Most Americans Do Not Trust Bush on Iran

Most Americans Do Not Trust Bush on Iran

(Angus Reid Global Scan) â?? Many adults in the United States no longer have confidence in their president to deal with a potential crisis, according to a poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. 54 per cent of respondents say they do not trust George W. Bush to make the right decision about whether the country should go to war with Iran or not.

After being branded as part of an "axis of evil" by Bush in January 2002, Iran has contended that its nuclear program aims to produce energy, not weapons. 61 per cent of respondents in the U.S. believe the Islamic country will eventually get nuclear weapons.

In November 2004, the Iranian government announced a voluntary suspension of its uranium enrichment program following international pressure. In August 2005, Iran resumed uranium conversion activities at the Isfahan facility. In January, Iran removed the international seals from the Natanz site. 48 per cent of American respondents would support taking military action against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, while 40 per cent disagree.

Yesterday, Bush discussed the current state of affairs in Iran, declaring, "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and weâ??re working hard to do so. The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And thatâ??s why weâ??re working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with (Chinese president) Hu Jintao this Thursday. And weâ??ll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved."

Polling Data

Generally speaking, do you trust George W. Bush to make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran, or not?

Do not trust him
54%

Trust him
42%

Donâ??t know
4%

Overall, taking into consideration everything you have heard or read about the situation with Iran, do you think Iran will be stopped from getting nuclear weapons through diplomatic solutions, or only through military action, or do you think Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons?

Iran stopped through diplomatic solutions
15%

Iran stopped only through military action
12%

Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons
61%

Donâ??t know
12%

If Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iran?

Support strongly
28%

Support somewhat
20%

Oppose somewhat
17%

Oppose strongly
23%

Donâ??t know
12%

Source: Bloomberg / Los Angeles Times
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,357 American adults, conducted from Apr. 8 to Apr. 11, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...m/itemID/11612

I sure as hell don't trust that fucken fascist Bush, but he has to complete his mission for us.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060...5600-1912r.htm
Useful idiots...
By Diana West
April 21, 2006


How wunderbar, merveilleux and perfectly ripping that the European Union is creating a new "lexicon" to discuss Islam and terrorism so as never to conflate the two. The Telegraph tells us that EU officials -- having double-checked that George Orwell and his satirical pen are dead and gone -- are putting together a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalisation."
Islamic "radicalisation," that is. When it comes to dealing with Europe's Muslim populations, the old "Sticks and stones?" proverb is out, particularly the "words can never hurt me" part. These days, the update goes: "Say words that hurt me and I'll blow up a train." As an EU official explained non-emotively, "The basic idea is to avoid the use of improper words that could cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of radicalisation."
As they say Over There, What rot. Only hothouse EU officials could believe that words such as "Islamic terrorism" cause radicalization. Fanatical blood-lust (not to mention 72-virgin-lust) inspires acts labeled "Islamic terrorism," not the other way around. Only not in EU-land. "These words [Islamic terrorism] cannot sit side by side," Omar Faruk, a Muslim barrister and "advisor"tothe British government, told Reuters. The phrase "just creates a culture where terrorism actually is identifiedwith Islam," he continued. "That causes me a lot of stress."
And the EU certainly wouldn't want that. Stress leads to frustration, and frustration leads to radicalization, and radicalization leads to -- and here's where the new lexicon comes in -- to "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam." Take Flight 93: TheSeptember 11 hijackers might have invoked Allah 24 times in its final minutes (also causing what Mr. Faruk might recognize as "stress"), but the new lexicon would probably tell us that wasn't "Islamic terrorism," it was an Attack of the Terrorists Abusively Invoking Islam, not to mention Allah. Not only did the hijackers hijack a passenger jet, but they hijacked their religion.
This, of course, remains President Bush's general position. "I believe that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior," President Bush said yet again this month. Problem is -- to stick with the idiotic metaphor -- the "hijackers" have been piloting the plane for centuries, and the "passengers" have yet to take the controls. They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts.
The grand Western strategy? Not to notice. The Guardian recently reported on a Tehran "recruitment fair" for Islamic suicide bombers. The sponsoring group asked several hundred volunteers to complete forms specifying whether they wanted to murder Israelis, Americans, Brits, or, specifically, British author Salman Rushdie. As a spokesman said, "Britain and other European countries have a lot of disaffected Muslims who are ready. We understand the suspicion with which ... Western countries regard their Muslim populations. We don't condemn them for this because we believe every Muslim has the potential to turn into a bomb against the West."
The phrase "Muslim bomb potential" will surely give Mr. Faruk palpitations, but the Free World remains in denial. "Western diplomats played down the significance of the group's threat," the Guardian reported, "saying it was primarily a campaign to gather signatures of protest against Israel rather than recruit bombers." Is this some kind of a joke? Much of the news these days ends in such harsh quasi-punch lines. Fatah terrorists demand an apology of PA President Mahmoud Abbas for his "offense"-- condemning this week's Palestinian suicide bombing. Nuke-seeking Iran has an appointment with the United Nations Disarmament Conference -- as co-chairman. And then there was the story about the two al Qaeda fathers discussing their suicide-bomber sons -- namely, how kids today blow up so fast. Hang on a sec. That last one was a real joke, as told by John Vine, a senior Scottish policeman, at a gala dinner for the Perth Bar Association. It actually roused that small corner of the Western world to genuine outrage -- and not because everyone already had heard it. It was an "amazing gaffe," said the journalistic consensus. A "deeply offensive comment," commented a politician. Mr. Vine apologized ("profusely"), and the Muslim Council of Britain "welcomed the apology" (naturally).
I have to wonder on behalf of whom the MCB accepted the apology -- the Suicide-Bomber Dads of Al Qaeda support group? But never mind. Just wait until the non-emotive lexicon is in place. That'll quiet everything.