Gallup: 50% Say Bush Was Deliberately Misleading on WMD

So, I didn’t mention this when it came out the other day, but a new poll shows that exactly half the country now believes Bush was deliberately misleading people when he talked about those nasty Iraqi weapons: Gallup: 50% of Americans now say Bush deliberately misled them on WMDs.

This is the highest the number has ever been, apparently. I can’t decide if I’m gratified that so many people are willing to recognize the emperor’s bare bottom, or aghast that so many continue to admire the cut of his clothes. (Like the good little stooges at the Washington Times: CIA can’t rule out WMD move to Syria.)

I guess when you get right down to it, it’s just human nature to resist admitting you were wrong. In a way it’s Bush’s own character flaw, writ large.

Think about it. Fully half the country believes Bush was just honestly mistaken about the Iraqi WMD. Or they believe he was right, that the weapons really were there, but were smuggled out of the country when we weren’t looking. As long as Bush is willing to thrust his chin out and shrug and smirk his way past the nay-sayers, a lot of people are going to continue to believe that.

Lying to yourself is almost always easier than facing up to a mistake. Bush is so committed to that strategy, so unwilling to face his own failures, that he doesn’t even try anymore. And for a certain type of Bush supporter, following him down that path is as easy as falling off a log.

15 Responses to “Gallup: 50% Say Bush Was Deliberately Misleading on WMD”

  1. Surfy Says:

    Just becasue people say something does not make it true. No matterhow many people ignorant enough to beleive the blatant lies fed to them by the media are true, it still doesn’t make it true.

    The evidence is as clear as day. Hussein has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. In just one incidence in Kurdistan over 5,000 were killed from a chemical weapons “testing.” Mass graves were found throughout Iraq, proof of genocide, which of course goes against the UNs genocide convention. Not only has he violated almost every UN resolution and agreemaent that he did agree to, but he publicly announced this while many, likely yourself chose to ignore it.

    Yet the UN will still not take action, and the mandate is once again America’s. Bush, if you haven’t noticed is not the only one who went into Iraq with troops. There are in fact, 48 other countries with troops in Iraq. So this WMDs issue was obviously serious. And if not mabe there was more than that, and I am saying that sarcasticly. There is defintly more to it then that.

    Hussein is a direct financial aid to al-Qaida and the Taliban. He harbored terrorists in Baghdad and has publicly announced rewards to suicide bombers. He was killing thousands of Iraqis every year, and there is nothing anyone can say to make all this justifiable. Hussein is a tyrant, and there is conflict in his overthrowing just as there was when Hitler was and Stalin were overthrown. There is no excuse for people like Hussein to be allowed to rule a country, and there should be no excuse for Amsericans who try to justify Hussein’s actions.

  2. Sven Says:

    Surfy: No matter how many people are ignorant enough to believe the blatant lies fed to them by the Bush administration, it still doesn’t make them true.

    Your logic is silly, since back in the 80s when Saddam was commiting most of his attrocities, the U.S. was giving financial aid to Saddam, al-Qaida and the Taliban.

    We are not in Iraq because of any WMD. If we were, then we would be preparing to invade North Korea. We aren’t in Iraq because of atrocities commited against his own people. If we were, we would be preparing to invade places like Burma / Myanmar.

    We are in Iraq for one reason: oil.

  3. ethan-p Says:


    Let me ask you something about your post:

    The evidence is as clear as day. Hussein has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. In just one incidence in Kurdistan over 5,000 were killed from a chemical weapons “testing.” Mass graves were found throughout Iraq, proof of genocide, which of course goes against the UNs genocide convention. Not only has he violated almost every UN resolution and agreemaent that he did agree to, but he publicly announced this while many, likely yourself chose to ignore it.

    What does any of what you just said have to do with WMD? You’re quoting information on atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, but that’s not what the post is about. Nobody’s calling Hussein a nice guy. The post is about whether or not the Bush administration deliberately mislead us about WMD’s in Iraq in order to start a war there (for some other reason). Maybe we did have a good reason to go, but it doesn’t change the fact that we didn’t find any WMD’s there. The fact is, we were sold on this war because of something that simply wasn’t there. All of our post-war intelligence is telling us that Iraq dealt the world ambiguity on the issue in order to strike fear into possible invaders.

    The fact is that the Bush administration had an agenda for going into Iraq, and it wasn’t necessarily the WMD — there was evidence against this ideal, but the Bush administration chose to ignore it and push on with their campaign. In fact, intel officers were instructed to make a case for war against Iraq based on evidence of WMD’s. They weren’t asked what they thought — they were instructed to use whatever evidence of WMD’s they could to make a case for war. We came up with some little aluminum tubes.

    Hussein is a direct financial aid to al-Qaida and the Taliban. He harbored terrorists in Baghdad and has publicly announced rewards to suicide bombers.

    I’m not sure where you’re getting this. He did not provide any financial aid to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Conversely, the USA provided aid to Al Qaeda when they were the mujahideen, fighting the Russians. We also indirectly supported the Taliban by walking away from Afghanistan after the Russian invasion was halted. As far as I understand it, Hussein did not finance either of these. He did, however, promise stipends for the families of suicide bombers (but not rewards to suicide bombers…that would be a logical fallacy, since after the act they’re dead, and rewards wouldn’t do them any good). Sadly, this was never even uttered by any members of the Bush adminsitration as a reason to attack before the war.

    I could give you at least a half dozen possible reasons for attacking Iraq, but WMD is not really one of them.

    Oh — another historical knitpick: Stalin was never overthrown.

  4. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    As another historical nitpick, when the United States was supporting the mujahideen, we were also supporting the anti-Taliban forces who would go on to fight the Taliban as the Northern Alliance. Anything to get the Soviets.

  5. Robert Says:

    Leave Bush Alone !!!!!!!

  6. ethan-p Says:

    Leave Bush Alone !!!!!!!

    Yeah, because he’s done soooooo well for us all thus car (I know, a little hard to see from Australia). Let’s see here, cut taxes & increase spending: check. Sell us a war for bullshit reasons: check. Mismanage that bullshit war: check. Remove any accountability for his (or his administrations) actions: check. Fuck up our domestic policy with a bout of self righteous social conservatism: check. He represents the worst parts of democrats and republicans.

    Robert — I see you’re still trolling. How’s that going for you?

  7. Louis Says:

    I don’t think Bush is a great president but I don’t think he is anywhere near as bad as you portray him to be. I don’t have any reason to believe that the nukes were moved out of Iraq before the invasion. And as far as stealing oil… I don’t care. If the Iraqis are excited about voting so they can get us out, GOOD. We don’t want to be in there any more than they want us in there. Unfortunatly we can’t just say “OK, They’re done voting we can leave” and forsake them again. I think as far as the war goes he has done a pretty good job.
    The domestic issues are another story. It always seems as if Bush was going in the right direction but still ending up in the wrong place.

  8. ethan-p Says:

    I think as far as the war goes he has done a pretty good job.

    I was sort of nodding and agreeing with your post until I got to that point. I guess that we’re watching different versions of the news, because I’ve seen nothing but a collosal screw-up as far as the management and planning of the war. Remember Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld laughing off the concept of an insurgency when they were trying to sell us this war? It wasn’t even in the cards. I don’t think that they made a contingency plan to account for any kind of insurgency. They just assumed that the Iraqi people would throw roses at our feet.

    I’m not all about making all kinds of contingency plans and moving slowly with every decision that there is to make, but when it comes to something as hardcore as war — I find that failing to even consider these contingencies is downright arrogant and reckless. That’s possibly the most important time to make those plans. Hell, those guys won’t even admit that they screwed up. They’re simply unable to. The closest I’ve seen them get to recgonizing that they made some errors was Bush’s campaign debate stating that “we wun too fast”. What?!? We won too fast??. No errors in judgement — in their glossy worldview, we’re so damn guud that our own awesomeness was our downfall. I don’t think that I need to say anything further to attack it, because it’s so incredibly inane.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think that you have a rational point of view. I don’t suggest simply picking up and leaving Iraq as it is. That would be as reckless as Reagan’s pulling support from Afghanistan as soon as the Russians split. We started something in Iraq, and we certainly need to see it through. However, our need to finish what we started doesn’t change the fact that in my opinion, we should not have been there in the first place.

    As a leader, Bush may not be the worst guy in the world. He’s totally idealistic, very forward-thinking, and absolutely unwavering. There are quite a few people in the country who identify with the man, and many feel that he’s the guy to make executive decisions in their name. However, a President’s role goes beyond leadership, and delves deeply into managment. In my opinion, this is where Bush leaves something to be desired. Iraq is a perfect example of poor management. Things were out of control for quite a while, and they’re only now slowly beginning to get better (depending on whom you ask). These two roles, management and leadership need to be balanced out against each other, and in his case, it’s all leadership and no management. He doesn’t compromise, he won’t work well with those who oppose any of his policies, and practices insane fiscal management (I view these all as management qualities, some at odds with leadership qualities). He tried to balance it out with cabinet members who are supposed to be good managers, but poor leaders — like Donald Rumsfeld…but again, I feel that he really falls short. I’m not saying that because I don’t care for their neoconservative political platform, but because of their apparent failures in their cabinet positions.

    Again, I think you’ve got a very good point — this time on the domestic issues. He’s trying to steer the boat in the right direction, being forward-thinking — attacking issues like Social Security, but he’s just missing with his proposed solution. I’m not so sure how I feel about it in general, because I’m critical of “do-something-ism” (doing *something* just to do it), but on the other hand, the Democrats are totally impotent, and won’t touch anything. It seems to me we’ve got 6 in one hand, and a half-dozen in another on that front.

    Anyway, the far-left-wingers tend to look for something a little deeper than the immediately visible shortfalls. They buy into the Michael Moore conspiracy theories completely and look for these underhanded, nefarious ideals. Personally, I don’t see those ideals…what scares me more is that the Bush administration is trying to do exactly what they said that they were going to do. If we’re going to damn them, I say that they should be damned them for what they really are.

  9. Rise Against Says:

    ethan-p that was an excellent post. And I like how you added (depending on you ask) because the body counts of dead people I have been seeing over the last week is disgusting. Because its mostly Iraqi’s and not US troops, many of you may not even know that. Many innocent people died in Iraq this past week or two, er 2 years.

  10. Robert Says:

    You Bone heads are never going to Get it Arn’t you? When will you realise that when there are desperate times you need desperate measures!!!! We are dealing with Maniacs who fly 767’s into buildings, sometimes you just got to fuck the Proper protocol and Go in and Kill the Bastards !!! They deserve no less.

    As for the innocent people getting killed, comes with the territory, at least its not as many as the amount that would have been genocided had Saddam not been removed!!!

    You Fucking Couch Polititions amaze me, sitting there on your computer chairs critisising Bush’s every move, you could’nt do any better, it always looks more simple from the outside!!!! But we all should know that life is not that simple you Bloody Terrorist Sympathisers !!!!!! Grow your self a Brain!!! No sorry I apologise, you’ve already grown your brains, pitty you used Horse Shit for the Fertaliser!!!

  11. jbc Says:

    I’m curious about one thing, Robert: are you in the 50% who believe Bush was intentionally misleading us before the war about Iraqi WMD? Or are you in the 50% who believe Bush was honestly mistaken about Iraqi WMD, or was telling the truth?

    I realize that you believe we should support the president and the War on Terror either way. I’m not asking about that. I’m just curious where you fall on that question the poll was asking about.


  12. Rise Against Says:

    So what are tying to say Dr. Bob? Never question your government?

    For someone who claims to be a supporter of “spreading freedom” you’re sure neglecting the fundamental fact that without questioning your government, you basically have an elected dictatorship that answers to noone.

  13. Robert Says:

    Hi Jbc,

    To answer your question I would have to say that I am not certain, as I am not some one who is very close to the situation (In other words, not a member of the American Political sector, nor a member of any type of weapon inspecting outfit. In other words, just like every body else who watches the news unfold on the idiot box and/or news paper).

    However I do believe that regardless of the fact of wether or not George Was aware of what ever situation was in affect, that he did not intentionally set out to do any wrong. I dont believe that he would have gone into Iraq without a good reason even if it meant that there was no “physical” proof.

    The U.N. weapons inspectors to my knowledge gave Saddam months to declare any W.M.D. I can’t see any reason what so ever why Saddam wouldn’t move any such weapons to another sympathetic Country/region…….Iran as an example.

    I do beleive now as I did at the beginning of the war that sure it will be messy, but it is something that the Non-Terrorist Iraq people needed to bee freed from their dictator, and I think safer for everybody because if saddam didn’t have W.M.D. (which I’d find hard to believe anyway) you could have been sure that he would have been working on it well and truly. Just like Hitler nearly had his own A-Bomb.

    Regards……Dr. Robert

    P.S. For rise against…..will answer your question shortly.

  14. scotth0273 Says:

    You sounds like a typical short-minded liberal who has no grasp on history along with the fact that you are only basing your theory that the Iraq war is solely based on WMD’s. First off, it wasn’t only the CIA who seemed to have outdated or inaccurate info on the WMD’s. The French admin, England admin, and Putin himself informed Bush that Saddam had these WMD’s. Saddam was also trying to convince the world, specificly Iran, that he had thse such weapons. Oh yeah, Billy Bob Clinton and Kerry also supported the idea that he had the weapons and that there is not enough time to continue to try to work diplomaticly with Saddam, since he would no longer allow inspectors in Iraq since 98. Second, Bush mentioned more than WMD’s during the Stae of the Union address. I was shocked to hear Bush talk about the stockpiles of WMD’s, however I was not shocked about the mention of the mass graves (which keep popping up every day in Iraq). The amout of people found in these grave can only be compared to the ones found in Rwanda and Germany. How did Saddam kill these people at such a large scale? By the use of WMD’s Hello? I don’t recall such an outcry when Clinton went against the UN security counsil after he bombed Molosivich, do you?

  15. ghostdawg Says:

    “solely based on WMD’s” Look who dosen’t know their history? What’s sad is that that history is oh so very recent. This war was sold to the American people based on WMD’s. Remember Colin’s speech at the UN? They did their damndest to scare the American people into a frenzy. And by the way Saddam didn’t kick the inspectors out in 98. Clinton pulled them out so he could bomb the hell out of Iraq. And If I remember correctly Saddam wanted the Americans out because they were spying. These so called stockpiles on WMD’s were also a known fallacy. The inspections in Iraq were working. The UN inspectors accounted for over 90% of Iraq’s WMD’s. And please man… Spare me the moralizing about mass graves. One big assed mass grave was the result of the first Bush insighting a rebellion at the tail end of the first gulf war, then standing by while Saddam crushed the rebellion and doing nothing. Thereby strenghtning his hold. And of course our hands aren’t exactly clean in any of this. Remember “shock and awe?” We killed tens of thousands of Iraqis with that ill-born bullshit. Some reports say 30,000 others 100,000. Many of them innocent. You could fill up a pretty damn big mass grave with that. You also forget that during Saddam’s WORST years he had America’s FULL backing. He gassed those Kurds back when he was an American tool and we didn’t so much as diplomatically slap his freaking hand.

    Finally America shouldn’t realllllllllllllly bring up Saddam’s history since a CIA operation is what put the Bathists in power in Iraq in the first place. Or the fact that America HELPED Iraq optimize it’s use of WMD by providing logistical information during the Iraq/Iran war…

    Or for that matter the fact that America helped the Shah come to power in Iran (by overthrowing it’s Democratically elected goverment) Which led to the nation becoming an extremist Theocracy.

    “Typical right wing lemming.” Pick up a fucking book and turn off fox news pal.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.