In terms of civil debate, this thread has been an excellent example of how things should be done. For it to degenerate into some kind of name calling would be very wrong.
In terms of trust and politicians, the terms are generally thought to be mutually exclusive. Irrespective of the nationality or political persuasion of any democratically elected politician, there will always be a number of people who can mount a case to show that every politician fails to perform in some way.
In the case of George Bush Junior, given the size of the US, and the visibility to the world, there are more people able to enter the debate. In the case of any smaller nation there will be less people taking up either a postive or negative view.
Scot comedian Billy Connelly said " the mere fact that someone wanted to be a politician should disqualify them from being able to be one". And while said in jest, I think that this sums up how most people feel about politicians generally. If that is only half way true, it shows the validity of democracy, and how fortunate we are to have a choice.
that choice was not available in Iraq.