I'm not sure what the point of this poll question is:

Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans say that President Bush is more responsible for starting the War with Iraq than Saddam Hussein. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% take the opposite view and believe Hussein shoulders most of the responsibility.

First of all, Saddam started the "War with Iraq" fifteen years ago, way back in August 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. That war didn't end until March, 2003, when he was deposed, because there was never a peace treaty from the first Gulf War, and he was in continuous violation of almost all of the UN resolutions that were put in place as conditions of the truce.

Now certainly, the president does have responsibility for taking action to finally end (not start) the war with Saddam. But I don't really know what it means to say that someone started a war, or what value it has in assessing whether or not they were right to do so. Technically, one could say that Israel started the 1967 war, because they had to preempt what would otherwise have been a devastating attack by Arab forces massed on her borders.

So what?

Why is Rasmmussen even asking this question? The issue is not who "started the war," but whether the war was just, and necessary for the purposes of national security. Talk about "who started it" is the mentality of the playground, which seems to be where the minds of many of our so-called opinion leaders reside these days.

The "who started it" question is nor important, but I think most people assume the guy who started it is the aggressor and, therefore, in their logic, the bad guy. This fits with the notion that Saddam was just sitting there, minding his own business, when Bush invaded.

Being considered a just war is all well and good, but what really counts is results. Iraq seems to be a "3 steps forward, 2 and 1/2 steps back" kind of place. As the song said, the fuure's uncertain and the end is always near.

The left can remember Vietnam (America bad) but can't remember Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (America also bad somehow -- (sound of finger snapping) let me get back to you in a minute with the reason).

The left can remember Vietnam (America bad) but can't remember Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (America also bad somehow -- (sound of finger snapping) let me get back to you in a minute with the reason).

Its the questions stupid!!

We now live in an age where you can ask those, "..are you still beating your wife?!", type questions. Its the questions,how they are worded and finally how they are reported that count to the MSM.

Locally we had a poll reported on local AM talk radio. It stated that 73% of people polled thought our governor was doing a good job, 17% didn't think so. The same poll said Mr Bush had an approval rating of 49% liking the job he is doing and 46% NOT liking the job he is doing.

The info person says the governor leads the president in overal approval, as the president has, and I quote"...mixed approval numbers."

Well so does the governor, unless you have 100% approval or disapproval on ANY subject, the results are mixed. Mixed does not mean close, or nearly identical numbers, mixed is numbers NOT in 100% agreement concerning the subject question.

Judging from what's actually on AM radio, I'd assume, Steve, that most of their listeners would support burning at the stake as well as drawing and quartering.

And efforts to castigate the so-called MSM for playing to their audience seem hypocritical in a medium populated by people, strewn across the political spectrum, whose sole purpose seems to be to throw red meat at angry dogs. Rahter like that other part of MSM called talk radio.

And efforts to castigate the so-called MSM for playing to their audience seem hypocritical in a medium populated by people, strewn across the political spectrum, whose sole purpose seems to be to throw red meat at angry dogs. Rahter like that other part of MSM called talk radio.

Oh no you didn't!

Once again for the slow-on-the-uptake: conservative talk radio is called that because they all openly admit they're conservative.

The lamestream media news operations are the ones we're complaining about, not so much because they're liberal and biased as because they pretend otherwise and then get snotty with people who point out that they're only pretending.

I dunno what you're complaining about, McGehee, except perhaps that you're burdened with some kind of persecution complex.

I'm talking about media outlets -- radio talk shows of any political stripe, yammering talkfests on cable, blogs, whatever -- that exist soley to atract audiences -- and revenue -- by spouting cliches, bigotry and deliberately unexamined biases intended to confirm and arouse the passions of their audiences. They're all preachng to the already converted, so they'd have no audience otherwise. People like to be told the world is going to Hell so they can get angry about it. A lot of those angry people like to go on air or start a blog as a outlet for their anger.

So-called conservative talk shows, e.g, Rush, take the heat because they dominate AM radio. But the small number of so-called liberal shows are guilty of the same behavior. They are to journalism what whores are to sex.

Everyone is playing the same game. Media in this country has beeen highly polticized and biased since Jamestown. Get over it. It used to be a lot worse. News without a viewpoint goes unread and unwatched.

And I'm telling you it's an illegitimate comparison, and misrepresenting the "castigating" that you're referring to.

"Persecution complex"? I happen to be a conservative blogger, often critical of the media. What's your stake in defending the LSM so vigorously?

A very dangerous poll - for Democrats.
Their only chance to regain power is to prove themselves at least as hawkish as Republicans;
and that is uphill work, given the true feelings
of their most active element.

Yet such polls as this may tempt them into following those feelings, and campaigning on the premise that their country is fighting an unjust war. The last presidential candidate to do that was McGovern. And *that* war was as unpopular as they come...