POLL: Feel duped by Bush?

Remove all ads!

Just out of curiosity I wondered about the residual impressions after the war in Iraq.

After all the babbling on the boards about Bush, his neocon brains-for-hire and the "sexed-up" intel, the "spin" and the uranium from Niger affair - do you feel duped by Bush about the actual reasons for the war against Iraq? And: What do you think were, in your opinion, the actual reason for this war?

Question two has only one option - so if you think there were more reasons, please elaborate. Please stay neutral - this is a poll - there are other threads that give more room for rants

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 43 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Feel duped by Bush? (43 votes.)

Do you feel duped by Bush? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 37% (16)
* No - 63% (27)

What in your opinion is the most likely reason for the war on Iraq? (Choose 1)
* Pre-empively countering the threat of Saddam and his WMD - 7% (3)
* Saddam's ties to Al-Quaida or him handling WMDs to terrorist - 5% (2)
* Simply a regime change - 5% (2)
* Liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime - 2% (1)
* Saddam desire to get nukes - 2% (1)
* Saddam's lack of cooperation - 7% (3)
* Keeping a foot in the middle east while pulling out of Saudi-Arabia - 21% (9)
* The oil - 23% (10)
* The american empire - 16% (7)
* Revenge for 9/11 - 12% (5)

 

Na, I don't feel duped by Bush. Never believed him in the first place...
The main reason was probably to increase his chance of been re-elected, and of course for oil.

 

One of the reasons should have been to avenge the assassination attempt of his father by Saddam. That would have been my choice.

 

An american journalist was on Radio 5 the other day talking about this subject, and his take on it was it was more than likely revenge. Revenge not for the attempted killing of Bush Snr, revenge for 9/11.

Why Iraq? "Because we could." was his reply. Someones butt had to be kicked, and Saddam was always high on the list of very kickable butts indeed.

Possible I suppose, even if there is no connection between Saddam and Osama. If the need for vengance was high enough on the agenda of the powers that be, then just about possible I suppose.

 

RotKU, you beat me to it. Things happened so fast following the "Axis of Evil" comment in the State of the Union address that there was no way they weren't covering something up.

I don't know that revenge for 9/11 or the assassination attempt is the real reason, either. I think the Bushes saw their opportunity to create a Republican version of the Kennedy politcal dynasty do down the drain in 1990, and were trying to recover.

Thanks a lot, guys.

 

I must admit I didn't feel duped either since I never believed in him to begin with. Perhaps if there had been 3 options (splitting not feeling duped into believing and disbelieving bush's statements).

as for the cause, I think it's a mix. I voted oil, but I feel it needs more explanation.
I believe that it's a cocktail of most the options. Like Bel said, the president's family name, then Saddam being an irritation to "world democracy" in general, and the oil. Of course some extra venting (war) with someone could work as well after 11/9 (and I mean 11/9/01?! (dont remember the year). I blatantly say that the other way around is a serious disagreement with common sense and is a habit people must have grown through school or somewhere else).

As for weapons of mass destruction.. well Saddam might have them, but seriously. Basing a war on something so loose seems rediculous (as it was). If he did have them, I don't see why a war would prevent him from using them either.

 

I never did believe that the reason was WMD's, but I still think I was duped. I have no doubt that the Bush administration will say anything they think they can get away with, so how can I tell what is truth and what is a lie?

The reason for the attack?
What is the reason behind the reason? Perhaps you say it was Saddam Hussein's lack of cooperation, but then why did the US want him to cooperate so badly?
IMHO a fundamental reason is that USA wants to have control of the world. Not military conquest, but control. They want jurisdiction of all people worldwide.

 

As others, I don't feel duped, I never believed him.

As for reasons for the war, I think pulling out of Saudi Arabia is one, oil is another, seeing the PNAC website I can't help from thinking someone in Bush's crew has an American empire in mind. I also feel Iraq was a move against the interests and credibility of other world class powers such as the EU, Russia or China and maybe even against the UN.

 

Not duped, because I didn't believe it. But I am still pouting because, imo, it was a complete dishonest manoeuvre.

Reasons for the war: Reshaping the Middle-East, revenge for 9/11 (even if there was no connection at all to Iraq), get a better position versus Saudi-Arabia and Iran and oil.

 

I feel vaguely angry, but I don't really know the reasons or what could be reasons for the deal with Iraq. Mostly I'm mad that he's getting our men killed, and some in Congress don't think any more troops are needed, that 'one of our troops could handle several Iraqis.' Chances are, they couldn't. And why risk it?

I'm really pissed off about the doctored environmental report however. We thought about impeaching Clinton when he lied about his lovelife (really, why did we even care in the first place?!) but Bush lies about global warming and other important issues and what happens? Pretty much nothing. I certainly don't hear anybody calling "impeach him!"

 

Like most who responded, I never believed him in the first place. But I thought they would find something, no matter how meager. They didn't even meet my expectations and those were pretty low.

 

They couldn't impeach Bush, because the House and Senate are more or less ruled by the republicans. But I think that Bush is ejected from the 2004 elections.

 

Aren't the polls in his favour?

 

RotKU - Yes, he is doing well in the polls, but he took a hit as a result of the WMD issue. Without the 9/11 attack he would probably be tied to a poll, or was that pole?

[ August 17, 2003, 05:14: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

i never believed him as many others here. i think it was a bit of everything but mainly for better position versus the saudi's and the oil and revenge for 9/11

 

I have not been duped by Mr. Bush because simply i never believed him and the excuses he gave for the attack against Iraq.
I believe that the main reason is oil since i thought that the attack on Afghanistan was the "revenge" or better yet retaliation for 9/11.
But i'm certain there are also other darker reasons for this political stance this administration is following, and i do fear the choices that are made for me without me.

 

Never believed him, so I don't feel duped. Too bad the second part of the poll doesn't allow multiple choices - I feel several apply, namely, maintaining Amercan presence and the oil.