So, Dickey, you finally realize that your favorite idea, that "the numbers went down" despite the propaganda campaign, is, to put it bluntly, worthless tripe--since your number proving the decline was only from Aug 2003--that is, when the whole world could see that the Bush regime's scare tactics on Saddam's WMD were smoke and mirrors.

If you would actually take the time to look at the poll you love so much--and if you had any idea of what was going on at the various times the poll was taken, you might actually learn something--(sorry if learning is against the Bushite creed.)

But you may wind up learning something, despite your aversion to doing so.

First of all, if you actually go to the article from which your "numbers" are taken, it clearly states that the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3%. So all your trumpeting about a change of 3%, much less 1%, needs to be taken with-- about a mountain of-- salt.

Secondly there is no poll cited between Sept 2001 and Oct 2002. In Sept 2001, a fearful country was looking for scapegoats--anywhere. Then came the attack on the Taliban, and the hunt for Osama (now Osama bin Forgotten--wonder why that is). I suspect that polls taken in late 2001 would show a lower number--since the focus was on Osama--then, starting about June 2002--with the start of the full-bore propaganda campaign against Saddam-- would show a trend upward toward the 71% . These polls (cited by the Post), however, will never answer that question, since they were taken infrequently.

Thirdly, it appears you never even examined the actual question--which is "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept 11, 2001 attacks?"

Nobody here is claiming that Bush said Saddam was directly involved in those attacks---just that the Bush regime--and Blair-- tried--successfully--to associate those attacks with Saddam--and predicted that the next 9-11- type attacks would be supplied by Saddam--in fact supplied by him with WMD.

It was this approach which was the heart of the propaganda campaign--that the next attackers would be using Saddam's WMD.   It was not at all necessary for the public to believe that Saddam had been behind 9-11 in order to associate him with it, nor to believe that he would be involved in the next one---and his involvement in the next one--with WMD-- is what the Bush regime hammered away at.

And neither you nor Teribus have provided one clear statement by the Bush regime contradicting this--despite wasting untold amount of time trying to do so.

Both your favorite--the Blair press conference of Jan 2003--and Teribus' favorite--Cheney's Meet the Press appearance of 8 Sept 2002--crash and burn, due to context--specifically what comes directly after your respective favorite sentences.

The propaganda campaign is a fact--and you have no evidence against it.