"The most significant event since the invasion of Iraq," claims Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska. "A huge victory for George Bush," decided Donna Brazile, Al Gore's former campaign manager. Warren Rudman, a retired New Hampshire senator, called it a transforming event in the Democratic race. These predictions may indeed prove true. But for the moment the response in America to Saddam Hussein's arrest has been rather muted, even wary. Mr Bush, stifling his instinct for the off-hand boast, said sternly that "the capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq": nor would it affect America's timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. "The capture of Saddam is good news for the Iraqi people and the world," pronounced the Democratic front-runner, Howard Dean, blurring his trademark antiwar indignation-though he added that he was still against it. As for public opinion, the president's overall approval ratings rose somewhat, but not by the big spike that might have been expected from an electorate that still seems to believe the self-proclaimed "new Saladin" was responsible in some way for the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Support for Mr Bush's handling of Iraq bounced mightily but feelings about the justification for war itself were little changed. An instant poll taken by Gallup suggested that Saddam's capture would not seriously affect voting intentions next year: only 3% said they were more likely to vote for Mr Bush. In a Washington Post poll, nine out of ten people took the realistic view that big challenges still face the allies in Iraq. This fits in with earlier surveys, which found that most Americans thought a stable Iraq more important than a captured Saddam.
展开▼
