It is amusing to read the constant Clinton/Bush comparisons, as though honesty and other personal attributes are some sort of competitive disciplines.
I think that using other politicians as a yardstick to measure the honesty of any given politician is going to give somewhat warped results.
As CanadaSucks points out earlier, politicians routinely bend the truth, sometimes in the interests of national security, sometimes in the interests of pursuing a nefarious agenda in foreign policy, which may not be palatable to the general public, and sometimes in the interests of avoiding the heat when having a bit on the side.
A challenge to all - pull away the backdrop of the Clinton and his administration and try to judge the Bush and his administration on their own merits and failings.
You may find that George is not so honest, based on more objective standards.
On the plus find, when you remove the Clinton comparison, you may find that George is not as bad a speaker as you had thought.
