I saw Joe Wilson speak in October (he was stumping for Charlie Brown, the Democratic challenger to John Doolittle), and I was blown away. The case he makes about what they did to Valerie is very compelling, but so is everything he says about Iraq and our foreign policy, in general. It was so refreshing to hear someone speak knowledgably about the issues in the Middle East.

He's an interesting guy - he was quite unassuming, and I barely recognized him when I was standing next to him at the bar before he spoke. He was wearing a very casual turtleneck and jeans, and seemed quite friendly and congenial. He shook a lot of hands and was happy to speak with anyone who sought him out. He is impressive on several fronts.

I'm with L.W.M. I hope he runs for office, but am glad to know he was part of the government. I believe everything he said in his column. And, like someone said earlier, it takes a lot of chutzpah (and courage) to go up against the likes of Dick Cheney.

Ah, yes, I am quite familiar with Erwin Chemerinsky. (My memories of him are not so fond, however, as he taught (by video) my bar preparation class in Constitutional Law. :) I wasn't aware that he was representing the Wilsons, though.

I'm with Joe - it's going to be great to see Chemerinsky (who's an outright genius) tear Cheney up. I hope the suit gets to that stage.

So, it's pretty clear that the right's representatives are unable to respond to the contents of Glenn's post.

Why was the poll data pegged to Y2k?

I would not attempt to speak for Glenn, but my understanding of why he chose 2000 is that is when Bush was elected, so as to show the steady decline in favorable opinion of the US because of Bush's policies. Do you dispute that world opinion has changed for the worse under Bush?

If not, what is your point? The US has always generally been held in poor regard for the last few decades and, therefore, Glenn's point is meaningless? I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

A couple of years prior to 9/11, I saw Gorbachev speak. He more or less predicted a 9/11-type event. He warned us that our foreign policy abroad had caused such instability that such an attack was inevitable. I did not disagree with him. Going back to Kennedy (and maybe beyond), we've made several blunders that do not endear us to the world. Clearly, 9/11 did not happen just because of Bush's policies. That kind of resentment had to build up over time. Clinton, in fact, was well aware of the risk of 9/11 and tried to warn Bush.

No one is trying to argue that the US was perfect prior to 9/11, either. Some of the statistics speak to that - even in 2000, our approval rating in some places was pretty low (Russia, Spain).

But, during Bush's tenure, they have declined at a steady rate. Is this a coincidence? I think not.

All of your points in your post are correct, but I did not choose 2000 as the comparison year. That is the year the Pew poll data begins. I don't know why that is - my guess is that uniform worldwide polling of this sort is a relatively new phenomenon, certainly on such a massive scale.

Either way, the question is whether the credibility of the U.S. in the world has changed fundamentally or only by degree under Bush. The comparative data between 2000 and now is precisely what is relevant to that question.

-- GlennGreenwald

Thanks for clearing that up. After I wrote my post, I realized this was the case based on your other comments. Hopefully, the accusations of "cherry picking" can now be put to rest. I'd be interested to know what Pew's reasoning was in starting at 2000, however. Your guess is probably the most likely, but perhaps Pew was attempting to make the same point you are.

These are fairly staggering numbers 7 months into his presidency.

-- Frankly, my dear, ...

Thanks for that info. It explains why there are blanks throughout the data provided by Pew (i.e., if the State Dept. didn't have it in 2001, it's not likely to be found).

Your point is well-taken w/r/t the other data you posted. On the other hand, expect to get attacked for making a conclusion based on the data. ;)

Thanks for that info. It explains why there are blanks throughout the data provided by Pew (i.e., if the State Dept. didn't have it in 2001, it's not likely to be found).

That should have been "2000," not "2001."

He's also the one who tried to pack the Supreme Court with extra justices--all in his pocket, of course--so he could ram through his ideas without having to deal with any constitutional nitpicking.

--Anonymous

Hey, who knew Bush and FDR had so much in common!

Ask a Bush supporter to name something positive he's done. The first thing they always come up with is his getting his ideological clones on the bench.