Majority in US believes Bush 'stretched truth' about Iraq: poll

codeworks · Jul 2, 2003

For the first time since the beginning of the war in Iraq (news - web sites), a solid majority of Americans believe the Bush administration either "stretched the truth" about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or told outright lies, according to a new opinion survey.

The poll by the University of Maryland found that 52 percent of respondents said they believed President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and his aides were "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" about Iraqi president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

Another 10 percent said US officials were presenting Congress, the American public and the international community "evidence they knew was false," indicated the survey which was made public Tuesday.

Only 32 percent said they thought the government was being "fully truthful" about the Iraqi arsenal.

The weapons of mass destruction -- as well as the Iraqi government's alleged ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist group -- which the administration claimed represented an immediate threat to the Unites States, served as the chief rationale for launching the March 20 invasion of the country.

But more than three months since the start of the war, US troops have yet to find any of the suspected weapons.

Similarly, 56 percent of those polled believed the US government stretched the truth or made outright false statements about Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda.

The nationwide survey of 1,051 people was conducted from June 18 to 25 and had a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

kayaman+ · Jul 2, 2003

Let's just hope people remember he lied come election day.

Last guy lied about a BJ and got impeached, this guy lied to go to war. Hardly compares.

.

Phaedrus · Jul 2, 2003

THe Gulf of Tonkin Resolution cost LBJ the presidency ... hopefully America can manage to make enough intellectual leap to jump back three decades and change; who knows.

The majority of the voting public was alive back when the GoT incident was headline news. Maybe they'll remember. The only real challenge would be to get rid of Dubya, and not replace him with something worse, which may well be a possibility given some of the 'competition.'

Phaedrus

oldmantime · Jul 2, 2003

I remember when Bush was running --He kept talking about West Texas, this and West Texas that--

In Texas--I don't think they call it lies--Just "Tall Tales-Partner"

Shotgun · Jul 2, 2003

Shotgun · Jul 2, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
The majority of the voting public was alive back when the GoT incident was headline news. Maybe they'll remember. The only real challenge would be to get rid of Dubya, and not replace him with something worse, which may well be a possibility given some of the 'competition.'

Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem you have is that George Bush was repeating the same line that Clinton, the United Nations and most Democratic Senators were saying many years ago. There was no doubt that Sadaam had chemical weapons back in 1998 according to the UN inspectors. Should we believe that Iraq dumped those same weapons as soon as the inspectors left in 1998?

Democrats are going to need evidence that Bush knew there was no weapons of mass destruction and still told the nation differently. Any proof of that around?

chonce · Jul 2, 2003

shotgun. Its not democrats that need to find proof of anything. Its AMERICANS that need to find out oif they were lied to by thier leaders. THis bi-partisan thing has you guys all messed up. IF clinton lied about the same stuff years ago....well thats sucks. It is not relevant to the morality of George Bush. THis should not be a "who is less moral" issue. BUt a "Can we please have some honesty from all of our leaders."

"Democrats are going to need evidence that Bush knew there was no weapons of mass destruction and still told the nation differently. Any proof of that around?"

THis is getting to be comically circular. You dont need concrete evidence to engage in a massive slaughter, but you need it if you want to mess with this inept hick who thinks he was elected president of the universe, as opposed to the U.S>

By the way, I am not a democrat, so any flames you have about clinton, dems etc....are misguided. I am not on either "side."

Shotgun · Jul 2, 2003

Chonce, you are basing your argument on the false premise that the only reason Sadaam was overthrown was because of the weapons of mass destruction. That was just one leg of the argument. Without the 18 violations of the UN security resolutions, there would have been no war. You tend to forget this.

Here's the problem the Bush haters have that they don't seem to comprehend. Clinton said there was weapons of mass destruction. Much of the UN said there was weapons of mass destruction. The final report of the weapons inspectors in 1998 said there was WMD. John Kerry said there was WMD in Iraq. Same with Joseph Lieberman. And Bob Grahm. And Carl Levin. Just about everyone holding a high office, Democrat or Republican, agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So the question---why is Bush the only one of the above being accused of lying about weapons of mass destruction?

WildBill · Jul 2, 2003

This has become such a non-event. Who really cares??? I mean should we say "sorry Iraq, guess the Bushies lied so we will leave. Hey Saddam, if you are still alive, you are free to come back to your palace"??? Come on, forget about it. Yeah its an issue if you want to make it that, people vote on a lot of issues. But to have people spend time trying to justify their anti-war argument after its over, well I have just one piece of advice...let it go. Fight the next battle you believe in, but this one is over. If you think Bush is lying about some other matter, bring it up. But this one is done, now we have other problems in Iraq. Do you really want to cheer that fact, say "I was right" as our soldiers are getting killed? I didn't think so.

chonce · Jul 2, 2003

wild bill.

I dont buy that. If information comes out, that suggests our president may have lied to the country, it should not be ignored, because "whats done is done."

We dont drop criminal cases, because we "cant go back and stop the crime"

Clinton wasnt given a pass on his bj scandal because " the bj had already taken place"

If Bush lied to Americans...that is huge. Its not a matter of going back in time, its a matter of knowing the validity and integrity of the man in charge.

On a side note: is W. Bush the worst public speaker in the history of the American presidency?

Shotgun · Jul 3, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by chonce:
wild bill.

I dont buy that. If information comes out, that suggests our president may have lied to the country, it should not be ignored, because "whats done is done."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee Chonce, if it comes out that Bush is actually a man from Mars, it shouldn't be ignored either. Show me some evidence that Bush knew there was no weapons of mass destruction when he said there was. That is how I define a 'lie'. I know you really want to see Bush fail, but this rabid hatred is clouding your thinking.

oldmantime · Jul 3, 2003

Ranking Beaucrats (not elected officials) tend to tell The President--what he wants to hear.

The Commander in Chief--"could" shall we say--if he so choose to make life very difficult.

Not just talking Bush here-Clinton-any President!

JackDee · Jul 3, 2003

I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program.
-- Wait a second... I thought we went to war because we already knew for certain that Iraq had thousands of tons of stockpiled chemical weapons, and an active, ongoing weapons program operated in violation of UN sanctions. Now it sounds like Dubya was acting on a hunch, Washington, D.C., Jun. 9, 2003

kayaman+ · Jul 5, 2003

Shotgun,

You're hung up on the were there or were there not WMD and missing the point.

It doesn't matter if they find any WMD or not, that's a seperate issue. What does matter is that Bush2 and his administration lied and fabricated evidence to go to war. This needs to be addressed.

Seymour · Jul 5, 2003

Is Bush the worst speaker in the history of US Presidents? This is your question? It should be - is Bush the worst speaker in the history South Central LA! Every time the US needs to speak just hope we send Cheney or Powell rather than this fool who has the vocabulary of a flea and the sophistication of a mutt. Next time you here Cheney or Powell speak and you will be amazed by who is the President.

Banned4Life · Jul 5, 2003

Powell must be thinking of how unfair it is that he's working for that fool than the other way around.

Shotgun · Jul 5, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by kaya man:
Shotgun,

You're hung up on the were there or were there not WMD and missing the point.

It doesn't matter if they find any WMD or not, that's a seperate issue. What does matter is that Bush2 and his administration lied and fabricated evidence to go to war. This needs to be addressed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did Bush2 lie and fabricate evidence?

grantt · Jul 5, 2003

d

[This message was edited by Grantt on July 06, 2003 at 02:51 AM.]

JackDee · Jul 6, 2003

"Where did Bush2 lie and fabricate evidence?"

"I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program.
-- Wait a second... I thought we went to war because we already knew for certain that Iraq had thousands of tons of stockpiled chemical weapons, and an active, ongoing weapons program operated in violation of UN sanctions. Now it sounds like Dubya was acting on a hunch, Washington, D.C., Jun. 9, 2003"

posted just above...

kayaman+ · Jul 6, 2003

"Where did Bush2 lie and fabricate evidence?"

Come on, it's already come out that the evidence presented to the U.N. was forged, signatures on documents (supposedly Russian documents if memory stands) belonging to officials no longer in office, etc.

Are you one of those guys that thinks Oswald acted alone and that we've never been to the moon or something?