New Gallup Poll Out

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
New Gallup Poll Info

Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs

By E&P Staff

Published: April 26, 2005 11:45 AM ET

NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."

Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.

Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now if Gallup, notorius for high Republican weighting, says that the number is 50%, you can bet it's probably closer to 55%-57%. What I don't understand is: what the hell are the other 45%-50% thinking? Let me guess: they watch Fox News. ;)

But seriously, what will it take to understand at the very least that ...

1) Iraq was NO threat to this country.
2) Iraq had NO WMD's or any program of any sort.
3) The Administration spread lies and falsehoods to start this war.
4) The Administration HAD intelligence that stated points 1 & 2, but cherry-picked some intelligence, hired drunkard German operatives (which Germany told them to "not believe") and "Bolton"-ed the rest.

Now people like Rumsfeld are going on TV saying, "We never used to words imminent threat."

C'mon, the jig is up. For every day that goes by, more and more evidence is started to come out (despite our corporate media) that Bush and his cronies LIED (not "were mistaken", but LIED) about the reasons going to war.

Anybody that believes that it was "bad intelligence" really needs to examine themselves and put our nation and our troops ahead of people with a little "R" next to their names.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What difference does it make, it's too late for the Country.

Which country? Iraq, the U.S., or both?

Yes, both

Sadly, I'm afraid you're right.

I'm going to have a nice glass of lemon-lime kool-aid. Would you like some?
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Stay away from the kool-aid.

It must be wearing off for some of us (them) out there... too bad we reap what we sow...
 

Skiguy411

Platinum Member
Dec 4, 2002
2,093
0
0
Tell me what Bush's motivation for going into Iraq was and why he would go so far as to deliberately mislead the American people.

Oil? I haven't seen any cheaper gas prices.
Saddam tried to kill his father? Please.....


 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Skiguy411
Tell me what Bush's motivation for going into Iraq was and why he would go so far as to deliberately mislead the American people.

Oil? I haven't seen any cheaper gas prices.
Saddam tried to kill his father? Please.....

What makes you think he cares about cheaper gas prices for YOU?
 

Skiguy411

Platinum Member
Dec 4, 2002
2,093
0
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Skiguy411
Tell me what Bush's motivation for going into Iraq was and why he would go so far as to deliberately mislead the American people.

Oil? I haven't seen any cheaper gas prices.
Saddam tried to kill his father? Please.....

What makes you think he cares about cheaper gas prices for YOU?

Has Bush gotten any oil out of this?

<---Really doesn't know

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Skiguy411
Tell me what Bush's motivation for going into Iraq was and why he would go so far as to deliberately mislead the American people.

Oil? I haven't seen any cheaper gas prices.
Saddam tried to kill his father? Please.....
PNAC and ideology. They truly thought 3 months would be all that was needed to settle Iraq into America 2.0. Complete and utter ignorance got us into this mess. The Propagandist thought all would be well and he could continue the new colonialism.
 

InfectedMushroom

Golden Member
Aug 15, 2001
1,064
0
0
Originally posted by: Skiguy411
Tell me what Bush's motivation for going into Iraq was and why he would go so far as to deliberately mislead the American people.

Oil? I haven't seen any cheaper gas prices.
Saddam tried to kill his father? Please.....

It wasn't primarily the oil, but the fact that Sadam had started selling it in Euros and making a good profit out of that. That kept weaking the dollar (which is happening anyway now), and might have eventually replaced the dollar as the defacto oil trading currency in the world. Guess what that would do to the US economy?
Oh, hmmm and i wonder what the motivation is for all the anti-Iran propaganda is? hmmm, could it be that they are trying to start a new Oil Exchange Market in (gasp) Euros next year be part of it?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Ah, but you are missing just who exactly makes up those percentages. See, the 50% that thinks Bush told the truth are normal, average Americans from middle America while the the other 50% are fringe wackos who hate America. It's all about labels, not these so called "numbers" and "facts".

:D
 

Promethply

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,741
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, but you are missing just who exactly makes up those percentages. See, the 50% that thinks Bush told the truth are normal, average Americans from middle America while the the other 50% are fringe wackos who hate America. It's all about labels, not these so called "numbers" and "facts".

:D

It that's true, then many people in ATP&N must be wackos :p
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Skiguy411
Tell me what Bush's motivation for going into Iraq was and why he would go so far as to deliberately mislead the American people.

Oil? I haven't seen any cheaper gas prices.

Hello, anybody home???

The idea of capturing other Country's Oil reserves is to drive prices up for profits.

Why do you think Exxon is the World's richest Company now and highest profits ever??? :confused:

The American Sheeple are so dense. :| :thumbsdown:
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
pfft. of course he did. how could anyone think otherwise?

the key question is was it worth it? I still say it's too early to call.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Skiguy411
Tell me what Bush's motivation for going into Iraq was and why he would go so far as to deliberately mislead the American people.

Oil? I haven't seen any cheaper gas prices.
Saddam tried to kill his father? Please.....
PNAC and ideology. They truly thought 3 months would be all that was needed to settle Iraq into America 2.0. Complete and utter ignorance got us into this mess. The Propagandist thought all would be well and he could continue the new colonialism.

A. PNAC asked Clinton to intervene in Kosovo and he did
B. Bush clearly stated before the invasion it would take 3-5 years, yes years, before we would be out of Iraq.

I suggest quit drinking the Koolaid darkhawk is making.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
A. has nothing to do with this thread
B. is not what they believed.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4651.htm
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/8/03: Last February, with invasion just weeks away, sources in the Bush administration told Newsweek that they were expecting a postwar occupation of Iraq of 30 to 90 days.

"Every day you get past three months, you've got to expect peacekeepers to have a bull's-eye on their head," the sources explained.

Even at the time, a spokesman for Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith suggested that three months might be too optimistic. It was probably wiser to think five or six months on the outside, Lt. Col. Michael Humm said.

At the time, Pentagon officials also claimed that Iraq's oil wealth would make it unnecessary to ask other countries for financial help with reconstruction. "I don't see the need for panhandling like that," the Pentagon source said.

A month later, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz issued his own warning of how tough the occupation would be. Ruling Iraq, he said, would be like ruling liberated France after World War II.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Bush clearly stated before the invasion it would take 3-5 years, yes years, before we would be out of Iraq

That's bullshit & you know it - he made no such ststement going in.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: conjur
A. has nothing to do with this thread
B. is not what they believed.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4651.htm
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/8/03: Last February, with invasion just weeks away, sources in the Bush administration told Newsweek that they were expecting a postwar occupation of Iraq of 30 to 90 days.

"Every day you get past three months, you've got to expect peacekeepers to have a bull's-eye on their head," the sources explained.

Even at the time, a spokesman for Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith suggested that three months might be too optimistic. It was probably wiser to think five or six months on the outside, Lt. Col. Michael Humm said.

At the time, Pentagon officials also claimed that Iraq's oil wealth would make it unnecessary to ask other countries for financial help with reconstruction. "I don't see the need for panhandling like that," the Pentagon source said.

A month later, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz issued his own warning of how tough the occupation would be. Ruling Iraq, he said, would be like ruling liberated France after World War II.


A. Is Clinton a PNAC lackey also?
B. Doesnt surprise me the media screwed this up also. Remember you lunatics searching google frantically trying to find a quote, any quote from a reliable source where Bush said Saddam was behind 9-11????? Media blew that one big time. All I remember is Bush clearly stating this occupation will take some time and estimate it will be 3-5 years.

We are on year 2 and if we are lucky will be able to start pulling serious troops out by the end of the year.

60-90 days?!?!?!?1 Bwahahahaha you have to be a total idiot to believe something like that.

How many years did we occupy Japan and Germany before elections happened? If it was going to be a 3 month occupation then why wasnt govt infrastructure, constitutions, and police forces built immediately upon defeat of Saddams forces?!?!?!?

I think somebody at Newsweek mis-quoted somebody or took them way out of context.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
A. has nothing to do with this thread
B. is not what they believed.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4651.htm
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/8/03: Last February, with invasion just weeks away, sources in the Bush administration told Newsweek that they were expecting a postwar occupation of Iraq of 30 to 90 days.

"Every day you get past three months, you've got to expect peacekeepers to have a bull's-eye on their head," the sources explained.

Even at the time, a spokesman for Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith suggested that three months might be too optimistic. It was probably wiser to think five or six months on the outside, Lt. Col. Michael Humm said.

At the time, Pentagon officials also claimed that Iraq's oil wealth would make it unnecessary to ask other countries for financial help with reconstruction. "I don't see the need for panhandling like that," the Pentagon source said.

A month later, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz issued his own warning of how tough the occupation would be. Ruling Iraq, he said, would be like ruling liberated France after World War II.


A. Is Clinton a PNAC lackey also?
B. Doesnt surprise me the media screwed this up also. Remember you lunatics searching google frantically trying to find a quote, any quote from a reliable source where Bush said Saddam was behind 9-11????? Media blew that one big time. All I remember is Bush clearly stating this occupation will take some time and estimate it will be 3-5 years.

We are on year 2 and if we are lucky will be able to start pulling serious troops out by the end of the year.

60-90 days?!?!?!?1 Bwahahahaha you have to be a total idiot to believe something like that.

How many years did we occupy Japan and Germany before elections happened? If it was going to be a 3 month occupation then why wasnt govt infrastructure, constitutions, and police forces built immediately upon defeat of Saddams forces?!?!?!?

I think somebody at Newsweek mis-quoted somebody or took them way out of context.

You're assuming that Clinton's decision was on order from PNAC.

It's like saying, "I sent GWB a letter to ruin Social Security. He's doing it. Yay! I control the President!"
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Bush clearly stated before the invasion it would take 3-5 years, yes years, before we would be out of Iraq

That's bullshit & you know it - he made no such ststement going in.


Boy you know that is funny because this left leaning person wrote an editorial on a very interesting date and said this.

add it all up and it?s probably $100 bil in bribes, + $50 bil from last Oct. + $80 bil for a new war + $100 bil for a 3-5 year occupation..

http://www.letstalksense.com/articles/hammerschlag31703.htm

Date of article is 3-17-03

Can anybody tell me what that date signifies????

Anybody??!?!?!?!?!?!?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
You're assuming that Clinton's decision was on order from PNAC.

It's like saying, "I sent GWB a letter to ruin Social Security. He's doing it. Yay! I control the President!"

Holy smokes a liberal might understand my point.