DJ,
Interesting observation. We know the answer, don't we?

Well actually it is all interrelated. YearlyKos was in full swing last week so all the high mucka mucks were busy attending the tin hat brigade. That meant that there was no billing going to Zogby so he sat around the office and pouted. When Zogby pouts, the rest of the pollsters feel inclinced to follow suit. Which begats no polls again this week.

And so it goes for the drive by pontificators....

D. J., I love ya, man. But this is a blinding flash of the obvious. (Then again, that is what makes it amusing.)

Could the answer be that you're somewhat dishonestly counting all May polls, even though we're not even halfway through June? In fact, only seven approval polls were done by this time in May. (And lest you say that this is still evidence, you might want to check on March when - shock, horror! - only three were done by this point. Remember that the dates given in the archive are the dates over which the polls were conducted.)

Also, your use of the word "significantly" implies something that does not exist. In statistics, the word significant means that some piece of data is reliable beyond expected errors in data, ie the margin of error. USA Today/Gallup had Bush at 31% in May; they have him at 36% in June. I don't know the exact MOE for the polls, as the primary source site is subscription-only, but a fairly standard MOE for this kind of polling is 3% (remember, it's plus or minus), so any shift of 6% or less is not statistically significant. For the shift to be statistically significant here, the MOE would have to be +/- 2%, which is unlikely.

Alex,

D.J. has demonstrated his accurate analysis over many polls and for many years.

You come out of left field. Are you a Kos_Nut?

"You come out of left field. Are you a Kos_Nut?"

My gosh - I disagree, therefore I must be a moonbat! Good logic, there.

For the record, Charles, I came over from Hugh Hewitt's site.

Aha, so you admit you came from right field, isn't that correct Alex?

"Aha, so you admit you came from right field, isn't that correct Alex?"

You've got to be kidding me - what does it matter, either way?

Although it tells you the time period that the survey was taken for the poll it does not say when the poll was released. Sunday was the most common day for polling to end (20 times out of 50) and Wednesday was the 2nd most (10 times). So if the survey ended yesterday would they have the poll out by today?
P.S. I am not a left wing Bush hater. I voted for him twice.

Thanks to Alex, I went to take a look at the data. Only Ramussen was taken after the news about Zaquawi. All the other June polls were taken before the Zaquawi news (June 8?). For such a significant news, these polling organizations would have been out there last weekend for the polls like Ramussen did.

BTW, was the USA/Gallop poll was trumpeted as a big drop for Bush from 37% in April to 31% in May? Accodring to Alex, then this is not statistically significant. So these polling organizations might have been dishonestly trumpeting their "suspicious" polling data.

"BTW, was the USA/Gallop poll was trumpeted as a big drop for Bush from 37% in April to 31% in May? Accodring to Alex, then this is not statistically significant. So these polling organizations might have been dishonestly trumpeting their "suspicious" polling data."

If I'm right about the MOE, then yes, to trumpet a drop from 37% to 31% is intellectually dishonest. But you seem to imply that's a product of liberal bias; I think it's just a question of the average person, including the average journalist, not having any sort of statistical background, combined with reporters who need stories and news outlets that need readership/ratings.

By the way - RCP updated with two new polls, CBS and Rasmussen, this afternoon, bringing the total to five.

Getting Zaquari is not likely to provide a major bump in the polls for Bush, nor should it. The consequences of Zaquari's death remain to be seen, and not surprisingly a lot of people are going to be cautious in light of the fact that the capture of Saddam did not seem to make things better in Iraq. (Imagine, though, how much worse it might be were he still at large.)

Our war objective is not to kill Zaquari. Our war objectives are to (1) remove Saddam's regime and (2) replace it with a stable, democratic government that will can police its own country.

Objective #1 is achieved--a fact largely unappreciated by a majority of Americans, and objective #2 is still unachieved.

Bush's stature will rise if objective #2 is achieved during or after his presidency, but I don't see too much else that will push it up.

Bush has the admirable trait of sticking to an objective even though the polls may be running away from him, but he will be judged by the long term results, not by his determination.

DSL...
A couple things.

Zarquari has been the face of the OUR terror in Iraq longer than Saddam and when Saddam was captured he was a rat in a hole...not an active participant in any uprising... the consequences may "yet to be seen" but the correlation between the two, you ( as well as many defeatist lefties) wish to model as large... is actually puny.

Add to that your #2 where you omit the more obvious correlation of a Zarquari kill being a necessary step in achieving said objective. Don'tcha think?

Lastly, much of the Bush history is already
written ...and I agree and disagree with your last couple statements ...in that there are numerous things he could do to push his numbers up...he just has chosen not to.

What we need is some sort of independant data base registration site, where a polling organization can register the fact that they'll be taking a poll, what the questions will be, and how they intend to analyze the results.

By registering their intent prior to taking the poll it would (should) lead to less biased polling both in frequency, analysis, and reporting.

It wouldent be manditory to register, but polls that were not registered prior to sampling would be tainted by comparison to those that had.

DSL writes: "Our war objective is not to kill Zaquari. Our war objectives are to (1) remove Saddam's regime and (2) replace it with a stable, democratic government that will can police its own country." I thought he was completely out of touch with reality with that comment, since he seems to have completely (and conveniently) forgotton that Bush made the hysterical argument to invade Iraq exclusively, and emphatically, on the need to find and remove those huge stockpiles of WMD that were supposedly armed and ready to be fired on Israel, Europe and (in a completely laughable assumption) all the way across the ocean to the USA.

It's amazing that the reasons for why we invaded iraq have so conveniently changed to meet the lack of success there, and the need to find new reasons why we supposedly invaded in the first place... as if people would somehow forget what we were told only a month or two earlier about whty we were there, or what we were trying to acdcomplish.

Did you all forget that during his State of the Union addresses, and many other speeches he gave about the reasons for invading Iraq, Bush never, ever talked about having the US play "policeman for the world" and try to change the political and social structure of every country that disagrees with us (have you so easily forgotten his smug remarks about how "we don't do nation building" during his election campaign?)

Of course, Bush knew what he was doing when he used pure scare tactics backed up by the outrageously exaggerated facts of the WMD, rather than any attempting to offer any touchy-feely ideas about making the world a better place by creating nicer, democratic govt's, because he knew that the average Joe six-pack that would definitely be motivated by the former, and wouldn't give a dam about the latter, as justification for risking the lives of thousands of brave men and women (not to mention billions of dollars) in a huge military campaign.

But even though DSL seems to give credit to Bush for more than he deserves abouut what we are supposed to be doing in Iraq, the fact that DSL criticizes Bush in ANY way is obviously a good enough reason Whatfur to accuse him of being one the "defeatist lefties."

Wow, you guys are amazing. Do you have any sense of US or world history or US or world politics, or do you just act in complete knee-jerk response with anger and personal vitriol towards anyone who questions anything that is in any way different from what you believe? Do you have no appreciation for the fact that Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and countless other great thinkers and leaders in US history (notice I didn't dare mention FDR, who I'm sure you equate with Stalin, or worse), have advocated the exchange of diiferent, and opposing, views as the BEST, most productive, and most effective way to create, strengthen and ensure the best aspects of a democracy?

Oh, I forgot... we probably COULD have a great democracy if we let the religious right run the show, instead of having to deal with the insideous power of that horrible liberal media, combined with the Jewish control of Hollywood, that makes everything in this country such a big mess. Well, that, plus those dam Mexicans who are taking the jobs of honest Americans... who are all immigrants themselves, but conveniently forgot that little fact (everyone, that is, except for Native Americans, but then they were already squeezed out of the picture long ago).

Oh, if we could only go back to those simpler days in the 50's when straight, white, christian males pretty much ran everything in this country, and had ALL of the power to make laws and discriminate against any group they felt like, without fear of inpunity. That would make things so much easier, wouldn't it?

I await your philosophical replies...

AJA: he seems to have completely (and conveniently) forgotton that Bush made the hysterical argument to invade Iraq exclusively, and emphatically, on the need to find and remove those huge stockpiles of WMD that were supposedly armed and ready to be fired on Israel, Europe and (in a completely laughable assumption) all the way across the ocean to the USA.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with a liar.

Yes AJA, you're correct, that President Bush did go into Iraq to remove SH because he had the WMD... because he shunned many UN resolutions that he agreed to... because he (& his government) had ties to terroists. From the begining too, I believe that he did have a plan for the aftermath of SH and that was to establish a govenment accountable to the free Iraqi people.

With 20/20 hindsight, we now know that SH did not have WMD or at least we haven't determined what he did with them before we invaded. I'm sure given time & further intelligence the truth will come out.

So... the first reason why the President invaded turned out to be false (for now) which means that President Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Richard Clark, PM Blair, President Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder, UN Hans Blix, CIA, DIA, MI6, French Intelligence and many, many, many more, also, made false statements about SH's WMD.

I don't know about you, but I would be the first in line to impeach Bush if he didn't go into Iraq and get SH after having been told about his WMD by everyone mentioned above and the bastard gave it to Hamas or Al Qaeda and they used it in NY or LA. I make this statement as a Republican. If the Republicans would impeach in this case, my guess is that the Democrats in this country would have asked for the firing squad with the hate that they have for him now.

AJA claimed: "I thought... Bush made the hysterical argument to invade Iraq exclusively, and emphatically, on the need to find and remove those huge stockpiles of WMD..."

AJA, you thought worng. Bush never made the case for invading Iraq exclusively on the need to keep weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) out of the hands of Saddam Hussein. I suggest that AJA and other true believers in the religion of Hating Bush review the State of the Union speech in which President Bush laid out multiple reasons for toppling Saddam. (I remind the Yearly Kos kiddies that "multiple" means "more than one." Duh.)

AJA then crowed: "It's amazing that the reasons for why we invaded iraq have so conveniently changed..."

We adults know better than that, AJA. Helping the Iraqis build a stable democratic post-Saddam state was given as a war goal by your president before the invasion. It's on the record. Next time, before wounding one of your feet again, review your president's pre-war State of the Union speech. (If you don't, AJA, you'll just keep reopening your injuries and your feet will never heal.)

Then AJA sang: "Did you all forget that during his State of the Union addresses..."

Obviously, your betters here, AJA, remember those State of the Union addresses of your president's much better than do you. You're the one who forgets what your president said in 'em. (Duh.)

AJA continued to project hysteria with: "Bush never, ever talked about having the US play "policeman for the world" and try to change the political and social structure of every country that disagrees with us..."

Finally, AJA, you muttered something truthful (but only to employ one true remark as a bodyguard for your moonbat lies - sheesh!) The US isn't "policeman for the world" and as you admit, Bush never said the US should be. Look at a map sometime, AJA, and you'll see that Iraq and Afghanistan are not "the world". (Duh.)

As for "...try(ing) to change the political and social structure of every country that disagrees with us..." AJA, that's part of foreign policy and has been since before you were born. Your pout is that your president isn't trying to use military force against "every country that disagrees with" you! Tsk, tsk. (Lefties are such narcissists!)

The rest of your lies, AJA, such as your riff on the 1950s when "Jewish control of Hollywood" produced classic films that respected traditional values rather than trashing them, are little more than redundant illustrations of how far from reality you have become since you chose to become a true believer in the rank and file of the Leftist religion.

AJA,

Your post is a monument to your arrogance and ignorance. Before you call out people for not knowing US or world history, please demonstrate an elementary grasp of very recent history.

"I thought he [DSL] was completely out of touch with reality with that comment, since he seems to have completely (and conveniently) forgotton that Bush made the hysterical argument to invade Iraq exclusively, and emphatically, on the need to find and remove those huge stockpiles of WMD that were supposedly armed and ready to be fired on Israel, Europe and (in a completely laughable assumption) all the way across the ocean to the USA."

Sir, it is indeed you who is out of touch and you who make hysterical arguments. True, Bush and his Administration (incorrectly) overemphasized Saddam's WMD program as a basis for action. But to say it was exclusively their argument or argue that they made no attempt to give other justification for war is unequivocally false. Saddam's support of terrorists was also emphasized, as well as the horrible, tyrannical treatment of his own people.

What is also false is your assertion that replacing Saddam's regime with a stable, democratic government that can police its own country was not an objective before the war. The liberation of the Iraqi people and the creation of a free, stable Iraq was repeatedly stated as a goal prior to the invasion.

Don't believe me?

On September 12, 2002, during remarks made at the United Nations General Assembly, Bush stated the following reasons, in addition to WMD, for dealing with Iraq:

"He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq."

Later in that same speech.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections."

On October 7, 2002, in a major primetime speech delivered to the nation from the Cincinnati Museum Center:

"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith."

Also from that speech, regarding ties to terrorists:

"And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."

Finally, from the same speech:

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors."

On March 17, 2003, in a nationally televise speech in which the President said Saddam had to leave Iraq within 48 hours, Bush stated:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms."

Later in the speech:

"As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace."

To be sure, the possession and pursuit of WMD be Saddam was the primary reason cited for action in all of these speeches. But it in no way was it the exclusive argument. And in fact, freeing and stabilizing the country for the benefit of the Iraqi people was clearly and repeatedly stated as prewar goal. The fact that you and so many other people did not seem to hear or comprehend the President's arguments is a testament to your own ignorance or lack of intelligence. The fact that you find this line of thinking sophisticated is pathetic and childish.

The Causen Effect:

Anything bad that happens is (name of current or former President)'s fault.

Nice job folks. AJA, come back any time.

Alex,

Nice to know that you are NOT an INSANE
Kos_Nut? On the other hand, you seem to
also believe that Polls are real and valid.
Your choice!

History shows that Polls are TOTAL GARBAGE
most of the time.

One other thought, Polls have entertainment value for political news junkies. I do read them for laughs! I know many other people who do the same thing.

The greatest jokester in poll circles currently is John Zogby. He is guaranteed to be hilariously wrong. He is wonderful for creating belly-laughs!

"One other thought, Polls have entertainment value for political news junkies. I do read them for laughs! I know many other people who do the same thing.

The greatest jokester in poll circles currently is John Zogby. He is guaranteed to be hilariously wrong. He is wonderful for creating belly-laughs!"

You know, Charles, sometimes I wish I could live my life like you apparently do, believing everyone who disagrees with me is a "NUT," "wonderful for creating belly laughs." It's a wonderful way to not have to ever listen to anything that could remotely challenge your world view or make you the slightest bit uncomfortable. Must be nice.

"Getting Zaquari is not likely to provide a major bump in the polls for Bush, nor should it."

How would you know if you don't run a poll?

Alex,

I could care less about the Left Side of the Blogosphere and DemonRat garbage that hides as "ideas".

I am busy. I run a successful business, you see!
Many, many people like me.... ex-Marine, College educated, Christian .... see things like I do. The others.... who cares? They don't matter in the long run!

Besides... most Polls are Old Media crap. So again ...... they are good for belly-laughs and little else. The ONLY POLLS that count are on Election Day and all of the Media WHINING WILL NOT make a Damn bit of difference.

You see, George W. Bush is NOT RUNNING in 2006, 2008, or ever again, so Media Presidential Popularity Polls are only good for bird cage lining, or fish wraps!

Do you understand now?

On the morning of the 2004 Presidential election I woke up to Zogby's posting that Kerry had the election in the bag...with more than 300 electoral votes. I'm suspect of ANY poll or polling entity. Polls don't interest me in the least. I believe the only polls that matter are ELECTIONS.

Wow, a very passionate series of replies! First, let me say that I was impressed with the research and detailed quotes provided by TimC (and I don't hesitate to compliment him on that, despite his attacks against me personally - see below), and at least I am able to say something nice about those with differing opinions, which doesn't seem to be the norm for many of the folks on this message board. In fact, almost of the replies that were posted in response to mine basically supported the argument that I was making in the first place, namely, taht when many of the folks on this message board read something that they disagree with, they don't just attack the opinion, they attack the writer personally.

Yes, I disagreed with DSL, and said that "I thought he was completely out of touch with reality with that comment." Okay, that may have been a bit harsh, but I did not say that DSL is crazy, or that he is a liar or stupid, etc. I said that I think he was out of touch with that comment. When making a statement that starts with "I think" or "I thought it was" it usually infers an opinion, an assessment or a possibility, not a definite fact or complete certainty, and when referring to someone else's comment, it refers to something they said, and does not in any way automatically accuse, label, judge, or criticize their whole life or total worth as a person. I can't say the same for many of the replies that I got, most of which were, to one degree or another, guilty of "argumentum ad hominem" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Three out of the five replies included these choice philosophical retorts:

> from Adults Know Better (the most sarcastic): "only to employ one true remark as a bodyguard for your moonbat lies -sheesh," and "Lefties are such narcissists!" and several "Duh" assertions, and "The rest of your lies ...are illustrations of how far from reality you have become since you chose to become a true believer in the rank and file of the Leftist religion."

> from TimC (the most vitriolic): "Your post is a monument to your arrogance and ignorance," and "please demonstrate an elementary grasp of very recent history" and "it is indeed you who is out of touch" (notice the use of the phrase "it is indeed you who is" and not "I think you were..."), and the best one: "is a testament to your own ignorance or lack of intelligence. The fact that you find this line of thinking sophisticated is pathetic and childish."

> from Adjoran (the most incriminating): "It is impossible to have a rational discussion with a liar."

Those are the kinds of remarks I was referring to when I pointed out that it seemed that Whatfur was accusing DSL of being a "defeatist lefty" just because DSL made statements that Whatfur disagreed with, which is typical of the "shoot the messenger" approach of making an argument that seems to be so prevalent (and so useless) today. And yes, I fully admit that it unfortunately happens on both sides, left and right -- and it is equally wrong/invalid/illogical no matter who does it -- but since I happened to be on a Right-leaning blog, I was directing my comments towards that side of the room at that point. And the subsequent replies seemed to confirm that observation quite handily.

But I thought it was understood that the point I was making when I asked "do you have any sense of US history?" -- and questioned why there seemed to be more emphasis placed on directing hostility and accusations at the people making differing viewpoints than on discussing the viewpoints themselves -- was to criticize that lack of historical context as a current cultural problem, and describe it as something which ran counter to what many of the great leaders in US history have said about the need to invite and encouraged the exchange of different/opposing views, and that throughout history it has been demonstrated that honest, passionate debate and even criticism of the status quo is a good thing, and is a necessary element in a democracy.

But the bulk of the dyspepsia and loud agitation seemed to come from my comments that Bush used WMD exclusively as his argument for invading Iraq in his State of the Union (SOTU) Addresses in 2002 and 2003, and the replies I got were quick to tell me I was wrong, or a really bad person -- including the one that said I am "a liar" -- but none none of them were backed with anything from his SOTU addresses that proved me to be wrong!

Oh sure, TimC says: "But to say it was exclusively their argument or argue that they made no attempt to give other justification for war is unequivocally false. Saddam's support of terrorists was also emphasized, as well as the horrible, tyrannical treatment of his own people. What is also false is your assertion that replacing Saddam's regime with a stable, democratic government that can police its own country was not an objective before the war. The liberation of the Iraqi people and the creation of a free, stable Iraq was repeatedly stated as a goal prior to the invasion. Don't believe me?"

TimC then goes on to list several occasions when Bush spoke eloquently of the need to help the people of Iraq, as in the UN General Assembly on Sept 12, 2002; a prime-time speech delivered to the nation from the Cincinnati Museum Center on October 7, 2002; and a nationally televise [sic] speech on March 17, 2003.

Okay, great, TimC those were three speeches Bush gave, and there may have been others. But I stated that "in his State of the Union addresses, and many other speeches he gave about the reasons for invading Iraq, Bush never, ever talked about having the US play "policeman for the world" etc. etc." I then went on to say that he mainly used scare tactics about WMD in his speeches as the predominant way to convince the average American that we should invade Iraq, as opposed to the more ethereal aspects of making Iraq and the rest of the world a better place for democracy. And I still feel that is true, overall.

But I will admit: I was not 100% correct. Hey, I'm willing to admit a mistake (not something I've seen too often on this blog) when I said that Bush "never, ever" made the case for the US being the world's policeman in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, but I was not very far off, especially in regards to his SOTU addresses, which were his most widely heard, publicized, printed and prolific attempts at making the argument for war. I will post a separate message with actual quotes from the 2002 and 2003 SOTU Addresses that clearly show how Bush spent far more time and energy on the WMD rationale than the freedom aspects. And I'll quote some other very major, prime-time speeches that pose the WMD threat, but barely have any mention of Iraqi freedom. But this may be enough for now to create some interesting retorts.

Anyone want to try arguing the value of the facts more than the value of the person making them...?

Oh, and one closing note: my hearty thanks to Thirdfinger, for the comment: "Nice job folks. AJA, come back any time." I will take a positive approach and assume that thirdfinger's comments meant acceptance of my observations and an appreciation of my attempts to engage the people here in some kind of meaningful discussion.