclad Rockies of Montana, the President's words went far, in the minds of many, to make the case for military action.

For Republicans Tom and Kathy Gibson of Bozeman, the State of the Union speech convinced them that using military force is the best option. Mrs. Gibson says she already backed the president before his speech.

But Mr. Gibson had many questions that he says were answered in the presidential address. Chief among them was whether the Bush administration was motivated by a quest to capture Iraq's oil reserves or remove Saddam because he is a legitimate agent of terror.

"He made a compelling argument that military action is warranted for the safety and security of the US and in eliminating a threat to the world," says Mr. Gibson, who is treasurer at Montana State University.

Page: 1 | 2 | 3