It's a question of trust

Once again the conservatives cry foul over a new ABC News/Washington Post poll that shows more Americans now think John Kerry would better handle the war on terror than George Bush would. The margin is slim, by one point, and that would fall into the margin of error. Their argument is about the methodology of the poll. But rather than blame the poll itself, I thought maybe I would try to figure out if there is any reason that Bush has lost 13 points of his support there, and why Americans could possibly find that Kerry is seen as more honest and trustworthy by a margin of 13 points.

Here's one. As reported earlier, the Bush administration misjudged its terror report numbers. How far were they off? By about half.

The state department said 625 people were killed in 2003, compared with the 307 it claimed in April.

(snip)

The number wounded leapt from 2,013 in 2002 to 3,646 last year. April's document had reported a fall to 1,593.

The death of our troops and civilians in Iraq were considered a part of war efforts and not counted in the terrorist attack figures. Does that mean the car bombs in Iraq are not terrorist attacks, but legitimate weapons of war now? Just curious as to how the Bush Administration would spin that one.

So there is news of poorly reported numbers, to be fair. Were their initial numbers "lies?" Well, technically yes. But I don't think they underreported on purpose, as revised numbers upwards would cause, oh, a story like this to appear and make the administration look bad.

Then of course there is the WMD we have yet to find.

And then there is the 9/11 commission finding. The very fact that so many thought this report nullified administration claims shows how cynically the administration sold them.

I give the Bushies credit, however, for being grammatically correct as they attempt to refute these claims. So while my level of trust continues in them falls, I would support them officiating next years Grammar Marathon.