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

[sulawesigirl4]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time since the beginning of the war in Iraq, 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 and his aides were "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" about Iraqi president Saddam Hussein'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.

 

[BVS]

It's a small majority, but maybe enough to get some that voted for him to vote against him, this time around.

 

[kobayashi]

its interesting sociological discussion time

so then 62% of americans see their president as having done something wrong, to some degree, in rationalizing reasons to go to war.

i really wish this study had gone one step further and asked whether their feelings about his truth telling abilities, in such a serious matter, will weigh heavily on their 04 vote.

either way its obvious clinton picked the wrong subject matter to lie about.

 

[nbcrusader]

Truth telling by a President is no longer a requirement. We have established a certain margin for strechability for the office.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I also think it would have been interesting to see to what extent this will influence people's voting next year.

I think it's also interesting to consider what impact dishonesty in general has on voting turnout. I hear a lot of people remark that they don't bother to vote because "politicians are all liars" or "none of them will keep their promises" etc, and a number of studies done on voting behaviour in the UK have cited a lack of trust in politicians as a reason for low turnout especially in younger voters.

If people are beginning to believe that their leaders lied to them over something as serious as going to war, perhaps this could also have the effect of making people feel voting is pointless.

*Fizz, who is of the opinion that voting is never pointless, even if you're only voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[STING2]

Regardless, the vast majority of Americans supported the war, still support the war, think it was worth fighting, believe US troops should continue to help rebuild Iraq, and approve of the way Bush is doing his job especially in Iraq.

The best way for the democrats to lose against Bush in 2004, is to oppose him on Iraq.

 

[kobayashi]

The best way for the democrats to lose against Bush in 2004, is to oppose him on Iraq.

has it ever been about doing what is best then?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

maybe americans ought to care

Iraq: Who Lied?
The High Cost of Lying About War
Published on Sunday, June 29, 2003 by the Chicago Tribune

by Karen J. Alter

If Saddam Hussein had choked on a pretzel, been assassinated by his closest advisers or slain by his own people rising in revolt, the U.S. and the world would have cheered.

Instead, he was overthrown by a U.S. military invasion, after a worldwide campaign of half-truths, misleading insinuations and outright lies. How the world rid itself of Hussein matters as much as the fact that Hussein no longer runs Iraq.

The world cares that this war was justified by lies, and Americans should care too.

Even if some evidence of an Iraqi program to create weapons of mass destruction is eventually unearthed, it is already clear that the evidence the Bush administration used to support its case for war was faulty. Perhaps the Bush administration is only guilty of naively believing people whom it knew had a reason to lie.

Intelligence experts knew that many in the Iraqi exile community wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq and would say whatever it took to get an invasion. Perhaps the Bush administration is mainly guilty of knowingly peddling bad intelligence--information that had been discredited or deemed unreliable by experts.

Don't forget how the secretary of defense created his own internal intelligence office, hand-selecting "experts" willing to vouch for questionable sources and interpret evidence in ways that the CIA, FBI and even the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency would not.

Or perhaps the administration is mainly guilty of insinuation--withholding counter-evidence while letting others read into its public statements deep connections between Hussein, nuclear weapons programs and Al Qaeda.

Do such transgressions cross over the line from honest miscalculation to willful misleading--dare we say lying? Does it matter whether President Bush lied or was simply grossly mistaken?

Currency of truth

Either way, we pay the high costs:

- The credibility of the U.S. has suffered. Who will believe us the next time a U.S. administration claims to have classified information of an impending threat? The ability of the U.S. to rally the world has been compromised.

- People around the world no longer believe that the U.S. is a benign force for change. If we must live with one country possessing unparalleled power, at least let it be a country that champions freedom, human rights and the rule of law. Americans and people around the world have believed this image of America, supporting the U.S. in its efforts to fight terrorism and promote change. Increasingly, however, the U.S. appears as an oppressive Goliath, unwilling to listen to or value others' opinions and punishing of those who dare to disagree. If the U.S. is a Goliath, its challengers become underdog Davids, worthy of popular support.

- The democratic process has been undermined. Democracy works when there is an earnest debate that informs public decision-making. How can Americans seriously evaluate whether a war with Iraq makes sense, and whether we should give the UN more time, when the credibility of the intelligence and the extent of the Iraqi threat has been greatly exaggerated?

- Our intelligence system has been compromised. In the fight against terrorism, the U.S. relies on intelligence offered by ordinary people around the world. The willingness of the neighbors and compatriots of those plotting against the U.S. to pass on intelligence is undermined if these sources fear that their information will be used to manufacture threats and support a U.S. desire to dominate others.

- Americans around the world now face greater risks. In the past, U.S. soldiers often have been welcomed wherever they have been stationed because they are seen as liberators and guarantors of peace and security. The more U.S. soldiers are perceived as occupiers killing civilians and innocents, the harder and more dangerous their job becomes and the more likely Americans around the world will become targets of violence.

- We may have set a bad precedent. If the U.S. attack on Iraq sets a precedent that any country can invade another whenever there is an irrational fear, regardless of whether it is unsubstantiated or even fabricated, the world will be a more dangerous place.

- The integrity of U.S. politics is undermined. It is amazing that many of the same people who thought President Bill Clinton should be impeached for lying about his extra-marital affair are far less troubled when a president manipulates the public for political ends. Why aren't the people who wanted to impeach Clinton mobilizing now?

This is not the first war to be triggered by lies or misperceptions.

But the transparencies of the falsehoods are so clear, people throughout the world simply cannot believe that Americans thought Hussein posed a threat to them. Whether or not conspiratorial arguments about Texas oil designs or an imperial lust to dominate are true, the U.S. is perceived to be the greatest threat to world security by people around the globe, making the world a more dangerous place for America and its supporters.

Alternative scenarios to war

Maybe the charge of lying would not hold up in a court of law. But there was an alternative to using mistruths and insinuation to justify a war. If getting rid of Hussein was the only acceptable outcome, Bush could have relied on Hussein to fail to fulfill his promises to the UN. If Bush had waited for the UN process, he might have had UN support, a broader coalition of forces to wage the war, more help in the post-war reconstruction, and a greater basis to credibly believe that Hussein had not gotten rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

The president has a responsibility to make sure there is strong evidence before he publicly levies serious charges against other countries. The reputation of the United States is on the line, and the costs of the error directly affect all Americans.

Hussein was a tyrant. But it matters that the war was justified by lies. Whether or not you believe that the Bush administration crossed the line of lying, our leaders should be held accountable for manipulating information, misleading the American public and undermining America's reputation.

Holding those responsible accountable will let political leaders know that manipulating the public is not acceptable political behavior--in the U.S. or anywhere. It will also be a first step to correcting the damage, distancing the American people from the abuses and mistakes of its leadership.

Karen J. Alter, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern University, specializes in International Relations.

entire article posted rather than linked because the Chicago Tribune requires a free login to read.

 

[najeena]

My huband calls our president 'The Beelzabush'.

 

[anitram]

Is it not logical to at least wonder where these weapons of mass distraction are?

If the Dems had a solid and charismatic candidate, I think they'd pursue this.

This whole administration gives me the heebie jeebies.

 

[STING2]

To Karen J. Alter,

Did you ever take a look at the UN inspectors final report in 1998 on Iraqi WMD programs after they had just been forced to leave the country?

How about Saddam's refusal to let any inspectors into Iraq until resolution 1441 was passed in late 2002? Its a fact that Saddam had WMD in 1998. It is Saddam's responsibility to show what happened with that WMD in 2002/2003. Failure to cooperate is a violation of resolution 678 and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. This is why operation Iraqi Freedom happened, although I must say it was long overdue.

The UN approved the operation in resolution 1441 in the fall of 2002, and then approved the peacekeeping operation that is currently underway in May of 2003, recognizing the USA, UK, and Australia as the "Authority" in Iraq.

The UN process on disarming Iraq peacefully ran its course years ago, disarmament does not take a decade plus. For a comparison, look at the disarmaments of Ukraine, Kazakstan, and South Africa. In addition, the UN process depends on cooperation of everyone involved. Saddam never fully cooperated.

Saddams was required to prove and show evidence of the condition of the WMD, whether it was destroyed, or still intact. He did neither.

It would be interesting if Karen J. Alter would apply the same standards of "evidence" and "truth" to Saddam that she applies to Bush instead.

It would also be interesting to see if she has any evidence that shows the Bush Administration lied about anything in anyway. She has plenty of unsubstantiated charges. Bush does a much better job at surviving her standards than she does. There is no evidence the Bush has ever lied about anything. There is tons of documented facts that Saddam has lied in the past, and had a large arsonal of WMD at the end of 1998.

 

[sue4u2]

- The integrity of U.S. politics is undermined. It is amazing that many of the same people who thought President Bill Clinton should be impeached for lying about his extra-marital affair are far less troubled when a president manipulates the public for political ends. Why aren't the people who wanted to impeach Clinton mobilizing now?

This is what concerns me the most.
I don't really consider GWB a master manipulator, but he's not above being manipulated, and passing it along. All this uproar over an insignificant matter as getting blown while in office pales in retrospect. Clinton did try to get attention to the terrorist situation, but was twarted at every turn by the focus on conduct that was, granted, a disgrace . But this is what most people pay the most attention too - not the fact that a major arrest was made before at least 8 major areas of New York were going to be blown up. 50 million or better worth of diverted focus was what the Rep. party set out to accomplish and succeeded in doing. In this respect I don't believe you can blame any one President, it still goes back to the people and the house or congress behind them. Whatever the hell their constituents pay attention too, is what some - but not all - representatives pay attn. too. And stupid ass people do vote, I know- I talk to them everyday, unless I can avoid it.
And one answer to the question would be it's not in their best interest to ask why, because no one wants to admit they went along with it. I'll say this much, I believed it, I still want to believe it. But now I don't believe it. Welcome to the X files.

 

[STING2]

Anitrim,

"Is it not logical to at least wonder where these weapons of mass distraction are?"

"If the Dems had a solid and charismatic candidate, I think they'd pursue this."

Yes it is. The Bush administration like everyone else wonders where the WMD and is working hard to account for everything on the UN list from 1998.

What would the Dems pursue this? The Bush Administration is attempting to account for the WMD that UN inspectors new that Iraq had in 1998. There was a huge four year gap in the inspections process. No one knows for sure what Iraq did during this time with that WMD or if they produced more as well. What is a fact is that Saddam did not once since inspections started again in late 2002, hand over or show the remains of the WMD that he had in 1998. Saddam had two options, either responsibly account for the WMD from 1998, or hide it the best way that he could. He chose to do the latter.

Again, what are the Dems pursueing here? Was Bush wrong not to take Saddam at his word?

From a political perspective based on public opinion, Bush is incredibly strong on Iraq. In fact, Iraq is his strongest issue. Bush is over all approval rating is high. The only weakness is the US economy.

The Dems would do better to focus on area's where Bush is weak, like the economy, rather than area's where he is incredibly strong.

 

[STING2]

sue4u2,

There is one big difference here. It is a fact that President Clinton lied to a federal grand jury. The real debates and the impeachment process came after that fact was established. At this time, there is no evidence that Bush lied about anything at all. War in Iraq is a trillion times more serious of course than Clintons honesty about his extra-marital affairs, but still in one case, it was a fact that Clinton lied, and in this case there is not a shred of evidence of any wrong doing. Many of the allegations would not even make it into an Oliver Stone Movie.

 

[anitram]

STING, you can name 3 bazillion resolutions every day of the week and twice on sunday and that still doesn't change the fact that apparently over 60% of your compatriots happen to believe Bush either stretched the truth or flat out lied and it doesn't change the fact I've seen at least 3 people on this forum who were supporters of this war and originally believed Bush jumping ship in recent days.

You can be as concise and correct about those resolutions as you wish. Frankly, I commend you for it, but at the end of the day, people are starting to feel like they've been had.

 

[STING2]

anitram,

You can speculate until hell freezes over that Bush lied about something, anything, in order to go to war in Iraq. But right now, there is no evidence that the Bush administration lied or stretched anything.

Only 10% of the people in the poll felt Bush lied about ANYTHING! While people may have a wide definition of what "stretching the truth" means, one thing it is not, is lying.

None of this change the facts on the ground that were reported by the UN INSPECTORS. Saddam had WMD at the end of 1998, FACT! It was up to Saddam to either hand over or show the remains of this WMD when inspectors returned in the fall of 2002. He did neither?

The Bush administrations actions are based on those FACTS! Did Saddam comply with his obligations when the UN inspectors returned in the fall of 2002, NO?

The only one that has lied in this process, or that anyone can factually claim they were "had by", is Saddam.

 

[sue4u2]

OK - Clinton lied, yes. God forbid he didn't want to go on record saying he got , well you know, but in Bush's case if he acted on what he was told, by his "quote" advisors, in his own adminstration, does that make him any less culpable? I know there was very strong dissention - including Colin Powell, concering going in without strong coalition supportand I'm not trying to say he has done anything wrong - I really hope/think there are/were WMD there. Where they are now is anyone's guess. I'm just saying that if he has invaded a country based on eroneous information, this country is in for some really bad times and it unfourtunately, may have given some rogue nations the wrong idea. Every action has a reaction or something like that. I don't know, I'm really trying not to worry about it, but I can't help it when I keep seeing reports on the solders being killed under the conditions they are left in.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Well, here's just one "stretch" to chew on.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [State of the Union, 1/28/03, pg. 7] Yet, according to news reports, the CIA knew that this claim was false as early as March 2002. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency has since discredited this allegation.

 

[sue4u2]

Yes, I read about this. It's one of the reason's I'm so distressed about anything coming out of the White House. I don't trust Ashcroft, at all, and anyone that has anything to do with him and that includes the WH. The blame for no weapons of MD being found is so activily being focused on the various agencies -saying they are sending bogus intelligence reports are just - Bullshit - It's not that I trust the CIA ,NSA etc but I don't believe the reports these agencies are giving have been wrong for decades, It's just now they are getting ignored or turned around. There have been enough whistle blower's to come forward and the rest can't, for fear of reprisals. How can anyone effectively function in the type of enviroment set up by this adminstration. when anything you say and everyting you know - can & will be used aganist you, To take the fall for the actions of this government.
Geez - Im tired, and on vacation.. Why can't I just let it go...

 

[U2Bama]

Re: its interesting sociological discussion time

so then 62% of americans see their president as having done something wrong, to some degree, in rationalizing reasons to go to war.

i really wish this study had gone one step further and asked whether their feelings about his truth telling abilities, in such a serious matter, will weigh heavily on their 04 vote.

either way its obvious clinton picked the wrong subject matter to lie about.

Are you talking about when former President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq to divert attention away from his courtroom lies?

~U2Alabama

 

[U2Bama]

Well, here's just one "stretch" to chew on.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [State of the Union, 1/28/03, pg. 7] Yet, according to news reports, the CIA knew that this claim was false as early as March 2002. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency has since discredited this allegation.

I may be missing some dates in the middle of this somewhere, but are you saying that the CIA knew in March 2002 that an as-yet unmade claim, which would later be made in January 2003, that Britain learned Saddam recently sought uranium from Africa, was false? I think of "recently" as being within a few months ago; if Britain made this claim sometime just prior to the January 2003 State of the Union, how would the CIA have know nearly a year earlier that it was false? What if Britain leasrned of this in November 2002, several months after the CIA's March 2002 knowledge?

~U2Alabama

 

[sue4u2]

Hmmm you may be on to something U2 BAMA, *should go into the witness protection program - now* Seroiusly, No one is going to come out of the White House and say "we knew about this". So now look for the WH to blame Britian.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Will he be impeached over these accquisations or reelected?
America seems to loves victims.

Atticus

 

[Klaus]

take a look at that BBC article:
The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.

So.. he says that they used the wmds as a justification for war because of "bureaucratic reasons", what a coincidence, most "facts" they presented at the UN were prooven wrong, the presented lots of untrue things to the Blix team too..
...so i guess if you forget for a moment that this is the bush administration (imagine for example that the french whould have made up something like that) than.. "stretched the truth" is one of the nicer things you would have thought about this.

Remember that - when the Iraq war started - most Americans believed that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks. There you can see what "effective" propaganda can do

Klaus

 

[Popmartijn]

I may be missing some dates in the middle of this somewhere, but are you saying that the CIA knew in March 2002 that an as-yet unmade claim, which would later be made in January 2003, that Britain learned Saddam recently sought uranium from Africa, was false? I think of "recently" as being within a few months ago; if Britain made this claim sometime just prior to the January 2003 State of the Union, how would the CIA have know nearly a year earlier that it was false? What if Britain learned of this in November 2002, several months after the CIA's March 2002 knowledge?

IIRC, this was a claim that Hussein was trying to acquire uranium in 2000 or 2001 in Nigeria. I don't know why it was mentioned as 'recently' by Bush, it depends on your definition of 'recently', I guess. Basically, the documents 'proving' this transaction were forged, badly. It was apparently almost immediately clear that these documents were false (for example, they were undersigned by a Nigerian minister who was out of office for more than a decade, etc.).

I hope this clears it up a bit.

C ya!

Marty

 

[kobayashi]

Re: Re: its interesting sociological discussion time

Are you talking about when former President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq to divert attention away from his courtroom lies?

~U2Alabama

no i wasnt but thats definitely fair game.

is it just the office then? that solid mahogany desk make them do stupid stuff?

 

[STING2]

If a piece of information that Bush presented as evidence later turned out not to be true, fine. As long as to the best of Bush's knowledge and his advisors, they thought this was good intelligence at the time, thats fine. Again, there is not proof that anyone lied about any thing here.


What to many people here want to avoid for some reason, is that the majority of the Bush Administrations evidence was based on the UN inspectors report at the end of 1998 after being forced from Iraq.

SADDAM never complied with any of his obligations! Thats a fact! Saddam never accounted for his WMD. It was Saddam's responsibility in the fall of 2002 to either hand over the WMD or show the remains of its destruction. Saddam did neither!

The coalition invasion soon followed for the obvious reasons.

Its as simple as that folks. But if the Dems want to pursue this and have Howard Dean as their Candidate in 2004, that just fine. That will insure that W will win in the largest landslide in US history. As a opponent, Howard Dean is every Republicans dream.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

For the millionth time: UN inspectors were WITHDRAWN from Iraq in 1998. They were not thrown out. They were advised to withdraw because the US planned to bomb sites in Iraq within the next few days.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

sting2, I hate to break in on your premature electoral celebration party, but this thread is not about the elections. It's about Bush's administration being perceived as misleaders. The words "credibility gap" ought to be important. Next time Bush wants the world to join him in a war on terror based on "intelligence" data, it will be much less likely that our coalition of the coerced will be able to be assembled so easily.

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,

"For the millionth time: UN inspectors were WITHDRAWN from Iraq in 1998. They were not thrown out. They were advised to withdraw because the US planned to bomb sites in Iraq within the next few days."

For the millionth time, was SADDAM cooperating with the UN inspectors?!?! NO What does the UN ceacefire agreement and resolution 678 say about Saddams failure to cooperate?

Saddams actions preventing the UN inspectors from properly doing their work forces them to leave in order to allow other measures to force Saddam to cooperate. If Saddam had cooperated the inspectors would not of had to leave. Saddams actions forced the UN inspectors to leave.