Via WaPo: “Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War“

A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey results, which also show declining support for the war in Iraq and for Bush’s leadership in general, indicate the public is increasingly questioning the president’s truthfulness — a concern for Bush’s political advisers as his reelection bid gets underway.

Barely half — 52 percent — now believe Bush is “honest and trustworthy,” down 7 percentage points since late October and his worst showing since the question was first asked, in March 1999. At his best, in the summer of 2002, Bush was viewed as honest by 71 percent. The survey found that nearly seven in 10 think Bush “honestly believed” Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even so, 54 percent thought Bush exaggerated or lied about prewar intelligence.

The new way of going to war apparently includes stating as fact what you may have reason to believe is untrue, and then altering the rationale for your actions post facto as needed. Via WaPo: President Revises Rationale For War – Bush, Cheney Stress Iraq’s Capabilities. Via NYTimes: In Rare Talk Show Interview, Bush Defends Decision on War. So we’ve gone from assertions that Hussein had WMD that could be put into use within 45 minutes to assertions that it was his capacity to create WMD (within what amount of time…?) that was the reason for going to war. There’s a movie to be made here somewhere.

By the way, given this ad campaign, is anyone up for staring a meme on cronyism?

For someone who spent several years living 5 miles from the White House, I am usually shamefully uninvolved in and unaware of national politics, except on the broadest level. This might prove useful for folks like me: The Washington Post has created an animated grid allowing you to compare the Democratic candidates for president.

On the literary blog front, Michael BÈrubÈ has endorsed offers an ironic endorsement of Lieberman , but and Geoffrey Schramm, who calls Lieberman a “Republicrat”, writes (scroll down)

I’m just hoping that once a clear contender emerges from the hog pile everyone will come together. Let’s face it–this election is about getting Bush out of the White House. And those feckless Naderites who whined that there was little difference between Bush and Gore should be forced to go door-to-door and apologize to the American people and then plead on their hands and knees that everyone vote for the democratic candidate.

Frankly, I agree with Geoffrey. Assuming Shrub is voted out of office, the next four-year presidential cycle will have to be devoted to repairing all the damage he’s done domestically and internationally. Just for starters, we’ve gone from a budget surplus to an enormous debt that promises to keep growing with the next several years of expenditures in Iraq and in space, and our standing internationally has plummeted at an alarming rate.

And I would personally contribute to a campaign that sent postcards to Nader supporters with the slogan, “Can you tell the difference now, sh*thead?” I’m all for a third (and fourth and fifth) political party in this country, but it seems to me that until you’ve built a strong local political base and put some congressmen and -women and senators in office, it’s irresponsible to throw your vote behind a third-party presidential candidate who, if elected, would have no natural allies in the legislative branch.

Finally, if you’re not reading Andy Cline’s blog, Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal, you should be.