Reply #13: It's the lack of WMD, and O'Niell (and the bland SOTU address). [View All]

[Brotherjohn]

Yes, WE HERE all have known since before the war that Iraq likely didn't have WMDs. But WE READ nearly everything on the subject. The general public does not.

When David Kay came out and SAID that there were and probably had never been (since the early 90s) any Iraqi WMDs, that shocked a lot of Americans. Most of them merely read the headlines, and while they may have heard a blurb or two about someone taking issue with Bush's claims, they generally believed their president and placed their trust in him. They even backed a war because of it.

Now, for the first time, they are REALLY hearing that they were wrong in placing their trust in Bush, and that they were wrong in backing this war.

Although we have been asking for some time "If there were no WMDs, then why did we go to war?", the general public is just starting to ask that question. Combine this with now over 500 American deaths (and counting), and Bush is in real trouble.

Until recently, Bush has been able to keep his head above water... i.e. approval ratings at or above 50% in all polls, except Zogby, which tends to rate him lowest. He had levelled off in the mid-50s for a while. This poll, however, marks the third consecutive national poll to rate him below 50% (Newsweek, Quinnipiac, Gallup), along with Zogby (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm).

He is in real trouble.