False Statements Before War

T

TFinalshot

Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-08 AT 09:09AM (MST)[p]Okay cool aid drinkers, put down the cups, shake off the hangover for just a minute, and read this story about IRAQ - dont confuse this story with terrorism, or afganistan or OBL, or the real war on Terror - this story is about, "did the president and his administration lie about Iraq" - the answer, according to this journalist, may surprise some of you.




False Statements Before War, Study Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL,


WASHINGTON (Jan. 23) - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.


The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President ##### Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements - amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts - was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists - indeed, even some entire news organizations - have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

On the Net:

Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/
 
Thanks for the read.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Pro you're taking this all to well, what gives? you can't tell me you flushed the kool aid out of your system that fast.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-08 AT 09:54AM (MST)[p]Here are the questions I have:

If the Administration was misleading the country and those sitting on the both the House and Senate Intelligence Committee's are looking at the same intel, why didn't they speak up then? Why didn't members of those committee's stand up and say this is a concocted war and that congress had a Constitutional duty to check the President?

Why didn't George Tenet resign rather then go along with the run up to war?

I have a hard time believing that news organizations that have vast global information gathering capabilities and an obligation to not just go along to get along with the administratio would willingly participate.

Why should I ever have any faith in the news media or any politian if it takes 5 years to figure this out? I think the media is as guilty as the Administration in the run up to the war, if not more guilty.

Don't give me the line that they didn't want to be seen as anti American. Democratic law makers in both the House and Senate are sophiscated enough and politically savvy enough to present their case to the public and sell their ideas without being precieved as anti troop or anti American.

To me this appears to be a journalist attempt at absolving everyone who had oversight or constitutional authority or a civic responibility to raise objections to the war, from any wrong doing.

Also hindsight is always 20/20 and while it can seem to make things so simple in retrospect that does not mean that the Administration didn't believe that Saddam was a threat. Saddam could have stopped the war simply by allowing the UN in to ensure that no WMD existed. He played a high stakes game of brinkmanship and miscalculated.

I guess I take this with a rather large and distasteful grain of salt. If the media got it so wrong for so long why should I give this report much weight?

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-08 AT 10:32AM (MST)[p]I do too, but I guess this is exactly why we need to be more careful in the future, especially when it comes to killing innocent humans.

I dont trust either side now that the wolf is out. . .

I dont think there was an eminent thread from Sadam on our nation, so we could have taken a little more time before we started killing and being killed -- not withstanding the UN resolutions, because you cant believe in our strong military and our approach to killing then step back and defend UN and still keep any level of respect.
 
OK - I will admit to being in support of this war from the very beginning, but not necesarily because I "drank the cool-aid". And I find this study a little ironic as it comes from the Center for Public Integrity. Data collection is all fine and good, but let the data speak for itself, don't try to spin in and then say it is non-biased Public Integrity.

Here's my point:

>False Statements Before War, Study Says
>
>By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL,
>
>
>WASHINGTON (Jan. 23) - A study
>by two nonprofit journalism organizations
>found that President Bush and
>top administration officials issued hundreds
>of false statements about the
>national security threat from Iraq
>in the two years following
>the 2001 terrorist attacks.
>
>
>The study concluded that the statements
>"were part of an orchestrated
>campaign that effectively galvanized public
>opinion and, in the process,
>led the nation to war
>under decidedly false pretenses."


OK - that is a biased opinion that also serves to skew the very data he collected. Good that he collected data but to spin it like this undermines the very pretenses of the study and its inherent "integrity"

>The study was posted Tuesday on
>the Web site of the
>Center for Public Integrity, which
>worked with the Fund for
>Independence in Journalism.
>
>White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did
>not comment on the merits
>of the study Tuesday night
>but reiterated the administration's position
>that the world community viewed
>Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as
>a threat.
>
>"The actions taken in 2003 were
>based on the collective judgment
>of intelligence agencies around the
>world," Stanzel said.

Looks like everyone - (the media especially!) got caught up in this. They CHOSE to run the stories and not check all the facts either. Oh and by the way, Hussein's refusal to let inspectors in and verify these claims peacefully felt like a threat, smelled like a threat, and was treated like one as well not only by the US but by the WORLD community! He defied the UN for years and years and abused the diplomatic process badly using it when it benefitted him. He was a terrible cruel tyranic despot who glutted himself on his countries riches while his people languished in poverty. If you want to blame the war on someone, blame it on him. He de-centered the poles of power in his country and caused the very divisions that are rampant there now. Whether or not the Bush Administration knew the exact right reasons for invading, it was still the right thing to do. Saddam was replaced and spin it however you want democracy has a chance and is working there now! Everyone expects Iraq to be better overnight and it just ain't gonna happen! It may take 50 years or more to repair the damage SADDAM did!

So this study, "integrity" aside, does nothing to persuade me about Iraq.

UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
 
T,

I guess I don't remember NATO resolutions. Refresh my memory and the deal with NATO.

Nemont
 
"It was the right thing to do" is the last argument that can be made in Bush's defense and the only one that can't be proven wrong with intel.

If it was the right thing to do why don't we do the right thing everywhere else ? what makes Iraqis so special and worthy of all our attention? tell me why an Iraq life is so much more valuble than an African life, we can't even see fit to send enough medical supplies or food to save their life let alone start a war costing trillions to stop genocide. the "right think to do" really means the last excuse I've got, I suppose our compassion for Iraqis is why Regan helped Saddam gain power in the first place also. one could almost think we're self serving if you didn't know any better, but no we just flat love those darn Iraqis.
 
Well stated Roy.

dude, I am just trying to 'get along' with my fellow MM folks. I am pretty sure you, TF, FTW, and others left of me know where I stand on this, so why beat a dead horse?

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
More media bullship!

Another case of, " I didn't have anything to do with it". Nemont hit it right on. The ENTIRE government and most of the media aided and abetted this war and trying to dodge the issue now is chickenship. At least I have the balls to admit that I voted for GWB....wish I hadn't, but I did.

HERE COMES THE RANT!

I personally think that this war is wrong and we have NO reason to be there except for the oil and since we ain't bringing home that oil, we need to leave.

I could care less about what the ragheads do to each other. Hell, I'd like to whack a few of them myself, when I see them on the news, burning our flag and waving their RPG's.

We have about 3500 dead servicemen and probably 30,000 wounded in some form or another.........for what? I have been disabled for longer than most MM'rs been alive, from some other useless war and this one is going to end no differently.

The Democracy card won't play with me. They don't want it and what gives us the right to force it on them anyway?
 
>T,
>
>I guess I don't remember NATO
>resolutions. Refresh my memory
>and the deal with NATO.
>
>
>Nemont


I meant UN, I said NATO I think because I just was reading an article about NATO, sorry for the mixup and confusion, and thanks for your help. . .
 
Number 1, what Roy said.
Number 2, I dont give a rats a$%
Number 3, Yes it was and still is the right thing to do.
Number 4, History will look back and say "wow Bush was right"




?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
47978c447ff27732.jpg



"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
I knew that was coming but as usual you are both wrong.

It is simply that I can not stand the rest of the world or what they think of the USA. I could care less. So any excuse we can come up with to put an a%^ whoopin on our detractors I am all for. Especially a slimmy mass murderer thug like Sadam. In fact I beleive we need to invade Noth Korea and Iran simultaneously and be done with it. Next round up all the Muslims in this country just like we did the Japanese durring WWII and put them in concentration camps, then on boats and ship their sorry buts home.
Extreeme.................I'd say so but thats ols school USA, the way it ought to be before the pussification of the country set in with FDR and his New friggin Deal and LBJ's Great friggin Scociety!!!!



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
Okay, it is true, 202 does not believe in nor is he any part of evolution. . . ;-)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-08 AT 01:12PM (MST)[p]Let's take'em one at a time Nemont!

"If the Administration was misleading the country and those sitting on the Intelligence Committees are looking at the same intel, why didn't they speak up then?"

1. The question and answer are in the sentence. It's because the admin. (Pres. V.P. Cabinet Advisors) were providing misleading information to the Intelligence Committees.

What's to speak up about, the CIA is supposed to be a non-partisan department? Garbage in, garbage out. The information was false, vague, and speculative in nature. But was presented to congress and the U.N. in a Slam-dunk format.

2. Tenet did resign, wrote a book, read it. Tenet warned George, Dck, Hadley, Wolfiwitz, about Chilabi, yet who was at the 2004 inauguration speech seated next to Laura. Tenet was and is a spineless disgrace that hung out in hopes he would be vindicated.

3-4. The main stream media would agree wholeheartedly that they dropped the ball. The media was riding the tide of 9/11 and was no different than the congress. There was no open media access in Iraq at the time. Our own CIA has stated over and over again we have little to no intelligencia in that region of the world.
The media had no way to challenge the information given the totalitarian control of the Iraqi media.

There was a lot of print media outlets questioning the run-up to the war, but the main stream broadcast media simply shrugged it off as partisan media.

As for trusting politicians, well you know the answer to that. Gulf of Tonkin is just one example of an admin. led dis-information campaign

5. The Dems were and are Head-Shy. It was a political loser for the Dems. The most profound example was France's objections, questioning the intelligence, questioning the rush to invasion. The French were Iraq's largest trading partner giving the French the most access for information and intelligence of the country. They were greeted with Freedom Fries, Boycotts, and Wine being dumped in the gutter. It only took George 4 years to say, "Yes, you can support the troops, without supporting the war.

6. When a small group of powerful individuals set out to be deceitful and are controlling the flow of information who do you blame? It's like a guy that fools around on his wife with the assistance of all of their mutual friends. Do you then turn around and blame the wife for not knowing?

7. Saddam's threat was more economic, by changing the price per barrel to the Euro from the dollar. First order of business by Bremmer, re-establishing the price per barrel back to the dollar. Saddam did gamble, but it's the old saying, It's better for a leader to be strong and wrong, than to be seen as right and weak.

8. You shouldn't! But hindsight being 20/20 and facts being facts it hard not to at least acknowledge the report's credibility factor.
 
>Let's take'em one at a time!
>
>
>"If the Administration was misleading the
>country and those sitting on
>the Intelligence Committee's are looking
>at the same intel, why
>didn't they speak up then?"
>
>
>1. The question and answer are
>in the sentence. It's because
>the admin. (Pres. V.P. Cabinet
>Advisors) were providing misleading information
>to the Intelligence Committees.
>
>What's to speak up about, the
>CIA is supposed to be
>a non-partisan department? Garbage in,
>garbage out. The information was
>false, vague, and speculative in
>nature. But was presented to
>congress and the U.N. in
>a Slam-dunk format.

The White House does not provide the intel or raw data that the House and Senate Intelligence Committee's get to see. They do not provide the on the ground intel gather nor does the White House get to review what committee members get to see.


>2. Tenet did resign, wrote a
>book, read it. Tenet warned
>George, Dck, Hadley, Wolfiwitz, about
>Chilabi, yet who was at
>the 2004 inauguration speech seated
>next to Laura. Tenet was
>and is a spineless disgrace
>that hung out in hopes
>he would be vindicated.

Tenet was DCI from July of July 11, 1997 until he submitted his resignation in June of 2004. He either was a total and complete hypocrit, a pathlogic liar or supported and believed in the intel used to go to war. An otherwise ethical public servant would have had to tender his resignation to show his feelings toward what was going on, like the guys over at the Justice dept. that resigned rather the authorize the president's domestic spying program


>
>3-4. The main stream media would
>agree wholeheartedly that they dropped
>the ball. The media was
>riding the tide of 9/11
>and was no different than
>the congress. There was no
>open media access in Iraq
>at the time. Our own
>CIA has stated over and
>over again we have little
>to no intelligencia in that
>region of the world.
>The media had no way to
>challenge the information given the
>totalitarian control of the Iraqi
>media.
>
>There was a lot of print
>media outlets questioning the run-up
>to the war, but the
>main stream broadcast media simply
>shrugged it off as partisan
>media.

I am not going to absolve the media from what there function is. In addition if the media is part of the problem why isn't there an outcry to get rid of the reporters and news guys who helped take us to war.

>As for trusting politicians, well you
>know the answer to that.
>Gulf of Tonkin is just
>one example of an admin.
>led dis-information campaign


>5. The Dems were and are
>Head-Shy. It was a political
>loser for the Dems. The
>most profound example was France's
>objections, questioning the intelligence, questioning
>the rush to invasion. The
>French were Iraq's largest trading
>partner giving the French the
>most access for information and
>intelligence of the country. They
>were greeted with Freedom Fries,
>Boycotts, and Wine being dumped
>in the gutter. It only
>took George 4 years to
>say, "Yes, you can support
>the troops, without supporting the
>war.

So the dems are just a pawn of GWB's? Come on with their political handlers and slick media presentation the Dems could come up with something better then we were off our game because the French were saying don't go. The political parties love to tear each other down. I think the opposite is true the war is a winner for the Dems, look at the current make up of Congress. They were just too lily livered to stand their ground. Therefore they need neither my support nor my money.

>6. When a small group of
>powerful individuals set out to
>be deceitful and are controlling
>the flow of information who
>do you blame? It's like
>a guy that fools around
>on his wife with the
>assistance of all of their
>mutual friends. Do you then
>turn around and blame the
>wife for not knowing?

How does the Administration control the flow of anything in the world of with access to the internet and 24 hour a day news.


>7. Saddam's threat was more economic,
>by changing the price per
>barrel to the Euro from
>the dollar. First order of
>business by Bremmer, re-establishing the
>price per barrel back to
>the dollar. Saddam did gamble,
>but it's the old saying,
>It's better for a leader
>to be strong and wrong,
>than to be seen as
>right and weak.

Do you really think that the OPEC Countries would have followed suit by pricing their oil in Euros? I think that Saddam was a long time thorn in the side of Washington. I supported the war and still have a hard time saying it is worth fighting while my family members are deployed there. I also don't subscribe to all the conspiracy theories and other goofiness that is out there regarding the reason we went to war.


>8. You shouldn't! But hindsight being
>20/20 and facts being facts
>it hard not to at
>least acknowledge the report's credibility
>factor.

Again the Administration is a lame duck and politically weak therefore easy targets but if this guy has so much credibility and facts why didn't he write this article in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. The info has used has been out there since then.
 
>"It was the right thing to
>do" is the last argument
>that can be made in
>Bush's defense and the only
>one that can't be proven
>wrong with intel.
>
> If it was the right
>thing to do why don't
>we do the right thing
>everywhere else ? what makes
>Iraqis so special and worthy
>of all our attention? tell
>me why an Iraq life
>is so much more valuble
>than an African life, we
>can't even see fit to
>send enough medical supplies or
>food to save their life
>let alone start a war
>costing trillions to stop genocide.
>the "right think to do"
>really means the last excuse
>I've got, I suppose our
>compassion for Iraqis is why
>Regan helped Saddam gain power
>in the first place also.
>one could almost think we're
>self serving if you didn't
>know any better, but no
>we just flat love those
>darn Iraqis.

That is the current liberal line to toe for this argument. Exactly what all the vegan/anti-logging/anti-deodorant/anti-authority/anti-military recruiters on campus/anti-more than three sheets of toilet paper using/carbon footprint reducing/dope smoking/never had to work a day in their life/hemp beanie wearing/ liberal college punk because they can't think for themselves and don't know any better and think it might help them get laid lackey is saying about this because they have read it in some "underground" publication or liberal website. I hear it (and smell them) every day on the streets in Austin and have been doing so for five years. They just keep saying the same thing over and over and over. So....who's drinking the punch now?

And - we are doing the "right thing" in many countries all over the world. Life is just as valuable there as it is in Iraq. It is not about that. It is about world security. Most of these conflicts in Africa are not a threat to world or US security. Iraq was - even if Saddam was bluffing - he still had his tail raised and his teeth bared. It sure felt like he was going to bite!

Also - sometimes that "right thing" doesn't mean invasion and regime change, but sometimes it does. Remember Liberia? What about Pakistan? We pretty much forced Musharraff's hand through diplomacy and after the Bhuto assination, will be very heavily handed in the democratic process through diplomacy - we can't let him turn into a despot. How about Haiti - we are stabilizing things there and it is getting better daily. Most of the conflicts in Africa that you speak of are tribal and territorial conflicts - race wars that the central government has little power to stop or is allowing to happen due to corruption and greed. In most places we are doing what we can but few of these countries are world powers. Iraq is different because prior to 1991 it had the 4th largest army in the world that did not get totally destroyed until 2003. So yes it was a threat to world and United States security. Saddam had threatened the US multiple times, and yes we started it in the 80's and yes we should have finished it right in 1991. Glad we got it done in 2003. If he didn't have nukes then, he damn sure had plans, dreams and aspirations to build them. If he didn't have lunch with Osama Bin Laden every week, he sure as hell was cheering him on and letting his brain-washed followers train in the desert. The truth was we didn't know how bad Saddam really was, in these other countries, we do. Things will get better there - sit back and watch. We did the right thing at the right time. The rest of the world will just have to wait their turn.

I hate war. It is evil and sad, but unfortunately it is sometimes necessary and right.



UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
 
Excellent post Roy! Bravo!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Hey Roy!

Roy without commenting on your response to Hdude, I am with you until you get to "Iraq is different because..."

Iraq was a threat to our allies/interests in the region, but not to the U.S. or the World. Hell they don't have a navy or any speakable air force for goodness sake unless you call 12 outdated migs and 20 ski boats air/naval superiority.

Sure Saddam entertained Nuke capability, wouldn't you? It seems like the only way to ensure the U.S. won't invade. After the Iran-Iraq war and the butt kicking out of Kuwait, the 4th largest army was pretty much a paper tiger.

There is a higher chance of Kucinich and Cheney entering into gay marriage, then OBL and Saddam getting along. Saddam stood for everything a Wahabiist Sunni would hate in a Muslim leader.

When the last soldier leaves Iraq I will sit back with the rest of the world and the families of lost loved one that served in action to see if it was worth it.

If it was...great! But if it wasn't and bloody chaos ensues to new heights, leading to further destabililzation in the region and to our allies, then what? Do we simply except the "My bad" from all of the war supporters and the Bush Admin.

I hate war too, and yes it is evil and sad.

War is necessary at times I agree, which is why it should always be the very very last resort. There is no coming back after the trigger gets pulled.
 
Saddam was in a bird cage with the world watching him, sanctioning him and UN inspectors crawling over his country. your assessment of the threat he posed at the time we asked the UN to clear out is laughable, just what was he going to do? this notion that we had to strike first is pure crap, if he didn't use the WMD's he didn't have before we stuck inspectors everywhere anyone short of a moron might gather he really didn't have them. Bush knew if he gave the UN to long they'ld have time to Prove as Blix suspected there were no WMD's, that's obvious .

Nobody is saying Saddam was a good guy but the cost for our stupidity and impatience is too high, most people already know it and history will prove it. the lies being discussed today are further proof to anyone too kool aid saturated not have already figured it out. polish this turd all you want it's never going to shine the way you want it to, someday when this war is over history will show it as a mistake and Bush as a loser president. pick a date to review it and see if I'm right , I'll bet a beer on it.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom