NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON - Most Americans say they aren't impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.

Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says
President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

Bush, who promised in the 2000 campaign to uphold "honor and integrity" in the White House, last week ordered White House workers, from presidential advisers to low-ranking aides, to attend ethics classes.

The president gets credit from a majority for being strong and decisive, but he's also seen by an overwhelming number of people as "stubborn," a perception reinforced by his refusal to yield on issues like the Iraq war, tax cuts and support for staffers under intense pressure.

More than eight in 10, 82 percent, described Bush as "stubborn," with almost that many Republicans agreeing to that description. That stubborn streak has served Bush well at times, but now he is being encouraged to shake up his staff and change the direction of White House policies.

Concern about the administration's ethics has been fueled by the controversy over flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the recent indictment of Vice President
Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name.

That loss of trust complicates Bush's efforts to rebuild his standing with the public. His job approval rating remains at his all-time low in the AP-Ipsos poll of 37 percent.

"Honesty is a huge issue because even people who disagreed with his policies respected his integrity," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist from the University of Texas.

The mandatory White House lectures on ethics for its employees came after the Libby indictment, and some people say they aren't impressed.

"It's like shutting the barn door after the horse escaped," said John Morrison, a Democrat who lives near Scranton, Pa.

"This week's elections were just a preview of what's going to happen," he said, referring to Tuesday's New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, both won by Democrats. "People are just fed up."

Some Republicans are nervous about the GOP's political position.

"A lot of elected Republicans are running for the hills in the Northeast," said Connecticut GOP strategist Chris DePino after what he called "a waterfall of missteps" by Republicans. Bush and the GOP must return to their message that the United States has been safe from terrorism during his administration, DePino said.

Only 42 percent in the new poll said they approve of Bush's handling of foreign policy and terrorism, his lowest rating yet in an area that has long been his strongest issue.

The war in Iraq is at the core of the public's unrest, polling found.

In an AP-Ipsos poll in early October, almost six in 10 disapproved of the way Bush was doing his job, and Iraq was a dominant factor.

When those who disapproved of Bush were asked in an open-ended question the top reason, they most frequently mentioned the war far ahead of the second issue, the economy.

"To use an unfortunate metaphor, Iraq is a roadside bomb in American politics," said Rich Bond, a former national Republican chairman.

Many of those who approve of Bush's job performance cited his Christian beliefs and strong values, the second biggest reason for support after backing his policies.

"I know he is a man of integrity and strong faith," said Fran Blaney, a Republican and an evangelical who lives near Hartford, Conn. "I've read that he prays every morning asking for God's guidance. He certainly is trying to do what he thinks he is supposed to do."

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Nov. 7-9 by Ipsos, an international polling firm, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll

i doubt this credibility, since most newspapers are liberal and biased

i doubt this credibility, since most newspapers are liberal and biased

Well that was quick. We need a Godwin for bitching about the 'liberal media'. Goes double if you think 'liberal' means 'left-wing'.

Hi. Why would anybody be remotely surprised by this? Mr. Bush is a politician, after all, lying is what they do best. Which is one reason why I will never understand why people take politics so personally... not a single one of the politicians you so valiantly support gives a flying **** about YOU, they just want your VOTE.

Well, we can see what kind of audience this article was written for. Something that explains what percentages mean aims reeeeeal loooow...

Way to cut and paste without comments! You get an F for effort.

Hi. Why would anybody be remotely surprised by this? Mr. Bush is a politician, after all, lying is what they do best. Which is one reason why I will never understand why people take politics so personally... not a single one of the politicians you so valiantly support gives a flying **** about YOU, they just want your VOTE.

Can I get an AMEN?

i doubt this credibility, since most newspapers are liberal and biased

Well, if that were true why haven't the papers jumped on the Government Accountability Office's report about the last presidential election? The GAO report totally upholds the Ohio voter fraud claims and that was barely reported in the US. The makers of nearly all electronic voting machines are owned by conservative Republicans. Isn't that handy?

Well that was quick. We need a Godwin for bitching about the 'liberal media'. Goes double if you think 'liberal' means 'left-wing'.
Hell no! "Liberal" isn't "Left-wing." "Liberal" is a buncha frakkin' COMMIES! :D [/HYPERBOLE]

Politicians don't lie. Lying would be reporting information known to be false. Now, what one hears from a politician has pretty much the same effect as a lie because:
A) They are provided with questionable information
B) They present the information in such a way that it paints a picture of reality that is totally bent.

This is not to say that people don't deal with this kind of information all the time. All one has to do is look at the news. The more often a story appears in the news, the more often people think similar events are likely to occur. The exact opposite is true. Items are newsworthy because they occur infrequently.

Most Americans think Bush is a liar?
Most non-Americans have thought that for ages.

Actually, both are wrong.
Bush is some funny toy, a ventriloquist's puppet on a string.

In order to lie, you need to know what you're saying.
It is those who pull the strings and do the real talking that lie, not Dubya.
So don't blame the megaphone.

Hell no! "Liberal" isn't "Left-wing." "Liberal" is a buncha frakkin' COMMIES! :D [/HYPERBOLE]
Just FYI: Liberals are the rightwing in several countries. Socialists are leftwingers. Liberals aren't.

Many of those who approve of Bush's job performance cited his Christian beliefs and strong values, the second biggest reason for support after backing his policies.

"I know he is a man of integrity and strong faith," said Fran Blaney, a Republican and an evangelical who lives near Hartford, Conn. "I've read that he prays every morning asking for God's guidance. He certainly is trying to do what he thinks he is supposed to do."
America is screwed.

Well, they still voted him in the 2nd time ... hopefully his successor will pay.

http://forumpics.info/pics/post-48-1090370357.jpg
Can I get an AMEN?
AMEN!

A question: why don't you have a minister run? Pat Robertson anyone?

A question: why don't you have a minister run? Pat Robertson anyone?
Pat Robertson :sniper:

Pat Robertson :sniper:
Other than not changing his mind about his religion (as far as I know at least), I can't imagine there'd be much of a difference. Maybe Pat would be killing socialists instead of oil rich nations though.

A question: why don't you have a minister run? Pat Robertson anyone?

Vote for someone who believes his imaginary friend is in charge of the universe?

Um, no.

Can I get an AMEN?
Hell NO! God don't exist! Get over it!

Vote for someone who believes his imaginary friend is in charge of the universe?

Um, no.
So, you wouldn't vote for George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, eh? You wouldn't vote [for a] laundry list of other presidents (whose politics or personalities you likely agree with), just because they believe in God.

My goodness, how open-minded of you.

So, you wouldn't vote for George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, eh? You wouldn't vote laundry list of other presidents (whose politics or personalities you likely agree with), just because they believe in God.

My goodness, how open-minded of you.
I would counter with historical accuracy, but I don't feel like it. Some one else do it.

Vote for someone who believes his imaginary friend is in charge of the universe?

Um, no.

The guy believing in God isn't so much the problem.
Problems start when they believe the Big One is talking directly to them.

The guy believing in God isn't so much the problem.
Problems start when they believe the Big One is talking directly to them.


The real time to worry is when they go flat against the Bible and then say that.

I have no problem believing you've talked to God, I just get more than a mite suspicious when he tells you to kill people...

America is screwed.

I remember when the Soviet Union collapsed, and a lot of people were saying, "They're screwed"

And thinking that a "screwed" country with thousands of thermonuclear weapons sitting on ICBMs was an unpleasant thought.

Well, if you truly believe America is screwed, perhaps you should revisit that thought of mine.

Have you noticed, though, that the first ten amendments are being trampled, one by one? Our Fourth Amendment rights have been ever so slowly eroding away, and First Amendment was blatantly trampled on with the whole Dover School District fiasco. And let's not forget, it seems the only demograph capable of running for president is white, male, rich, landowning lunatic.

Well that was quick. We need a Godwin for bitching about the 'liberal media'. Goes double if you think 'liberal' means 'left-wing'.
I think in this context "liberal" means "is not Ann Coulter or PJ O'Rourke"...

Other than not changing his mind about his religion (as far as I know at least), I can't imagine there'd be much of a difference. Maybe Pat would be killing socialists instead of oil rich nations though.

killing = setting the people free

what part of free vote and democratic constitution do you not understand?

freedom is not free... sounds simplistic, but it's true.

The US and its allies in Iraq are in the process of doing the vast majority of Iraqis a huge favor.

Who isn't going to be happy? who isn't happy? Ba'athists and other militant Sunnis who've had the run of the country, at the expense of friendly Sunnis, all Shi'as, and all Kurds, for about 50 years. That has ended, but they won't give up without a fight.

Oil, shmoil. If Haliburton's contract is all we're getting out of this, besides perhaps a model democracy for other Middle Eastern countries to aspire to and another friend in the middle east, then we're getting the raw end of this deal. We are giving them freedom, which is a wicked awesome (hehe) thing when you've been oppressed for 50 years.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Or does people's hatred of free enterprise/America color their cognitive lens?

Vote for someone who believes his imaginary friend is in charge of the universe?

Um, no.
Like Carter, Reagan, Clinton and two Bushes, you mean?

Most Americans think Bush is a liar?


Most Americans are correct.

killing = setting the people free

what part of free vote and democratic constitution do you not understand?

freedom is not free... sounds simplistic, but it's true.

The US and its allies in Iraq are in the process of doing the vast majority of Iraqis a huge favor.

Who isn't going to be happy? who isn't happy? Ba'athists and other militant Sunnis who've had the run of the country, at the expense of friendly Sunnis, all Shi'as, and all Kurds, for about 50 years. That has ended, but they won't give up without a fight.

Oil, shmoil. If Haliburton's contract is all we're getting out of this, besides perhaps a model democracy for other Middle Eastern countries to aspire to and another friend in the middle east, then we're getting the raw end of this deal. We are giving them freedom, which is a wicked awesome (hehe) thing when you've been oppressed for 50 years.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Or does people's hatred of free enterprise/America color their cognitive lens?
Leaving ideology out of this, might people not be wary of the fact that the liberation of Iraq seems to be leading to the rise of another Shi'ite theocracy? Nobody seems terribly happy about Iran's conduct, so establishing another one (and the Shi'ite's would appear to have the whip hand, if only because there's far less Sunni than there used to be about) might be considered lacking in long term planning.
"First rule of Shi'ite club: if you aren't into Shi'a, get out of the country..."

...might be considered lacking in long term planning.
....

At least it's consistent with current US foreign policy.

Leaving ideology out of this, might people not be wary of the fact that the liberation of Iraq seems to be leading to the rise of another Shi'ite theocracy? Nobody seems terribly happy about Iran's conduct, so establishing another one (and the Shi'ite's would appear to have the whip hand, if only because there's far less Sunni than there used to be about) might be considered lacking in long term planning.
"First rule of Shi'ite club: if you aren't into Shi'a, get out of the country..."

Who are you to tell the people of a country that they can't vote in a theocracy if they want one?

I find it rather interesting that people make the claim that the US is acting like the empire builder, but is letting the people vote for what they want - including theocratic leaders.

Theocratic leaders like Sistani in Iraq already hold great power over a large block of people - you can't erase that with a Constitution or an invasion.

Would you have the US tell them that they have to use the US Constitution, and have the US approve any changes and approve any candidates?

Who are you to tell the people of a country that they can't vote in a theocracy if they want one?

I find it rather interesting that people make the claim that the US is acting like the empire builder, but is letting the people vote for what they want - including theocratic leaders.

Theocratic leaders like Sistani in Iraq already hold great power over a large block of people - you can't erase that with a Constitution or an invasion.

Would you have the US tell them that they have to use the US Constitution, and have the US approve any changes and approve any candidates?
That's interesting: I'd have assumed as a libertarian you'd find theocracy an unacceptable form of government.
You're right about the Shi'ite's having a defacto theocracy in place long before the elections, though. It just strikes me as odd that Bush and his cronies don't have any problem with putting them in power while gearing up to go to war with the Shi'ite theocracy next door. I have no idea how that one's going to play in Iraq (there is a reservoir of ill feeling that might damp down some degree of fundamentalist zeal, but then the wars with Iran were masterminded by the Sunnis rather than the Shi'ite lobby), but it does suggest that somebody hasn't thought this through.
Or maybe the American Foreign office is just assuming that the new Iraqi theocracy will be too busy putting it's house in order by stoning women and chasing unbelievers out of the country to pay much attention to the rest of the middle east for a year or two.

That's interesting: I'd have assumed as a libertarian you'd find theocracy an unacceptable form of government.
You're right about the Shi'ite's having a defacto theocracy in place long before the elections, though. It just strikes me as odd that Bush and his cronies don't have any problem with putting them in power while gearing up to go to war with the Shi'ite theocracy next door. I have no idea how that one's going to play in Iraq (there is a reservoir of ill feeling that might damp down some degree of fundamentalist zeal, but then the wars with Iran were masterminded by the Sunnis rather than the Shi'ite lobby), but it does suggest that somebody hasn't thought this through.
Or maybe the American Foreign office is just assuming that the new Iraqi theocracy will be too busy putting it's house in order by stoning women and chasing unbelievers out of the country to pay much attention to the rest of the middle east for a year or two.

It's unacceptable as a government for ME in MY country.

That's their country. Who am I to tell them that theocracy is wrong?

How long do you think we would have to occupy a place in order to re-educate people not to follow a thousand years of habit?

America is screwed.


In a nutshell

It's unacceptable as a government for ME in MY country.

That's their country. Who am I to tell them that theocracy is wrong?

How long do you think we would have to occupy a place in order to re-educate people not to follow a thousand years of habit?
A citizen of the country that's about to invade the Shi'ite theocracy next door and (in all likelihood) start coming out with half baked moral arguments that it was the right thing to do and overthrowing terrible oppression when it turns out that their nuke building programme isn't as advanced as the CIA feared it was.

And maybe this is a decadent European notion, but if you feel it would take too long to re-educate the population of Iraq to form a viable government instead of one that belongs in the 14th century, then it was bloody irresponsible to remove the prior regime from power.

The problem is Americans vote on emotion not logic. Anyone who looked at the evidence before the war started knew that it was a set up. But polititions wanted reelected and the people were willing to listen to anything that sounded patriotic.

Then in the last election the "big" issue was gay marriage. It got Bush elected. Do you see it as a problem that is on top of anyone's list now? No, but it was emotional. People voted on emotion. People kill their (well other people's children, especially if they're poor.) children because of emotion.

Did Bush lie--Yes--but he lied with emotion.

WASHINGTON - Most Americans say they aren't impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.

Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says
President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

Bush, who promised in the 2000 campaign to uphold "honor and integrity" in the White House, last week ordered White House workers, from presidential advisers to low-ranking aides, to attend ethics classes.

The president gets credit from a majority for being strong and decisive, but he's also seen by an overwhelming number of people as "stubborn," a perception reinforced by his refusal to yield on issues like the Iraq war, tax cuts and support for staffers under intense pressure.

More than eight in 10, 82 percent, described Bush as "stubborn," with almost that many Republicans agreeing to that description. That stubborn streak has served Bush well at times, but now he is being encouraged to shake up his staff and change the direction of White House policies.

Concern about the administration's ethics has been fueled by the controversy over flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the recent indictment of Vice President
Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name.

That loss of trust complicates Bush's efforts to rebuild his standing with the public. His job approval rating remains at his all-time low in the AP-Ipsos poll of 37 percent.

"Honesty is a huge issue because even people who disagreed with his policies respected his integrity," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist from the University of Texas.

The mandatory White House lectures on ethics for its employees came after the Libby indictment, and some people say they aren't impressed.

"It's like shutting the barn door after the horse escaped," said John Morrison, a Democrat who lives near Scranton, Pa.

"This week's elections were just a preview of what's going to happen," he said, referring to Tuesday's New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, both won by Democrats. "People are just fed up."

Some Republicans are nervous about the GOP's political position.

"A lot of elected Republicans are running for the hills in the Northeast," said Connecticut GOP strategist Chris DePino after what he called "a waterfall of missteps" by Republicans. Bush and the GOP must return to their message that the United States has been safe from terrorism during his administration, DePino said.

Only 42 percent in the new poll said they approve of Bush's handling of foreign policy and terrorism, his lowest rating yet in an area that has long been his strongest issue.

The war in Iraq is at the core of the public's unrest, polling found.

In an AP-Ipsos poll in early October, almost six in 10 disapproved of the way Bush was doing his job, and Iraq was a dominant factor.

When those who disapproved of Bush were asked in an open-ended question the top reason, they most frequently mentioned the war far ahead of the second issue, the economy.

"To use an unfortunate metaphor, Iraq is a roadside bomb in American politics," said Rich Bond, a former national Republican chairman.

Many of those who approve of Bush's job performance cited his Christian beliefs and strong values, the second biggest reason for support after backing his policies.

"I know he is a man of integrity and strong faith," said Fran Blaney, a Republican and an evangelical who lives near Hartford, Conn. "I've read that he prays every morning asking for God's guidance. He certainly is trying to do what he thinks he is supposed to do."

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Nov. 7-9 by Ipsos, an international polling firm, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll

Um, yeah. Most Americans think Bush is a liar, just like all Asians look alike, and just like there are pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

:/
Freakin' Amazing.

Um, yeah. Most Americans think Bush is a liar, just like all Asians look alike, and just like there are pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

:/
Freakin' Amazing.
Most people outside of America think he's a lying **** who's imcompetent to arrange a piss up in a brewery.
he's getting more props from the American liberals, trust me: the main reason our own PM is getting such a rough ride at the moment is because he's spent the last three ort four years with Bush's cock in his mouth.

Hi. Why would anybody be remotely surprised by this? Mr. Bush is a politician, after all, lying is what they do best. Which is one reason why I will never understand why people take politics so personally... not a single one of the politicians you so valiantly support gives a flying **** about YOU, they just want your VOTE.

there ya go! :thumbs up:

And so does most of the rest of the planet.



Good to see you're now up to speed, America. Please don't elect idiots anymore.

What?

A politician a liar a scoundrel and a cad?

Surely not?

killing = setting the people free

what part of free vote and democratic constitution do you not understand?

freedom is not free... sounds simplistic, but it's true.

The US and its allies in Iraq are in the process of doing the vast majority of Iraqis a huge favor.

Who isn't going to be happy? who isn't happy? Ba'athists and other militant Sunnis who've had the run of the country, at the expense of friendly Sunnis, all Shi'as, and all Kurds, for about 50 years. That has ended, but they won't give up without a fight.

Oil, shmoil. If Haliburton's contract is all we're getting out of this, besides perhaps a model democracy for other Middle Eastern countries to aspire to and another friend in the middle east, then we're getting the raw end of this deal. We are giving them freedom, which is a wicked awesome (hehe) thing when you've been oppressed for 50 years.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Or does people's hatred of free enterprise/America color their cognitive lens?


No one argues that a free and democratic world free of corruption isn't a worthy goal. The question many of us have is if there, perhaps, were a better way to do it than by THIS war at THIS time conducted in THIS way and sold to the American people in THIS manner (meaning either a conscious or unconscious mining of the facts, asserting ambiguous findings as certainties and the overhyping of the imminency and extent of the threat to us.)

So, you wouldn't vote for George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, eh? You wouldn't vote [for a] laundry list of other presidents (whose politics or personalities you likely agree with), just because they believe in God.

My goodness, how open-minded of you.

Okay, let's put it another way:

Vote for cultists who think a penis in the rectum is much more dangerous than Osama Bin Ladin running and dancing free to plot more attacks?

Um, no.

No one argues that a free and democratic world free of corruption isn't a worthy goal. The question many of us have is if there, perhaps, a better way to do it than by THIS war at THIS time conducted in THIS way and sold to the American people in THIS way (meaning either a conscious or unconscious mining of the facts, asserting ambiguous findings as certainties and the overhyping of the imminency and extent of the threat to us.)

Wow. You know, George Tenet told Bush it was a "slam dunk". He told Clinton the same thing about WMD.

How would Bush know if Tenet was right or not? Answer me that. Apparently, other intelligence services were feeding the CIA the same info. And the only supposed dissent (never given in writing, conveniently enough) is Wilson - who is neither a CIA agent, nor an intelligence analyst, nor a ranking member of the intelligence community - nor did he do anything other than cast doubt on a supposed uranium purchase.

Even Wilkerson, who saw the intel photos, says that it was not possible to conclude anything other than that Saddam was actively concealing a WMD program of some sort.

It begs the question - if the majority of people were telling Bush these things, how do you arrive at "Bush lied"?

If you don't think that Bush should have listened to the CIA Director - then we might as well go back in history and say, for instance, that JFK should never have listened to the CIA when they told him that there were missiles in Cuba.

So, just answer the simple question - if the intel service is saying, "it's a slam dunk" what is the President supposed to believe? Is he supposed to have a magic crystal ball to divine what's really going on? Is he supposed to ignore the CIA?

One might ask separately whether an invasion was warranted. But apparently, everyone in town, from the previous Clinton Administration to the date of the invasion, was convinced that there were WMD in Iraq. So would you have Bush say, "Nah, you guys are full of it. I have it on good authority from Canada that everything is a-OK in Iraq"?

The guy believing in God isn't so much the problem.
Problems start when they believe the Big One is talking directly to them.
You do know true prayer is supposed to be a two-way comunication like telephone?

God doesn't just want you just telling him stuff: he wants to talk too. This is probably the problem with Bush: he never lets God get a word in.

I believe God talks back to me when I pray. In fact, my whole church does which includes most of Utah (I am a Latterday Saint).

Now a problem is most people don't know how to pray: reptitive prays (like the Lord's prayer) aren't unique or personal enough for him to answer. Too general (which is why it was used as an example).


The problem is Americans vote on emotion not logic. Anyone who looked at the evidence before the war started knew that it was a set up. But polititions wanted reelected and the people were willing to listen to anything that sounded patriotic.

Then in the last election the "big" issue was gay marriage. It got Bush elected. Do you see it as a problem that is on top of anyone's list now? No, but it was emotional. People voted on emotion. People kill their (well other people's children, especially if they're poor.) children because of emotion.

Did Bush lie--Yes--but he lied with emotion.

I used to think it was Patriotism, but no, it was Nationalism. Check out the definations and how they differ. That is why it is the second one.

I voted for Kerry because he had Dean's support. I couldn't understand just voting against Bush.

God doesn't just want you just telling him stuff: he wants to talk too. This is probably the problem with Bush: he never lets God get a word in.

I believe God talks back to me when I pray. In fact, my whole church does which includes most of Utah (I am a Latterday Saint).

Now a problem is most people don't know how to pray: reptitive prays (like the Lord's prayer) aren't unique or personal enough for him to answer. Too general (which is why it was used as an example).

Bush being the world's biggest welfare recepient and all the leeway he got despite his incompetence as a business manager has only reinforced and hardened his natural arrogance and stubborness. Not even America being overrun by the rest of the world and reduced to 3rd World status would break him out of that ego. If anything it would probably send him deeper into a state of denial in my opinion.

Wow. You know, George Tenet told Bush it was a "slam dunk". He told Clinton the same thing about WMD.

How would Bush know if Tenet was right or not? Answer me that. Apparently, other intelligence services were feeding the CIA the same info. And the only supposed dissent (never given in writing, conveniently enough) is Wilson - who is neither a CIA agent, nor an intelligence analyst, nor a ranking member of the intelligence community - nor did he do anything other than cast doubt on a supposed uranium purchase.

Even Wilkerson, who saw the intel photos, says that it was not possible to conclude anything other than that Saddam was actively concealing a WMD program of some sort.

It begs the question - if the majority of people were telling Bush these things, how do you arrive at "Bush lied"?

If you don't think that Bush should have listened to the CIA Director - then we might as well go back in history and say, for instance, that JFK should never have listened to the CIA when they told him that there were missiles in Cuba.

So, just answer the simple question - if the intel service is saying, "it's a slam dunk" what is the President supposed to believe? Is he supposed to have a magic crystal ball to divine what's really going on? Is he supposed to ignore the CIA?

One might ask separately whether an invasion was warranted. But apparently, everyone in town, from the previous Clinton Administration to the date of the invasion, was convinced that there were WMD in Iraq. So would you have Bush say, "Nah, you guys are full of it. I have it on good authority from Canada that everything is a-OK in Iraq"?

The question is, did the intelligence service come up with a slam dunk independently, or did it come back with a slam dunk after Bush instructed them to come back with a slam dunk?

The question is, did the intelligence service come up with a slam dunk independently, or did it come back with a slam dunk after Bush instructed them to come back with a slam dunk?

The question is, Bill Clinton said that Tenet also told him the same thing - during his own administration. Before the Bush administration.

So how do you square that?

The question is, Bill Clinton said that Tenet also told him the same thing - during his own administration. Before the Bush administration.

So how do you square that?

I'm saying that I square that by saying that if Bush's intelligence was 5 years old and he acted on it, he's an idiot.

Oh wait, perhaps you're simplifying by saying that new intelligence was identical to the old? Is that what you're saying?

And so does most of the rest of the planet.



Good to see you're now up to speed, America. Please don't elect idiots anymore.


If we stopped electing idiots, we'd never get to hold an election again.

Didn't think you had any ZX81s in the 'States.

The question is, Bill Clinton said that Tenet also told him the same thing - during his own administration. Before the Bush administration.

So how do you square that?


By saying that I don't believe that Bush went to war while knowing there were no WMD's in Iraq. I'm saying he went to war knowing there was no real evidence for their existance and telling us there was.

I'm saying that I square that by saying that if Bush's intelligence was 5 years old and he acted on it, he's an idiot.

Oh wait, perhaps you're simplifying by saying that new intelligence was identical to the old? Is that what you're saying?

No. I'm not saying either thing.

I'm saying that the CIA said in both cases that Iraq was working on WMD.

They said it during the Clinton Admin.
They repeated it to Bush.
They even, according to Wilkerson, brought in corroborating British and French reports.

They even had it from Hans Blix that 1800 gallons of weaponized anthrax was unaccounted for - straight from the latest UNSCOM report. Anthrax that was only found (buried and inactivated) after the questioning of Dr. Taha. An questioning that would have been impossible for the UNSCOM inspectors to perform, since she was keeping the secret that she had dumped it - kept the secret from Saddam himself.

No, no oversimplification as you might wish.

So, put yourself in Bush's shoes. Sure, you might not think that even if he had just used WMD it would be worth going to war over - that's a separate question. But, the CIA has just told you that Saddam has WMD. That other intel agencies have corroborating evidence. And UNSCOM says that 1800 gallons of anthrax are missing.

Is it merely a lack of complete information?

How do you arrive at "he lied". You haven't shown any proof for that statement at all - nothing that can't be explained by imperfect, wrong, or incomplete information at the time.

No. I'm not saying either thing.

I'm saying that the CIA said in both cases that Iraq was working on WMD.

They said it during the Clinton Admin.
They repeated it to Bush.
They even, according to Wilkerson, brought in corroborating British and French reports.

They even had it from Hans Blix that 1800 gallons of weaponized anthrax was unaccounted for - straight from the latest UNSCOM report. Anthrax that was only found (buried and inactivated) after the questioning of Dr. Taha. An questioning that would have been impossible for the UNSCOM inspectors to perform, since she was keeping the secret that she had dumped it - kept the secret from Saddam himself.

No, no oversimplification as you might wish.

So, put yourself in Bush's shoes. Sure, you might not think that even if he had just used WMD it would be worth going to war over - that's a separate question. But, the CIA has just told you that Saddam has WMD. That other intel agencies have corroborating evidence. And UNSCOM says that 1800 gallons of anthrax are missing.

Is it merely a lack of complete information?

How do you arrive at "he lied". You haven't shown any proof for that statement at all - nothing that can't be explained by imperfect, wrong, or incomplete information at the time.


You're pretending that you know all the intelligence Bush was given, all the intelligence the CIA gathered, all the intelligence that was included or excluded in the ramp-up to war. Much of that intelligence we will never see, as it's still classified. Much of the intelligence wasn't given to the Congress as a whole. What we do see is that there seem to be cases where the Bush administration disregarded contradicting reports. We have NO WAY of knowing how the intelligence during Clinton's time stacked up to the prewar intelligence.

We do know that the DIA report was disregarded and the Bush administration continued to insist that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked in a meaningful way.

We do know that the Bush administration disregarded reports that showed some of their informants were likely liars.

We do know that there was an urge in some elements of the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq before even 9/11.

We don't know everything, but it's highly suspicious that the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress regularly attempt to block anything that would even INVESTIGATE contentions that the intel was hyped up, and investigation that would exhonerate them if they were as blameless as they contend.

Why, if they're so squeaky clean, do they keep obstructing fact-finding investingations and draging their heels?

Let's look at this with a little logic.

You want the world to support a war. The world will support a war if there is PROOF of WMD. You have inspectors in country. At present the local government is cooperating with the inspectors. If this continues, they will eventually find any WMD's. The country is totally contained so there is no real rush to go to war, except it would be nice to say "mission accomplished" before the next congressional elections. If the local government shuts off the inspectors it would be a world-wide admission of guilt. If you sut off the inspectors it means that you have no faith that they will find WMD's. If you know without a doubt that there are WMD's, the obvious move is to allow the inspectors to find them, herby getting world support, or make the local government throw out the inspectos, thereby getting world support. the only logical reason to pull the inspectors is because you KNOW they will find nothing. This would remove even the most tentative allies. Better to start a war, then tell people, "we're in war now, we can't quit now, even if we find nothing."

The real problem is the enemy studied history and the aggressor didn't. The enemy knew they couldn't stand toe-to-toe. They had tried that. So they looked at history and said, "the way a wek force defeats an overwhelming force is withdraw and fight guerrilla."

Bush has a choice of being a lier or being totally stupid and ignorant, or both.