What If Things Get Worse?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday,
September 25, 2001; 8:36 AM
The surge of flag-waving unity in America has truly been remarkable to watch.
Still, amid the patriotic talk and the vows to get even with terrorists, one has to wonder: What happens if soldiers start coming home in body bags?
If there is a serious attack on countries such as Afghanistan, it痴 not going to be a video-game war like the Persian Gulf conflict a decade ago. The Soviets learned how hard such a war could be when the Afghans drove them out in the 1980s. But Americans have grown accustomed to clean, quick hits over the past generation: Grenada. Panama. Haiti. Iraq. This one could be different, with the casualties played up on the nightly news.
Not to mention the possibility of further terrorist attacks.
In such a situation, will the country flinch? Will Congress wobble? Will President Bush痴 approval ratings tumble? Will there be a temptation to bag a few Grade B terrorists and declare victory?
No one knows at this point. But a new poll suggests that the country is willing to pay a price in this new war against the Osama bin Ladens of the world.
The New York Times has the details: "Americans favor going to war even if that means thousands of casualties for the nation痴 armed forces, yet they say that the United States should wait to act until it is certain who is responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the latest New York Times/ CBS News Poll shows.
"The survey painted a portrait of a nation unsettled about the terrorist attacks -- and is expecting more of them -- at the same time it is worried about the state of the economy. For the first time since 1990, a majority of Americans say the economy is worsening. Six in 10 say the nation is in a recession and 2 in 10 saying the nation is near one.
"President Bush痴 ratings continue to soar, as is common for presidents in times of crisis, with people giving him impressive marks for his leadership and judgment under pressure. Eighty-nine percent approve of the way he is doing his job, up from 50 percent in late August.
"Yet there are suggestions in the poll that Mr. Bush is buoyed significantly because people hold a high regard for his advisers. Asked whether they had more confidence in Mr. Bush or his advisers, 70 percent said they had equal confidence in both. But of those who chose one or the other, 22 percent expressed greater confidence in Mr. Bush痴 advisers, and only 5 percent said they had more confidence in the president himself. . . .
"Despite security measures the government has taken, about one in three people say the attacks have made them less likely to travel by airplane any time soon. . . .
"The willingness of Americans to accept that there could be significant casualties among the military, as well as among civilians in other countries, underscores the public痴 determination to root out terrorists. During the gulf war, 4 of 10 people said the United States should not continue sending troops to the region if it cost many American lives.
"Now, if there is a war against terrorists, 28 percent say they expect fewer than 1,000 American soldiers to lose their lives; 28 percent put the number at 1,000 to 5,000, and 27 percent predicted higher casualties."
The Los Angeles Times looks at questions swirling around Bush痴 own safety:
"President Carter was a prisoner of the White House during the Iran hostage crisis, not traveling for half a year. During the buildup before the Persian Gulf War, President Bush decided business had to go on as usual. He drew criticism for playing golf in Maine while sending troops to Saudi Arabia.
"Now, the current President Bush痴 White House is wrestling with how and when he should move beyond the confines of Washington.
"The issue involves more than presidential restlessness or mere logistics. It goes to the heart of what impact the crisis will have on his presidency. It also speaks to how he can communicate his goals to Americans and, with an eye on locking up international support, to the rest of the world.
"During the first eight months of his presidency, Bush was on the road nearly half the time, if visits to his ranch near Crawford, Texas, are counted. Often, the trips were built around speeches on one facet or another of his domestic program. With the exception of two weekends at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland and a quick trip to New York City, he has remained in Washington since Sept. 11.
"Now, if he wants to dramatize his message with events beyond the Rose Garden, he has to find the right audience to match his agenda. Given extreme security concerns after the attacks two weeks ago when four hijacked airliners were turned into flying bombs -- with Air Force One a target, the White House has insisted -- officials also are suggesting that presidential travel now requires unusually tight secrecy."
The Washington Post gazes at the rocky road ahead: "President Bush enjoys the support of a broad international coalition and an extraordinarily united country as he launches a war against terrorism. But as the campaign unfolds, almost every decision he makes could risk unraveling that coalition and eroding his political support at home.
"As he moves from rhetoric to action, Bush faces an enormously difficult job managing the multiple aspects of the crisis, according to diplomatic, military and political analysts. They said he must balance the need to show progress in pursuing the terrorists with the patience required to preserve a coalition of countries with competing interests and their own internal pressures.
"The risks ahead include possible new terrorist attacks here at home, public reaction to U.S. casualties once military strikes begin and worldwide reaction to possible civilian deaths inflicted by U.S. forces as they attempt to root out the terrorists. Bush has warned that this war will be long, often invisible and may not have a clear end. That means the public will have only a fragmentary sense of whether the war is being won, requiring creativity on Bush痴 part in keeping the country rallied.
"Bush also faces likely resistance from other countries, particularly in the Muslim world, as the campaign expands beyond its initial targets -- the al Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
"The question of whether to target Iraq, which has been the subject of debate inside the administration, has major consequences for Bush. Attacking Iraq could alienate much of the coalition Bush is assembling, but ignoring Iraq while concentrating on the bin Laden network could leave Saddam Hussein freer to cause trouble down the road.
"The president痴 task is complicated by deepening economic problems at home, as the aftershocks of the attacks ripple through an already weak economy."
Bush took action on the financial front yesterday -- "W. Kicks Terror in the Assets" is the New York Post headline -- but there are complications, says the Wall Street Journal:
"The Bush administration announced it will seize the U.S. assets of any charity, individual or financial institution with links to terrorists and, perhaps more importantly, strong-arm other nations to do the same.
"On Monday morning, the administration ordered some 5,000 banks to freeze all accounts belonging to 27 individuals, groups or companies allegedly connected to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. And the U.S. is preparing to add almost 90 more entities with suspected terrorist links to the list. . . .
"The freeze order was met with initial confusion in the financial sector, however. Bankers were easily able to check their client rolls for the names on the administration blacklist, but they struggled to figure out whether accounts might be indirectly connected to those identified."
Think airport security has now been beefed up? One man tried to test it, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer:
"Federal authorities have charged a Malvern man with carrying box cutters -- the same type used to hijack airplanes in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- past security at Philadelphia International Airport yesterday and onto a Northwest Airlines flight.
"Dennis Knaus, 59, told authorities he took the box cutters to the airport to convince his wife that it was not safe to fly and that she should cancel a trip to Ireland, according to an FBI affidavit on the case. After getting the box cutters past metal detectors at Terminal E about 11 a.m., Knaus called his wife and then the Federal Aviation Administration to tell officials what he had done, the affidavit said.
"Following instructions from an FAA official, Knaus asked to speak with a Northwest supervisor but was told one was not available. The affidavit says that Knaus then again passed through the security checkpoint and boarded Flight 687 bound for Minneapolis. He remained on board until he was taken off by Philadelphia police.
"Knaus, who was in federal custody last night, was charged with illegally carrying a weapon past the security checkpoint."
Josh Marshall looks at jockeying within the administration: "Is this town big enough for Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz? I知 not sure it is.
"There痴 been a back-and-forth over the last week between Powell -- as the point-man for slow and deliberate response -- and Wolfowitz as the rep for overwhelming military retaliation on the model of Michael Corleone痴 hit on all the family痴 enemies at the end of Godfather I. . . .
"I don稚 have the transcript yet, but on This Week this morning Sam Donaldson was interviewing Powell. And in the course of that interview Donaldson pressed the Secretary of State on these internal disagreements within the administration. Particularly, Powell made a point of saying that whatever their private views, everyone in the administration is united following the president.
"But he said everyone at the 祖abinet level.・The clear target of that qualifier was Wolfowitz. So Powell wasn稚 denying the rift; he was affirming it. And hurling what amounts to a pretty weighty accusation against the Deputy Secretary of Defense."
Former Assistant Education Secretary Chester Finn, writing in National Review, unloads on the educational establishment: "It痴 been more than a little upsetting to watch the education community respond to the September 11 attack on the United States. The prize for greediest, most self-promoting, and solipsistic response goes to an outfit called the Public Education Network. Within 24 hours of the tragedy, they issued a statement that, after a few pieties, proclaimed that 疎ccess to a high-quality public education is the bedrock of our democracy・and urged that 疎s important calls for rethinking our commitment to our national defense and the war against terrorism are made, the Public Education Network asks policymakers and citizens to remember the important role that public education plays.・
"Translation: 糎e池e so selfish that we think our stuff is more important than the security of a nation within which our stuff is possible.・Maybe they壇 like to spend a little time experiencing 叢ublic education・under the Taliban. . . .
"The worst-lesson prize goes to the Maryland teacher, one of whose 12-year-old pupils offered this account to The Washington Post: 糎hy do some people hate America? Why did they do it? They wanted to bomb our symbols. That痴 what my mom said. Because we池e bossy. That痴 what my teacher said. She said it痴 because we have all the weapons and we think we can boss other countries around. They池e jealous of us.・
"America, in this rendering, has only itself to blame for the other guys・aggression."
With the New York mayoral primary under way today after a two-week delay, the Giuliani mayor-for-life movement seems to have sputtered out, the New York Post reports:
"Key legislators in Albany and New York City yesterday flatly rejected extending Mayor Giuliani痴 term -- even as members of the mayor痴 inner circle split over whether he should try to remain in office past Dec. 31.
"選 don稚 contemplate any circumstance that would get the Senate back to change the election process in New York state,・declared state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, the mayor痴 most reliable GOP ally in Albany. 選t痴 too late,・Bruno added.
"A few hours later, City Council Speaker Peter Vallone -- a Democrat with close ties to the mayor -- said he痴 also in no mood to tamper with term limits. . . .
"Some in the mayor痴 inner circle, including Deputy Mayors Joseph Lhota and Bob Harding, have told Giuliani he can稚 leave office at this critical juncture -- despite the law that bars any city official from serving more than two consecutive terms.
"Sources said Judith Nathan, the mayor痴 girlfriend, shares that view."
We were wondering when someone would mention her.
"The adulation accorded Giuliani for his masterful leadership after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center provides the mayor with face-to-face evidence every day of the public痴 sentiment, said one insider. 選致e never seen anything like this,・the source said. 選 don稚 think he walks 10 steps before someone says to him, "You have to stay on." He痴 hearing the concern and panic in people痴 voice about the transition. I think it痴 had an impact.・
"But other close advisers are worried that any move to tamper with term limits so close to the Nov. 6 election will be viewed as an unpopular power grab."
Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen takes a stand: "The Iowa Democratic Party should postpone its big Jefferson-Jackson Dinner that痴 scheduled for this coming Saturday. Former Vice President Al Gore is the featured speaker, but it痴 too soon after the terrorist attacks for politics as usual.
"They should hold the dinner later this fall or even next year.
"The 遷J・dinner is traditionally the Democrats・big bash in Iowa. . . . Gore痴 speech was initially billed as something of a fresh start for the man who won the most votes but still lost the presidency last year. What will he say? Is he running again in 2004? What will he do differently this time? Dozens of national news organizations were lined up to cover the speech and divine answers to those questions.
"Events of Sept. 11 changed all that.
"Partisan politicking is now on hold around the country. Political leaders are working together to comfort the nation and prepare for the war on terrorism. It is a time for the country to be rallying around the president, not beginning the campaign to oust him in four years."
Overlooked during the crisis: The doggedly liberal Nation magazine, telling Gore to hit the road, take a hike, drop us a postcard. Here痴 David Corn痴 pre-Sept. 11 cover story:
"Now that Gore has returned to the stage -- and partly because of the Gore-ish way he staged his return -- it痴 an appropriate time to issue a heartfelt plea: Al, don稚 do it! Spare us another Gore campaign. Please, don稚 run.
"Virtually the entire Democratic Party establishment wishes Gore were gone. 選f you did a poll among Democratic members of Congress and state committee chairs, you壇 be hard pressed to find a single one who would like Gore to be the nominee,・notes a Democratic pollster who has worked for Gore. Yet none of the honchos are saying so publicly. After all, Gore is still popular with some rank-and-file Democrats seeking revenge in 2004, and the guy may end up with the presidential nomination again. But this sequel ought to be stopped before it gets too far into production.
"It痴 not that the Democratic Party should be de-Gored because the party elites are against him. Their motivation is values-free. They池e bitter because Gore blew it, lost them the White House when peace and prosperity reigned . . . especially since he faced an all-hat-no-cattle right-wing nincompoop. . . .
"Since the election, Gore has done nothing to prove he took his populist rhetoric seriously. While Washington burned, Gore fiddled. Instead of battling the Bush corporatists, he held seminars with David Letterman and others at Columbia University. . . . Gore need not have whined about the Florida results to have played a significant role in encouraging Democrats in and out of Congress to fight Bush痴 tax cut and environmental smack-downs. Gore痴 I-want-to-be-alone routine may have been good for his future political career, but it indicated he was not, deep down, interested in combating the powerful. . . .
"In the eyes of most Democratic voters, Gore was screwed out of the presidency. Too bad. The Democratic Party would be stupid to place itself once again in the hands of a man who has more than once indicated he does not know how to mount an effective national campaign."