What's the Standard of Proof When Boys Will Die??

In Ohio, Iraq Questions Shake Even Some of Bush's Faithful
By JAMES DAO

INCINNATI, July 16 - Jim Stock voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and says
that if the election were held tomorrow, he'd vote for President Bush again.
But he says he is troubled by indications that the White House used
questionable intelligence about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Africa to
push for war in Iraq. And he wants a fuller accounting.

"I'd like to know whether there was any deliberate attempt to deceive," said
Mr. Stock, 70, a retired public school administrator. "My feeling is there
was not. But there was an eagerness in the administration to pursue the
battle and to believe information that wasn't quite good."

"It's painful to say," he added, "but I don't like where this is coming
down."

If there are dark political clouds for Mr. Bush in this largely socially
conservative region, they are forming around voters like Mr. Stock. Though
they supported the war in Iraq, they now say they are growing uncomfortable
with reports that the White House might have used inaccurate intelligence to
justify it.

Many people interviewed here in the past two days said they did not question
Mr. Bush's personal credibility. Still, they said, they wanted to know more
about what happened and support Democratic calls for a Congressional inquiry
into how suspect intelligence information got into the State of the Union
address on Jan. 28.

"When you are taking lives, it should be nothing but the truth," Matt
Zurkuhlen, 25, a business consultant, said outside a coffee shop in the
Mount Lookout neighborhood here. "We rushed in there."

Americans are voicing increasing concerns about Iraq, national polls show. A
CBS News survey conducted early last week before the political storm over
unreliable intelligence intensified, showed that 56 percent of those polled
believe the administration overestimated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Less than a majority said the war would be worth its costs if such weapons
were not found, down from 56 percent in May.

In conversations here with nearly three dozen voters, the vast majority said
they generally like President Bush and believe he is doing a good job. Many
people said they remained convinced that Iraq posed a threat, even though no
chemical or biological weapons have been found. And there was a broad
consensus that the result of the war - the ousting of a brutal dictator -
was good for Iraq as well as the United States.

"Whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction is besides the point,"
Joyce Allen, 71, a retired bank teller, said as she ate lunch with a friend
at Cincinnati's Museum Center. "The people there needed to be freed, and
somebody had to do it."

What Cincinnati and its suburbs think of Mr. Bush is of vital importance to
the White House because this is a swing region in a potential battleground
state. The city of Cincinnati voted for Vice President Al Gore in 2000, but
Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, gave 54 percent of its votes to
Mr. Bush. Ohio went somewhat narrowly for Mr. Bush, 50 percent to 46
percent.

The region's political significance was underscored in October when Mr. Bush
came to Cincinnati to deliver a major speech pressing his case for attacking
Iraq. In it, the president asserted that Saddam Hussein was building "an
arsenal of terror," that he already possessed chemical and biological
weapons, was "seeking" nuclear weapons and had "given shelter" to
terrorists.

But at the urging of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence,
a reference to the contentions that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium in
Africa was removed from the speech. Three months later, Mr. Bush made the
same declaration in his State of the Union address.

Most people interviewed here said they did not pay much attention to either
Mr. Bush's October appearance or State of the Union address. But for Bruce
Kleeberger, a bank official, the two speeches wove together many loose
threads and helped convince him of the need to attack Iraq.

Mr. Kleeberger, 44, said he remains convinced that the invasion was a good
thing, whether or not the president was wrong about Iraq's nuclear weapons
program. Eventually, he said, he believes prohibited weapons will be found
in Iraq.

"It would take many more mistakes for me to question the credibility and
decision-making of the government," he said. "We'd like to think
intelligence is 100 percent right 100 percent of the time. But it's a human
system and there's human error."

Others said some exaggeration by the Bush administration to justify the war
seemed acceptable.

"What is the advertising term for pumping something up?" asked Gary Botkins,
55, who works for the Internal Revenue Service. "Hype. The intelligence
community does it all the time. But I believe Saddam did have weapons. I
just wish they had found some."

Still, not everyone was so sanguine. "Bush was leaning on the C.I.A. to come
up with some dirt," said Charles Flanagan, 70, a Democrat and semi-retired
truck driver. "They should have given inspectors more time."

"I think his popularity is falling," he said of Mr. Bush, "and once people
find out the truth about this it's really going to drop."

Despite Democratic efforts to use the intelligence issue to undermine Mr.
Bush's credibility, most people interviewed here, including Democratic
voters, said they did not think Mr. Bush had knowingly used bad
intelligence. Most said they believed the president had been motivated by a
sincere desire to counter what he considered a real threat.

"There are always a lot of people involved in these things," said Jill
Switzer, 27, a church music director who said she would almost certainly not
vote for Mr. Bush in 2004. "I don't blame him."

She said she would like to see a "truth commission" investigate the dubious
Iraq intelligence. "If we are a country that upholds freedom and freedom of
speech, we should investigate so we can have confidence our system works."

Despite the growing casualties in Iraq, most people interviewed, including
those who had doubts about the war, said Mr. Bush should keep American
troops in Iraq to help stabilize the country.

"After all the death that occurred, what's the use in pulling out now?"
asked Ms. Allen, the retired bank teller. "Pulling out now would mean those
boys died in vain."

To the chagrin of staunch Democrats here, the Washington debate about
intelligence has received scant coverage in Cincinnati. But they might feel
heartened that most people questioned said they consider the economy, not
foreign policy, to be the most important issue on their 2004 campaign list.
And most said they consider it less than healthy.

	#1
Enceladus	What's the Standard of Proof When Boys Will Die?? In Ohio, Iraq Questions Shake Even Some of Bush's Faithful By JAMES DAO INCINNATI, July 16 - Jim Stock voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and says that if the election were held tomorrow, he'd vote for President Bush again. But he says he is troubled by indications that the White House used questionable intelligence about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Africa to push for war in Iraq. And he wants a fuller accounting. "I'd like to know whether there was any deliberate attempt to deceive," said Mr. Stock, 70, a retired public school administrator. "My feeling is there was not. But there was an eagerness in the administration to pursue the battle and to believe information that wasn't quite good." "It's painful to say," he added, "but I don't like where this is coming down." If there are dark political clouds for Mr. Bush in this largely socially conservative region, they are forming around voters like Mr. Stock. Though they supported the war in Iraq, they now say they are growing uncomfortable with reports that the White House might have used inaccurate intelligence to justify it. Many people interviewed here in the past two days said they did not question Mr. Bush's personal credibility. Still, they said, they wanted to know more about what happened and support Democratic calls for a Congressional inquiry into how suspect intelligence information got into the State of the Union address on Jan. 28. "When you are taking lives, it should be nothing but the truth," Matt Zurkuhlen, 25, a business consultant, said outside a coffee shop in the Mount Lookout neighborhood here. "We rushed in there." Americans are voicing increasing concerns about Iraq, national polls show. A CBS News survey conducted early last week before the political storm over unreliable intelligence intensified, showed that 56 percent of those polled believe the administration overestimated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Less than a majority said the war would be worth its costs if such weapons were not found, down from 56 percent in May. In conversations here with nearly three dozen voters, the vast majority said they generally like President Bush and believe he is doing a good job. Many people said they remained convinced that Iraq posed a threat, even though no chemical or biological weapons have been found. And there was a broad consensus that the result of the war - the ousting of a brutal dictator - was good for Iraq as well as the United States. "Whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction is besides the point," Joyce Allen, 71, a retired bank teller, said as she ate lunch with a friend at Cincinnati's Museum Center. "The people there needed to be freed, and somebody had to do it." What Cincinnati and its suburbs think of Mr. Bush is of vital importance to the White House because this is a swing region in a potential battleground state. The city of Cincinnati voted for Vice President Al Gore in 2000, but Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, gave 54 percent of its votes to Mr. Bush. Ohio went somewhat narrowly for Mr. Bush, 50 percent to 46 percent. The region's political significance was underscored in October when Mr. Bush came to Cincinnati to deliver a major speech pressing his case for attacking Iraq. In it, the president asserted that Saddam Hussein was building "an arsenal of terror," that he already possessed chemical and biological weapons, was "seeking" nuclear weapons and had "given shelter" to terrorists. But at the urging of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, a reference to the contentions that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium in Africa was removed from the speech. Three months later, Mr. Bush made the same declaration in his State of the Union address. Most people interviewed here said they did not pay much attention to either Mr. Bush's October appearance or State of the Union address. But for Bruce Kleeberger, a bank official, the two speeches wove together many loose threads and helped convince him of the need to attack Iraq. Mr. Kleeberger, 44, said he remains convinced that the invasion was a good thing, whether or not the president was wrong about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Eventually, he said, he believes prohibited weapons will be found in Iraq. "It would take many more mistakes for me to question the credibility and decision-making of the government," he said. "We'd like to think intelligence is 100 percent right 100 percent of the time. But it's a human system and there's human error." Others said some exaggeration by the Bush administration to justify the war seemed acceptable. "What is the advertising term for pumping something up?" asked Gary Botkins, 55, who works for the Internal Revenue Service. "Hype. The intelligence community does it all the time. But I believe Saddam did have weapons. I just wish they had found some." Still, not everyone was so sanguine. "Bush was leaning on the C.I.A. to come up with some dirt," said Charles Flanagan, 70, a Democrat and semi-retired truck driver. "They should have given inspectors more time." "I think his popularity is falling," he said of Mr. Bush, "and once people find out the truth about this it's really going to drop." Despite Democratic efforts to use the intelligence issue to undermine Mr. Bush's credibility, most people interviewed here, including Democratic voters, said they did not think Mr. Bush had knowingly used bad intelligence. Most said they believed the president had been motivated by a sincere desire to counter what he considered a real threat. "There are always a lot of people involved in these things," said Jill Switzer, 27, a church music director who said she would almost certainly not vote for Mr. Bush in 2004. "I don't blame him." She said she would like to see a "truth commission" investigate the dubious Iraq intelligence. "If we are a country that upholds freedom and freedom of speech, we should investigate so we can have confidence our system works." Despite the growing casualties in Iraq, most people interviewed, including those who had doubts about the war, said Mr. Bush should keep American troops in Iraq to help stabilize the country. "After all the death that occurred, what's the use in pulling out now?" asked Ms. Allen, the retired bank teller. "Pulling out now would mean those boys died in vain." To the chagrin of staunch Democrats here, the Washington debate about intelligence has received scant coverage in Cincinnati. But they might feel heartened that most people questioned said they consider the economy, not foreign policy, to be the most important issue on their 2004 campaign list. And most said they consider it less than healthy.