Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000, he returned again and again to one theme: trust. ``You need someone in office who will tell the truth,'' Bush said in his final debate with Democratic rival Al Gore.

Today, the public's view of Bush's integrity has deteriorated precipitously, as measured by several recent polls. The drop has been caused mainly by one issue: doubts about the honesty of the case the president made to the U.S. public for invading Iraq in 2003.

``It's very bad for him,'' because Bush's integrity ``was his strength,'' said Bruce Buchanan, a government professor at the University of Texas in Austin who has followed Bush's career since his days as Texas governor. ``It's kind of like infidelity in a marriage. Once you've crossed that line and lost faith and trust, it's real hard to recover.''

Bush is waging a ferocious counterattack against Democratic critics who insist the White House twisted intelligence to make the case for war. With his ability to govern and his legacy at stake, the president and his top aides are accusing their adversaries of ``rewriting history'' for political gain.

Vice President Dick Cheney on Nov. 16 accused Democratic senators of making ``one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired.'' Bush on Nov. 14 called the attacks ``irresponsible'' and damaging to soldiers' morale.

It will be tough to reverse Bush's sagging poll numbers with such rhetoric, analysts say.

Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and strategist, said Bush's drop in credibility could hamstring his agenda. ``Trust matters because it affects everything you do,'' he said. ``If you don't have it, even easy things are hard.''

Turning to Republicans

Bush has turned to Republican lawmakers for help. On Nov. 9, he met with 19 legislators at the White House and asked them to join in an effort to change the image of the war. ``The president asked us to help him,'' said Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican. ``So I did my part on Veteran's Day,'' he said, by delivering two speeches in his home district.

LaHood said Bush and Cheney are hitting at their critics now because they ``know their message isn't resonating with the public.'' He added, ``If the president says the same thing enough and repeats it often enough, it may change public opinion.''

Democrats are pressing their attack. ``President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove must stop the orchestrated attack campaign they launched on Veteran's Day,'' Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, referring to Bush's chief political strategist. ``It's a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war.''

Murtha's Call

The growing frustration among Democrats -- even those once sympathetic to the war -- was brought home yesterday when Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha, a Vietnam War veteran and the top Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Referring to the fact that neither Bush nor Cheney served in Vietnam, and to their assertions that it is irresponsible for Democrats to criticize the war, Murtha said, ``I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.''

Perceptions of Bush as honest and trustworthy were key to his re-election last year. In a Los Angeles Times survey conducted in June 2004, Republican voters cited Bush's honesty and integrity as the top reason why they had a favorable impression of him, ahead of moral values and leadership.

Trust Eroded

Polls show Bush's trustworthiness has eroded as questions have mounted about the war in Iraq. A Pew Research Center poll taken last month showed 49 percent of adults considered Bush trustworthy, compared with 62 percent who said he was trustworthy in September 2003.

A Nov. 14 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll also found evidence of a slide in Bush's credibility; 46 percent of Americans said they believed Bush to be honest and trustworthy, compared with 56 percent who said so in April.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken Oct. 30-Nov. 2 showed 55 percent of Americans believe the administration intentionally misled the public in making the case for war with Iraq, while 44 percent felt the administration said what it believed to be true.

Administration officials, who repeatedly suggested before the war that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, have responded to the failure of inspectors to find evidence of a substantial Iraqi weapons program by saying many world leaders believed the same thing. They also say that Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq based on the same intelligence.

Skewed Picture?

Democrats and a growing number of Republicans such as Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, are again questioning whether the White House presented them with a skewed picture and shut out dissenting voices that would have undermined the case for ousting Saddam Hussein.

``Of course members of Congress did not have the same level of access that they had to the intelligence information,'' said Representative Howard Berman, a California Democrat.

Berman acknowledges that he was wrong in his own personal assessment of Hussein's weapons' capability, based both on what the Bush White House told him and from ``watching Saddam for 20 years and knowing what he had done.''

He says that the more the administration refuses to acknowledge ``they made some serious mistakes, the less people are going to trust'' Bush's integrity. That, he said, may undermine the U.S. as it tries to build a case for action to contain Iran's or North Korea's weapons' programs.

Debate Over Intelligence

Criticism of the administration has been fueled by postwar disclosures that, behind a facade of unity in the run-up to the war, U.S. officials were privately divided over Iraq's capabilities.

One example centers on the allegation that Hussein possessed mobile labs capable of producing biological weapons. The allegation figured prominently in former Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003 justifying military action against Iraq.

Powell presented the existence of such labs as established beyond doubt. In fact, analysts in Powell's own State Department had privately questioned this conclusion, although their views were de-emphasized in intelligence reports.

In a May 2004 interview with NBC, Powell acknowledged that the allegation about the labs was wrong. In an ABC interview in September of this year, he described the overall presentation as a ``blot'' on his record.

Similarly, Bush asserted in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had sought to acquire uranium in Africa. In fact, the Central Intelligence Agency privately expressed strong doubts about the accuracy of this assertion and had even acted to have it removed from a Bush speech given three months earlier. The White House later acknowledged that Bush shouldn't have made the claim.

Al-Qaeda

Critics have also focused on Bush's September 2002 description of Hussein as ``a man who loves to link up with al- Qaeda,'' and his assertion in October of that year that the U.S. had ``learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb- making and poisons and deadly gases.''

The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks concluded there was no evidence of a ``collaborative operational relationship'' between Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda and no concerted effort by Iraq to train or assist al-Qaeda operatives.

To contact the reporters on this story: Janine Zacharia in Washington at jzacharia@bloomberg.net; and Heidi Przybyla in Washington hprzybyla@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 18, 2005 01:33 EST