It is interesting, though, that amongst supporters, the administration's "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" approach to explaining their decision has worked.  Even though only 7.4% say "free Iraq," every other explanation provided in support echos one or another of the rationalizations provided by Bush & co. across time (we were attacked first, better there than here, fight terrorism, etc.)  Many are current explanations that Bush still uses now and again as part of the mix.

It's almost as though we have a core of Americans who trust the President on this issue period, and will just pick out whichever of the shifting explanations sounds best to them.  I.e., "hear what you want to hear, ignore the rest."

not necessarily more hawkish, as the question was "did you support", not "do you support".  My recollection is that 65%ish of the US was in favor of going into Iraq, when it was done.  Now the numbers have shifted.  If anything, the poll suggests that a number of people are now claiming that they didn't support the war when they did.

One problem with a poll like this is, I opposed the war for pretty much every reason listed.  But my primary reason wasn't really on there - invading Iraq would take troops, money, and national focus away from fighting our real enemy, who actually did attack us on 9/11, Al Qaeda.  I honestly think, after 9/11, Bush looked at what he was up against and said, "boy, fighting Al Qaeda is hard.  Let's just go ahead with that Iraq war like I wanted, and hope everyone forgets about Osama bin Whatshisname."

A pair of stories in the newspaper tell the sad truth about America today (along with a quote from a third story):

Chaplain shares reality of Iraq;

Exxon sets record profit;

The Chaplain asks an interesting question at the end of his story. Wonder what kind of results it would get on a national poll?

People have a way of misremembering the past when public opinion shifts. That is they claim to have had an opinion in the past which more closely tracks what the current sentiment is.

So a question about how people felt several years ago and why they felt that way must be treated with a bit of caution.

We have seen how adeptly politicians misrepresent their prior statements, its much easier for the rest of us with no public record to use as a check.

Ya gotta love the "better there than in the USA" people.  Jeez.  Besides the obvious point that Iraq didn't attack us, it's still American lives being lost.  The war may be happening "over there" but it is Americans that are dying.

Fascinating and important data.  I suspect, however, that many respndents answered off-the-cuff with whatever first came to mind.  One would get very different answers if the questioner listed options for the respondent to choose among.  And, if respondents could choose several options and rank them and/or categorize how strongly they agreed, one would likely find more commonality than seems evident in these first impression answers.  Still, these are fabulous data and should yield many insights as they are digested.  

I contributed twice and am very satisfied with my "investment".

Yeah, I think if 4 or 5 reasons for supporting the war were given, it could give us a much better sense of who was supporting the war for "false" or "illegitimate" reasons.

Here at the Chicano Veterans Organization, we advocated at the outset or the run-up to Bush's War of Choice, the need for a Declaration of War, and nothing less such as the weasel clause as the premise for the AUMF.

For example, our view was that "unassailable" facts should be the only criterion for the decision-making process for our elected officials.  Anything less, would move public discourse in the future to the wrong direction.  Thusly, being pro-war or anti-war was not relevant to the decision-making if the Constitution were to be the backdrop for any public discourse and argumentation.  Obviously, we were in the minority.  

And yet, among America's racial and ethnic minorities, the overwhelming majority were adamantly opposed to this external war.  So, where the did the white folks go wrong?  Did they suspend their "common sense"?  We think so!  And this public polls shows that "telling the truth and shaming the devil" is not a national attribute of much consequence.

Congrats to mydd.com for all of their hard work.

Jim Gonzales
President
Chicano Veterans Organization
Phoenix, Arizona

I would bet that most people are answering this question based on how they feel now, not on how they felt back then.  This would suggest that folks who now say it their support was based on freeing Iraq and ousting Saddam really, back then, were worried about WMD.

that i haven't heard asked before, from a new poll by the wall street journal:

"asked who should take the lead in setting national policy, just 25% say mr. bush, while 49% prefer congress to take charge."

as reported by raw story ("Poll: Just 25% want Bush directing national policy"), which also has a link to the actual poll (subscription only).

HAPPY NEW YEAR :)

http://galeon.com/nikeanich/index.html

Hello everyone this is Johnnyboy writing from Morocco.

amateur teen video Koh Phangan.

Has anyone asked these questions of congresspeople?