POLL: Americans Trust United Nations More Than Bush On Iran

[RedEarth]

POLL: Americans Trust United Nations More Than Bush On Iran
More bad news for President Bush: the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that Americans put more confidence in the United Nations to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons than they do the Bush administration.

How confident are you in the Bush administration’s ability to handle the situation in Iran?

– Very or Somewhat Likely: 45%
– Not Too Confident or Not At All Confident: 55%

How confident are you in the United Nations’ ability to handle the situation in Iran?

– Very or Somewhat Likely: 47%
– Not Too Confident or Not At All Confident: 51%

Two other responses from the poll explain why President Bush isn’t trusted. By nearly 40-point margins, Americans fear President Bush won’t do enough to address the problem, and that he’s likely to rush into war:

How concerned are you that the U.S. will not do enough to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

– Very Concerned or Somewhat Concerned: 67%
– Not Too Concerned or Not Concerned At All: 30%

How concerned are you that the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

– Very Concerned or Somewhat Concerned: 69%
– Not Too Concerned or Not Concerned At All: 30%

Still figuring out how all this fits into Karl Rove’s “strong on defense” strategy for ‘06. We’ll keep you posted.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/14/iran-nuclear-poll/

[Peace Patriot]

1. These stats are very like the ones three years ago, prior to the invasion

of Iraq, in Feb. 2003: 58% of the American people opposed Bush's war on Iraq way back then--before it started, before all the lies were exposed, and before the full horror and cost of it were known. They didn't trust Bush THEN!

About half of that 58% were against the war outright. The other half would only agree if it were a UN peacekeeping mission--that is, a mission with world consensus, not unilateral war by Bush.

I have never forgotten that stat.

So, how is it that we had a war anyway (or a slaughter--would be more accurate), and then the country allegedly voted for Bush?

Opposition to Bush's war has hardly changed over the last three years except to go up. It dipped once, briefly, right after the invasion with US troops at max risk, then went right back up to nearly 60% where it stayed throughout the election year 2004, and is even higher today.

To me, this is one of the most convincing external proofs of a stolen election in 2004. Other such stats show 63% (!) of the American people opposed to torture "under any circumstances" (May '04). In fact, on ALL major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, the opposition is 60% or higher, and has been for the last two years.

US policy is completely disconnected from the will of the American people, most of whom believe that military action is sometimes necessary, but should always be a last resort, and should never be unilateral and pre-emptive (unless the country is under direct attack). Our opinions DON'T MATTER. This is extremely disturbing, and it is directly connected, in my view, to the fact that this junta does not owe its retention of power to "we, the people," but rather to Bush's buds at Diebold and ES&S who are counting all the votes with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls.

It seems a no-brainer to me. And I guess our Democratic Party leaders--who have been COMPLETELY SILENT about this new, privatized, Bushite-controlled, NON-TRANSPARENT election system--have no brains--or else they are very, very corrupt. I know of at least three anti-war candidates whom our Party leaders have pressured out of running, or tried to. This may be the brick wall that we are all keep beating our heads against: Too many of our top Party leaders like Bush's war. They, too, profit from the military-industrial complex. They, too, want the US to occupy the Middle East. And they don't mind Bush taking the rap for the costs and the deaths. They maybe even threw the election.

I cannot otherwise explain their baffling lack of objection to two rightwing Bushite corporations (Diebold and ES&S) counting all the votes in secret. And I think the better Party leaders are getting bullied and silenced about the election system, and some are now beholden to Diebold/ES&S themselves, and/or to overly powerful local/state election officials, with elections having become a sort of voodoo that they perform behind closed doors.

Anybody got any other ideas? HOW, with numbers like these, can the Bush regime be rattling sabers at Iran, with Democrats acting like an echo chamber? "Bad, bad Iran" (whose democracy we destroyed in 1953). "Bad, bad Iran" (which we have scared the shit out of, by invading helpless Iraq next door, thus massing the US military machine right on their border). Who is "bad"?

Back up to Feb. 2003: HOW, with numbers like those, could Bush have gone ahead and invaded Iraq, with half the Democratic members of Congress voting for it?