Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: A majority of Americans believe Bush either lied or deliberately skewed evidenc

  1. #1
    Like2Talk
    Guest

    A majority of Americans believe Bush either lied or deliberately skewed evidenc

    It's a bit late (Bush's Niger uranium claim was exposed a quite while ago and I guess there is still a majority of americans believing Saddam was behind 9/11), but well it might change the tide of the elections...



    Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War


    A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.



    The survey results, which also show declining support for the war in Iraq and for Bush's leadership in general, indicate the public is increasingly questioning the president's truthfulness -- a concern for Bush's political advisers as his reelection bid gets underway.

    Barely half -- 52 percent -- now believe Bush is "honest and trustworthy," down 7 percentage points since late October and his worst showing since the question was first asked, in March 1999. At his best, in the summer of 2002, Bush was viewed as honest by 71 percent. The survey found that nearly seven in 10 think Bush "honestly believed" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even so, 54 percent thought Bush exaggerated or lied about prewar intelligence.

    Honesty and credibility have been central to Bush's appeal since the 2000 campaign, when he benefited from disgust over President Bill Clinton's lies about the Monica S. Lewinsky affair and when Bush's campaign accused then-Vice President Al Gore of "saying one thing and doing another." But a number of factors, including the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq and the administration's underestimating of its Medicare prescription drug plan's costs, appear to have undermined perceptions of his credibility.

    Bush's possible Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), has begun to talk about a "credibility gap." Even some Bush allies say they have been misled about Iraq's weapons, and the current Time magazine cover story asks: "Believe him or not -- does Bush have a credibility gap?"

    Questions about Bush's use of prewar intelligence, in addition to feeding doubts about his honesty, have sent his performance rating plummeting. Fifty percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing, the lowest level of his presidency in Post-ABC polling and down 8 percentage points from January. The survey found that, for the first time since the war ended, less than half of Americans -- 48 percent -- believe the war was worth fighting, down 8 points from last month. Fifty percent said the war was not worth it.

    These doubts have affected Bush's reelection prospects. In a head-to-head matchup, Kerry beat Bush, 52 percent to 43, percent among registered voters. Bush had more passionate support -- 83 percent of his backers said their support was strong, while 59 percent of Kerry supporters said so -- and retains an advantage over Kerry in dealing with Iraq and the war on terrorism. But the Democrat was seen as better able to handle the economy and jobs, education, and health care -- all top issues with voters this year.

    The survey found a steep drop in public perceptions of Bush as a president and as an individual. In a sign that Bush has been set back by recent controversies over Iraqi weapons, his National Guard record and the federal budget, the number of Americans viewing him as a "strong leader" has slipped to 61 percent, down 6 points from December and the lowest level since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

    Bush's rating on handling the economy stood at 44 percent, down 7 percentage points, with nearly half of the public saying they are worse off now than they were when Bush became president three years ago. Six in 10 disapprove of the job Bush is doing creating jobs. On education, 47 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, down 8 points from January. And his rating on health care has also fallen.

    But the president's declining ratings related to Iraq were the most striking. Approval of his handling of the situation there has fallen to 47 percent, down 8 percentage points in the past three weeks. About half of Americans -- 51 percent -- said they would prefer a report evaluating the accuracy and use of prewar intelligence before the election, while 35 percent favor what Bush has ordered: a broader study of the overall accuracy of U.S. intelligence-gathering operations that will report its findings after the election.

    While 21 percent said they believe that Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq, a larger number -- 31 percent -- thought he exaggerated but did not lie. Indeed, six in 10 Americans believed, as Bush did, that Iraq had such weapons.

    Three in four Democrats said Bush either lied or exaggerated about what was known about Iraq's weapons, while an equally large majority of Republicans said the president did neither. Slightly more than half of all independents believed Bush had misled the public about Iraq's weapons cache.



    "I think he was believing what he wanted to believe," said one respondent, Ron Perholtz, an accountant from Jupiter, Fla. "I can't say he's dishonest. He heard what he wanted to hear. He's manipulatable by [Vice President] Cheney and others."

    Many respondents expressed regrets about the Iraq war. For example, Mike Richcreek, 52, of Warner Robbins, Ga., said he believes Bush neither exaggerated nor lied. "He went by what the intelligence given to him showed," Richcreek said. But, at the same time, Richcreek said he has begun to doubt the merits of the war.

    "I'm not sure now we should have gone to war in the first place," he said. "You think of all of our young kids getting killed. That's a problem. I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision."

    A total of 1,003 randomly selected adults were interviewed Feb. 10 to 11. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb12.html

    add this to Bush brillant military record and to his parading in military suit on an aircraft carrier...

  2. #2
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    Did that survey asked those people if they cared and/or it made much difference?


    When Rudy G. was da Mayor of New Yawk we liked to say "He's a damn fascist, but he's OUR damn fascist and he's just what we need."

  3. #3
    Like2Talk
    Guest
    Originally posted by Mediocrates
    Did that survey asked those people if they cared and/or it made much difference?
    I might be wrong, but I see the american people as being very serious that lying has to be sanctionned.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    Yes you might be wrong. After all it's a complex melange of issues, personalities and personal prejudices.

    Do the fine people of France revolt when their betters lie to them? Or do they accept a certain degree of Realpolitik and move on? What if it was demonstrated that Chirac was bribed to do what he did. Would the fine people of France have head on a pike? No probably not because it would have fit well with whatever your personalized national agenda is anyhow.


    BTW I saw a bumpersticker that said "First Iraq, then Chirac"

  5. #5
    David_in_NYC
    Guest

    Re: A majority of Americans believe Bush either lied or deliberately skewed evidenc

    It's a Goebbels strategy. Repeat a lie often enough, and people believe it.

    Repeat that the Bush admin outed a CIA agent (when her own husband actually outed her) and people believe it.

    Repeat that Bush lied on WMDs and people will believe it. As much as this is repeated, we've yet to see an example that survives scrutiny. Given that we're less than a year from the end of Saddam's regime, and the same people claimed 12 years wasn't enough time for the UN inspectors (or for Saddam to comply with his 1991 ceasfire agreement), the conclusiveness with which they make their judgments is prima facie absurd.

    Repeat that Bush went AWOL and people will believe it. His service record has now been made public and it shows that he was honorably discharged. The intial claims have been thoroughly discredited and other lieutenants in his squadron have testified to his presence. Meanwhile, if you look at what he actually did, you'd find he flew F-102s fighter jets.

    Can you imagine the Democrat party bringing up military service if Howard Dean, who spent the war skiing in Aspen, Colorado, with an exemption from the draft for a back injury, and was the front-runner for most of the campaign, was the nominee? Even Kerry, the supposed hero, is going to be a complete disaster for them. His main claim to fame is slandering the name of his fellow soldiers in testimony to Congress.

    The last time the Democrats had the foreign policy portfolio, we went from the fall of the Berlin Wall to 9/11. Believe you me, that is a losing issue. Feel free to pursue that to the end of time.

    Interesting that someone would brag how well such a strategy was working. Cui bono?

  6. #6
    David_in_NYC
    Guest
    Originally posted by Like2Talk
    I might be wrong, but I see the american people as being very serious that lying has to be sanctionned.
    In 1998 we decided that intentional lying by the executive, even to a court of law , was perfectly acceptable. Time to... how do I say it? "Move on"

  7. #7
    abu afak
    Guest
    If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People
    (Updated)

    by John Hawkins

    Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is claiming that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The story being floated now is that Saddam had no WMD (or almost none) and that the Bush administration didn't tell the truth about the WMD threat.

    Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same lies since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about...

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." --
    From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." --
    From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." --
    Madeline Albright, 1998

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." --
    Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." --
    Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." --
    Jacques ChiraQ, October 16, 2002

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --
    Bill Clinton in 1998

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." --
    Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." --
    Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." --
    Tom Daschle in 1998

    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." --
    John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." --
    Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." --
    Al Gore, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." --
    Bob Graham, December 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." --
    Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." --
    John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." --
    Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." --
    Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." --
    Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." --
    Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." --
    John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." --
    John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

  8. #8
    TDidier
    Guest

    Talking

    Honnesty is to say that most of those persons said that on Irak in accordance with falsified report from Bush administration...

    For J.Chirac, you have to recognize that he just ask for more inspections to confirm or unfirm the WMDs stock alleged by Bush administration...

    The most laugthfull speek is the Scott Ritter's one ! ! ! Former UN chief inspector who was one of the builders of WMDs legend ! ! !

    Originally posted by abu afak
    If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People
    (Updated)

    by John Hawkins

    Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is claiming that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The story being floated now is that Saddam had no WMD (or almost none) and that the Bush administration didn't tell the truth about the WMD threat.

    Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same lies since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about...
    ...


  9. #9
    TDidier
    Guest

    Re: Re: A majority of Americans believe Bush either lied or deliberately skewed evidenc

    Originally posted by David_in_NYC
    It's a Goebbels strategy. Repeat a lie often enough, and people believe it.

    Repeat that the Bush admin outed a CIA agent (when her own husband actually outed her) and people believe it.
    ...

    Excellent parallel between those who use old Goebbels tactics and todays war in Irak...

    But just a correction... Who were those who claim that SHussein had WMDs during more than a years using falsified reports and explaining that they know where WMDs are and that they know how to found it ?
    According that today all evidences confirm that didn't exist...

  10. #10
    abu afak
    Guest
    Originally posted by TDidier
    Honnesty is to say that most of those persons said that on Irak in accordance with falsified report from Bush administration.....


    Many of the statements were made in late 1998.

    Bush said the same thing Clinton said and using the same intelligence.

  11. #11
    TDidier
    Guest
    Please read your own post... Most of those phrases date from late 2002 or beginning 2003.

    But honnesty...

    B.Clinton use WMDs excuse in a "legal" context.
    G.Wc.Bush use WMDs excuse for a war, a real barbaric decadence...

    Pitty for whole occident.

    Originally posted by abu afak
    Not True you le-simpleton

    Many of the statements were made in late 1998.

    Bush said the same thing Clinton said and using the same intelligence.

  12. #12
    abu afak
    Guest
    Originally posted by TDidier
    Please read your own post... Most of those phrases date from late 2002 or beginning 2003.

    But honnesty...

    B.Clinton use WMDs excuse in a "legal" context.
    G.Wc.Bush use WMDs excuse for a war, a real barbaric decadence.....
    Really?



    President Authorizes Iraq Attack

    by Sean Leasure - Posted 02-20-03

    In a speech from the Oval Office, the President told the nation that he has ordered military strikes against Iraq.

    "Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," the President said.

    "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British Forces".

    "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors".

    The President also went on to say that while other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

    "Along with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning".

    "...once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so".



    NOW FOR THE PUNCH LINE

    This speech is completely true and delivered by the President.... President Clinton in 1998! Where where the outcries? Where were the Democratic/socialist political rats screaming to give the inspectors more time? Where were the millions of protesters in the streets? Where is the U.N. protesting the U.S. acting unilaterally without another resolution? Now I want ONE anti-American anti-war individual to look me straight in the face and tell me that their standpoint has nothing to do with politics and is simply to keep "peace". It has everything to do with the fact that a Republican is in office and the Democrats still have no platform to stand on other than "we're different from them".


    © 2003 theamericanjournal.org

    http://home.comcast.net/~tanthanis/president.htm

  13. #13
    TDidier
    Guest
    Do you feel the difference between an invasion and a menace?

    Those strike were launch against military target (in most the cases). Only Shussein Image (and some of his soldiers) was injuried.

    This invasion (that killed so many thousand of civilians ) based on lies and falsified reports don't solve any problem but create so many others.
    The real war victim was the "internationnal legality".


    War is bad... Unjustified by defence: war is a crime. That is the only thing that you have to understand...

    Originally posted by abu afak
    Really?



    President Authorizes Iraq Attack

    by Sean Leasure - Posted 02-20-03

    In a speech from the Oval Office, the President told the nation that he has ordered military strikes against Iraq.

    "Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," the President said.

    "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British Forces".

    "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors".

    The President also went on to say that while other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

    "Along with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning".

    "...once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so".



    NOW FOR THE PUNCH LINE

    This speech is completely true and delivered by the President.... President Clinton in 1998! Where where the outcries? Where were the Democratic/socialist political rats screaming to give the inspectors more time? Where were the millions of protesters in the streets? Where is the U.N. protesting the U.S. acting unilaterally without another resolution? Now I want ONE anti-American anti-war individual to look me straight in the face and tell me that their standpoint has nothing to do with politics and is simply to keep "peace". It has everything to do with the fact that a Republican is in office and the Democrats still have no platform to stand on other than "we're different from them".


    © 2003 theamericanjournal.org

    http://home.comcast.net/~tanthanis/president.htm

  14. #14
    abu afak
    Guest
    Originally posted by TDidier
    Honnesty is to say that most of those persons said that on Irak in accordance with falsified report from Bush administration...
    So now you Admit the above statement you made is Incorrect ..YOUR Lie. Since there was a Continuous flow fromn several administration the the SAME intelligence, and statements, including Clinton and everyone in his administration.


    Originally posted by TDidier
    Please read your own post... Most of those phrases date from late 2002 or beginning 2003.
    ..../
    B.Clinton use WMDs excuse in a "legal" context.
    G.Wc.Bush use WMDs excuse for a war, a real barbaric decadence...
    And your above statement Also Incorrect and a LIE as the Clinton administration was using it in more than a Legal Context, but a Practical one...
    Enough to authorize a misslie attack in late 1998.


    And the 'Invasion' did kill thousands.. many Saddam loyalists and Baathists among them.
    A Relatively small price to Liberate a Country from Man who Killed 2 Million over 30 years.. about 70,000 per year.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    Since Chirac was bribed to stay on the sidelines the reasons for going to war were, and are, irrelevant. WMD, the price of felafel, the brutal treatment of camels. Makes no which never mind to the people who were never going to take any action whatsoever.

    OK so there were probably no deployable WMD. So? there is no, there never was, and there never will be any justifiable reason to you ever for any reason. Strike up the band and have a Pernod.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Americans approve Israel's acts (Poll)
    By Ezra in forum In The News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2002, 02:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •