Poll: Most Americans Doubt Bush's Honesty

[FUZO]

TweetPoll: Most Americans Doubt Bush's Honesty


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 white 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.

An AP-Ipsos poll last week asked people to state in their own words why they approved or disapproved of the way Bush was doing his job. Almost six in 10 disapproved, and they most frequently mentioned the war in Iraq — 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.

___

[T-Man007]

TweetWell, the thing that pisses me off the most is people keep saying the Bush 'intentionally misled' the American people on WMD in Irag. Yet the fact is, Bush did not come up with the intel. The intel that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction came from the Brits. He AND Tony Blair decided to go to war to disarm them based on this intel. So, it wasn't just us who believed it. As a matter of fact, even the UN believed the intel was accurate. And, for all we know, they did have them, but becasue the UN ***** footed around so long Iraq had more than enough time to move them. OR, maybe they never had them. Either way, the intel came from Britain, not the Bush Administration. And yet, even though all these other people relied upon this intel, Bush is the only one getting reamed for it.

[Stout1]

Tweet

Well, the thing that pisses me off the most is people keep saying the Bush 'intentionally misled' the American people on WMD in Irag. Yet the fact is, Bush did not come up with the intel. The intel that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction came from the Brits. He AND Tony Blair decided to go to war to disarm them based on this intel. So, it wasn't just us who believed it. As a matter of fact, even the UN believed the intel was accurate. And, for all we know, they did have them, but becasue the UN ***** footed around so long Iraq had more than enough time to move them. OR, maybe they never had them. Either way, the intel came from Britain, not the Bush Administration. And yet, even though all these other people relied upon this intel, Bush is the only one getting reamed for it.

He knew it was shaky evidence and to use evidence that was NOT 100% sure in a State of the Union speech is just ludicras. Anyone that still thinks Bush is a good president has their head stuck so far up their ass they can't see what is going on right in front of them.

[Skarhead]

TweetWhat pisses me off it took over 4 years for people to realise he sucks -- TOO LATE hes already in for his 2nd term

[T-Man007]

Tweet

He knew it was shaky evidence and to use evidence that was NOT 100% sure in a State of the Union speech is just ludicras. Anyone that still thinks Bush is a good president has their head stuck so far up their ass they can't see what is going on right in front of them.

How can you say he 'knew' the evidence was not 100%? How do you know what he knew? It was enough to get the UN to go into Iraq. Would they have went if it wasn't believed to be good intel? NO!!! Everyone thought the intel was good. There is no 100% accurate, there is either good or bad intel and this was sold to us by the Brits as good intel. What was he supposed to do, just wait and see?

Honestly, I don't care if they had WMD or not, I'm glad Sadam is out of power. If the only thing we succeeded in was getting him out of office, that's fine with me. Soldiers die in war, it's a fact of life. Over 100,000 US soldiers died in Europe during WWII and that was no direct threat to the US, unlike Sadam. The Germans would have had to cross the ocean to get us. We could have just waited for them. But yet, we went and lost 50 times more people to put ****** out of commision and everyone is *****ing about losing 2,000 soldiers to get Sadam out of power. Sadam is ever bit as bad as ****** was, even worse. Sadam has had his Olympic Soccer players beaten to death just for playing bad. I think the lost of only 2,000 soldiers to get a tyrant like Sadam out of power is a success, not a faliure. You may not agree, but that's your opinion. I for one won't stoop so low to insult you by saying you have your head up your ass though. But that's just me.

[Stout1]

Tweet

How can you say he 'knew' the evidence was not 100%? How do you know what he knew? It was enough to get the UN to go into Iraq. Would they have went if it wasn't believed to be good intel? NO!!! Everyone thought the intel was good. There is no 100% accurate, there is either good or bad intel and this was sold to us by the Brits as good intel. What was he supposed to do, just wait and see?

Honestly, I don't care if they had WMD or not, I'm glad Sadam is out of power. If the only thing we succeeded in was getting him out of office, that's fine with me. Soldiers die in war, it's a fact of life. Over 100,000 US soldiers died in Europe during WWII and that was no direct threat to the US, unlike Sadam. The Germans would have had to cross the ocean to get us. We could have just waited for them. But yet, we went and lost 50 times more people to put ****** out of commision and everyone is *****ing about losing 2,000 soldiers to get Sadam out of power. Sadam is ever bit as bad as ****** was, even worse. Sadam has had his Olympic Soccer players beaten to death just for playing bad. I think the lost of only 2,000 soldiers to get a tyrant like Sadam out of power is a success, not a faliure. You may not agree, but that's your opinion. I for one won't stoop so low to insult you by saying you have your head up your ass though. But that's just me.

It's a widley known fact that Bush KNEW that the evidence was not CONCRETE. I shouldn't need to prove something that is common knowledge.

The UN went into Iraq. That's news to me. I am sure they did NOT want us in there. Maybe I am missing something?

See you let Bush play of your emotions, you can't let him do that. You know how many OTHER countries we could invade off of Bush's idea of a legitimate war? Iran. North Korea. etc. Why aren't we there?

Sadam is no way near as bad as ******. ****** caused the deaths of MILLIONS of jews and also caused a World War. Hardly in comparison to Saddam.

[Klash]

Tweet

He knew it was shaky evidence and to use evidence that was NOT 100% sure in a State of the Union speech is just ludicras. Anyone that still thinks Bush is a good president has their head stuck so far up their ass they can't see what is going on right in front of them.



It's a widley known fact that Bush KNEW that the evidence was not CONCRETE. I shouldn't need to prove something that is common knowledge.

The UN went into Iraq. That's news to me. I am sure they did NOT want us in there. Maybe I am missing something?

See you let Bush play of your emotions, you can't let him do that. You know how many OTHER countries we could invade off of Bush's idea of a legitimate war? Iran. North Korea. etc. Why aren't we there?

Sadam is no way near as bad as ******. ****** caused the deaths of MILLIONS of jews and also caused a World War. Hardly in comparison to Saddam.

You say it is a widley known fact that Bush knew the evidence was not concrete. The whole world knew Saddam had WMD's, that is why Saddam was suppose to show the world he was getting rid of them - he did not!

Bush did not mislead anyone. He used the only option Saddam left him with.

[Skarhead]

Tweetas soon as bush got elected he wanted to go to war, he just scrambled for a half assed reason and went w/ it

[DJDIGGLER]

TweetI'm sorry but it's just stupid to compare ****** to Saddam! ****** unlike Saddam was absolutely brilliant! Insane, but brilliant! The man had his hands in everything and if it weren't for the united states jumping in he would have dominated the entire world. That man was taking down countries one by one like they were nothing. Sure they weren't directly attacking us. But they were a major threat because they were trying to dominate the world. Can you tell me which countries Saddam invaded that would make this current war even remotely comparable to World War 2? (oh and Kuwait doesn't count because that was alleviated in the gulf war.)

Bush is an absolute moron! The guy can't even spit out a coherent sentence if his life depended on it. Watching this guys speeches, is like watching a monkey at a podium. He laughs at the most inappropriate times, and doesn't even make any sense. The guy is a freaking redneck and only fellow rednecks are blind to this fact.

What I don't understand is how a country falls apart at the seams, and there is still people so blind and nieve that they just don't see it! I don't get it! This country is in the worst shape it's been in years. Even my grandma said that the current times are just like the depression (which she lived through). She said the only difference is there isn't a food shortage like there was then.

Honestly I stopped debating with Bush supporters because none of them have any clue WTF is going on. They always have stupid ass excuses, and they never answer things 100% but then again thats how Bush is, so it all makes sense I guess!

[Stout1]

Tweet

You say it is a widley known fact that Bush knew the evidence was not concrete. The whole world knew Saddam had WMD's, that is why Saddam was suppose to show the world he was getting rid of them - he did not!

Bush did not mislead anyone. He used the only option Saddam left him with.

The whole world knew he had WMD. LOL That is funny. All there was is SPECULATION. We put all sorts of penalties and things to stop Saddam from building any more WMD. There was NO PROOF! If the whole world as you say knew he had WMD where is the proof? There is none. Therefore I don't see how you can sit there and tell me the whole world knew he had WMD when their is no proof.

Got rid of them. LOL Where were they at? Where is the proof? I don't think you will find any proof.

This is the problem with America, we let too many people think for us. If you take a minute to inspect this a little deeper and not let some nit wit for a president do the thinking for you, you would see what is evident to the the rest of the world. BUSH FUCKING SUCKS AND HE IS A LIAR.

[Stout1]

Tweet

I'm sorry but it's just stupid to compare ****** to Saddam! ****** unlike Saddam was absolutely brilliant! Insane, but brilliant! The man had his hands in everything and if it weren't for the united states jumping in he would have dominated the entire world. That man was taking down countries one by one like they were nothing. Sure they weren't directly attacking us. But they were a major threat because they were trying to dominate the world. Can you tell me which countries Saddam invaded that would make this current war even remotely comparable to World War 2? (oh and Kuwait doesn't count because that was alleviated in the gulf war.)

Bush is an absolute moron! The guy can't even spit out a coherent sentence if his life depended on it. Watching this guys speeches, is like watching a monkey at a podium. He laughs at the most inappropriate times, and doesn't even make any sense. The guy is a freaking redneck and only fellow rednecks are blind to this fact.

What I don't understand is how a country falls apart at the seams, and there is still people so blind and nieve that they just don't see it! I don't get it! This country is in the worst shape it's been in years. Even my grandma said that the current times are just like the depression (which she lived through). She said the only difference is there isn't a food shortage like there was then.

Honestly I stopped debating with Bush supporters because none of them have any clue WTF is going on. They always have stupid ass excuses, and they never answer things 100% but then again thats how Bush is, so it all makes sense I guess!

Someone with some common sense!

[supasaiyan99]

Tweet

You say it is a widley known fact that Bush knew the evidence was not concrete. The whole world knew Saddam had WMD's, that is why Saddam was suppose to show the world he was getting rid of them - he did not!

Bush did not mislead anyone. He used the only option Saddam left him with.

Bro you must of forgot about the IAEA. They were there inspecting and they found nothing yet Bush insisted that Saddam had mobile units hiding the weapons cache. Where are these mobile units now? You probably also forgot that Bush said "Saddam tried to kill my daddy!" I forgot the name of one of his former aids or whatever he was but he was in an interview and said after September 11, 2001 Bush kept trying to pinpoint the attacks on Saddam. The guy was like it was Al'quida and Bush was like "What about Saddam?"

[supasaiyan99]

Tweet

How can you say he 'knew' the evidence was not 100%? How do you know what he knew? It was enough to get the UN to go into Iraq. Would they have went if it wasn't believed to be good intel? NO!!! Everyone thought the intel was good. There is no 100% accurate, there is either good or bad intel and this was sold to us by the Brits as good intel. What was he supposed to do, just wait and see?

Honestly, I don't care if they had WMD or not, I'm glad Sadam is out of power. If the only thing we succeeded in was getting him out of office, that's fine with me. Soldiers die in war, it's a fact of life. Over 100,000 US soldiers died in Europe during WWII and that was no direct threat to the US, unlike Sadam. The Germans would have had to cross the ocean to get us. We could have just waited for them. But yet, we went and lost 50 times more people to put ****** out of commision and everyone is *****ing about losing 2,000 soldiers to get Sadam out of power. Sadam is ever bit as bad as ****** was, even worse. Sadam has had his Olympic Soccer players beaten to death just for playing bad. I think the lost of only 2,000 soldiers to get a tyrant like Sadam out of power is a success, not a faliure. You may not agree, but that's your opinion. I for one won't stoop so low to insult you by saying you have your head up your ass though. But that's just me.

Bro WWII and Iraq is like comparing beans with tomatoes. ****** was invading countries and mass exterminating a whole race of people. If Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor I doubt the US would have entered the war. Plus WWII was a World War! Many countries were involved. There was a direct threat and a direct response. Now with Iraq? So what he beats his own soccer team? Other 3rd world countries do the same. I doubt he was a direct threat to any country except his own.

Tell me what positive things have come out of getting rid of Saddam? Saddam has been out of power for almost a year now? So why do we have 2000 soldiers dead? When Saddam was taken out of power there were only about 700 (it was probably way less) soldiers dead? Why 1300 more soldiers dead if the main threat is gone? Bush opened up Pandora's box and won't admitt it.

But anyways this is a waste of time because he's still in office and can't go up for re-election. So whatever the reason was for invading Iraq, whether justified or unjustified it's too late to do anything. We just need to pray for our troops, contractors and civilians who are over seas. We also need to pray for all those innocent bystanders getting killed by the terrorists acts.

[mick-G]

TweetI believe Bush think he is honest, or maybe he is in denile, lol! This war has done nothing to help security in the US. In fact the threat is more imenent, due to terroist way of thinking, we are invading their territories. Before all this started they were upset with our military surrounding their country, and for that and many reasons is why 911 happen in the first place. If we hadn't interfered with their countries religious beliefs and try to control their governments none of this would have happened. I feel for the hardship this has caused ppl that have had ppl die in 911 and the military in Iraq, but this could all have been avoided. I know one thing for fact, there are many, many ppl especially older conservatives that think Bush is the worst President we have ever had. Look at the companies that have gone out of business or are going into Chapter 11, the economy, ppl without good work or pay levels, not to mention gas prices, and taxes. In Bushes eyes the economy is doing great, and as we still go on spending tens of billions of dollars in a country that really doesn't like us to begin with. Hell, he doesn't even care too much about the social secruity benefits or healthcare. Yes, i would have to say he is in denile.

[Skarhead]

TweetLove Ya mick... nicely said