Bush, not so believable after all?

In the news today: Most Americans don’t trust Bush on Iraq

The poll by the University of Maryland found that 52 per cent 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 programmes.

Another 10 per cent said that US officials were presenting Congress, the American public and the international community “evidence they knew was false,” indicated the survey.

Only 32 per cent said that they thought the government was being “fully truthful” about the Iraqi arsenal.


8 thoughts on “Bush, not so believable after all?”

  1. 1) come on, this is not a stratified sample/demographic.

    2) I don’t know a single politician who I would not say they are or might be “stretching the truth, but not making false statements”. This is why it’s called politics. If truth had any place in it, it’d be called something else :-o

  2. I love people like Blah who support hypocrisy, moreover when it is on a political level …. anyway I cannot understand his 1st statement ….

    on the opposite, I have to say that these are nice stats! and with a standard deviation of 3.5 % this is quite significant !!

    ps: I am still wondering how many people are being abused on that special case !

  3. I fall in the 52% but would change it to some were misrepresenting facts(politics???!!!!!) and some were

    outright lying. I would agree that our forefathers

    would be shocked to hear of their gov’t making policy decisions based on personal monetary gain. If that is the state of our gov’t then I would not be proud of it.

  4. I guess Bill Clinton lied as well in December 1998 when he said, “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.” He made that speech right after we sent 200 missiles into Iraq. Do we all have selective memories?

  5. In my opinion its irrelevant what Clinton might have done, it was George W. Bush that used the now apparent lies in his State of the Union address. And the argument about the alleged weapons of mass destruction was used as the primary reason for going to work against Iraq.

    Even if Clinton was lying at the time he said it, it still does not affect the seriousness of George W. Bush’s actions.

  6. There is no evidence that Bush lied about WMD. Just because they have not been found does not mean that they do not exist. They did exist after 1991…so said the United Nations. I guess they lied, too.

  7. He might have had weapons of massdestruction in 1991. Its highly likely, concidering that the US actually provided Iraq and Saddam with the very weapons in the 80s.

    As to his State of the Union address. You might want to pay more attention.

    The facts:

    – W. Bush refered to an English intelligence report that stated that Iraq had WMD.

    – CIA had earlier removed those kind of suggestions when consulted about it. And the head of CIA is taking the heat for not making sure it was removed in the State of the Union address.

    – The English report in question is most likely doctored. If you have followed what is going on in the UK now, you might have concluded it is already.

  8. Yes, I have been following this issue very closely. Bush referred to a British intel report regarding uranium from Niger…a report that the British intelligence authorities supported, at least initially.

    Please do more research. Read “Jane’s”. Russia, Germay, and France were the main arms suppliers to Iraq…that’s been proven. The US supplied COMPONENTS, but not that actually WMD.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top