935 false statements on Iraq (1 Viewer)

MikeyF

True Dat
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 1998
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
424
Location
Walker, LA
Offline
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET

<!-- end storyhdr --> WASHINGTON - 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 Dick 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

:rude:
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
30,376
Reaction score
23,163
Online
It took someone this long to reach this conclusion?

It was obvious at the time that it was all B.S. to anyone who cared to look into it. Must be timed for election season.

The lies were ordered "from the top down":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmakyb5bZec
 
Last edited:

'79 Saints

Guest
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
3,119
Reaction score
0
Age
53
Location
The Negative Zone
Offline
You can ask these familes what the point is:

http://icasualties.org/oif/
Ummm... several of my friends went to Iraq... so the so-called "lies" for sending them were irrelevant to the job they had to do. They did it, and it should be a better place for their efforts.

They aren't the first, nor the last people to die for human error.
 

Jonesy77

Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
12,651
Reaction score
6,889
Age
43
Offline
There's nothing wrong with issuing false statements if you don't know they are false. "The Saints will win the Superbowl next year" may be a false statement, but it's not a lie unless I intend to deceive.

Does the article prove that they knew the statement's were false when made? If not, it's just a canard.

And to amend, of course there is reckless disregard of the truth, which you will have better luck with fitting Iraq into. And maybe that's what the admin did wrong, but merely making "false" statements alone is not culpable behavior.
 
Last edited:

'79 Saints

Guest
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
3,119
Reaction score
0
Age
53
Location
The Negative Zone
Offline
There's nothing wrong with issuing false statements if you don't know they are false. "The Saints will win the Superbowl next year" may be a false statement, but it's not a lie unless I intend to deceive.

Does the article prove that they knew the statement's were false when made? If not, it's just a canard.
Well said... the point of this story is to once again, stir up a debate on whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place.

That's why I implied that it's a little late to debate that issue again. We've done it before, and the decision was made. Now, we have to make the best of that decision.
 

champ76

Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
7,640
Offline
I'm sure DD will have much more on this but the "study" on which the article is based was funded by a George Soros foundation. The foundation "study" is hardly objective, contains old and discredited assertions and I'm not sure what the point is now. Didn't we have a "Bush lied, people died" election in 2004?
 

varanook

Toad
Joined
Oct 4, 1998
Messages
5,196
Reaction score
352
Age
46
Location
Ascension Parish
Offline
I did not have sex with that woman-Time to impeach that guy.

Take us to war under false pretenses to enrich big oil-Get over it

:confused: :dunno:
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
46,053
Reaction score
20,759
Offline
Does the article prove that they knew the statement's were false when made? If not, it's just a canard.

Fair point.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

..

while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

...

The president said the report...was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them...He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors"

...

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will,"..."He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

...

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,"



Those comments are excerpts from a CNN article covering a speech then President Bill Clinton made in late 1998.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
 

'79 Saints

Guest
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
3,119
Reaction score
0
Age
53
Location
The Negative Zone
Offline
I did not have sex with that woman-Time to impeach that guy.

Take us to war under false pretenses to enrich big oil-Get over it

:confused: :dunno:

So-called "big oil" doesn't get rich off of Iraq... they would do better to reduce the supply instead of increasing it. Iraq was limited in the amount of oil they could produce under UN sanctions as the result of the first Gulf War.

Those sanctions have since been lifted.

And the fact that "big oil" doesn't control the price anyway...
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
31,908
Reaction score
17,891
Age
48
Location
Houston
Offline
Fair point.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

..

while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

...

The president said the report...was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them...He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors"

...

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will,"..."He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

...

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,"



Those comments are excerpts from a CNN article covering a speech former President Bill Clinton made in late 1998.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Those opposed to the war would quickly point out Clinton didn't invade so his statements are neither here nor there.

As a supporter of the war I really don't care about all this though. :ezbill:
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
46,053
Reaction score
20,759
Offline
You know, quoting another liar is also not a defense to lying.

Not meant to be. But it does illustrate that the "evidence" wasn't fully concocted by the Bush Administration -- a misconception out there.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
30,376
Reaction score
23,163
Online
There's nothing wrong with issuing false statements if you don't know they are false. "The Saints will win the Superbowl next year" may be a false statement, but it's not a lie unless I intend to deceive.

Does the article prove that they knew the statement's were false when made? If not, it's just a canard.

And to amend, of course there is reckless disregard of the truth, which you will have better luck with fitting Iraq into. And maybe that's what the admin did wrong, but merely making "false" statements alone is not culpable behavior.
They knew they were false statements.

The most charitable thing that could be said is that perhaps Bush actually believed his advisors and he wasn't curious enough to ask tough questions.

I'm not talking about the idea here that somewhere Saddam might have been hiding a last ditch weapon to be used save his regime in case of emergency, probably to stave off a broad uprising of the Kurds or Shia.

I'm talking about the outright lies about "reconstituting nuclear weapons", about Saddam's possession of a fleet of drone aircraft that were going to fly up and down the east cost of the United States spraying chemical wepaons, and about the assertion that Saddam could attack the UK with WMD "in 45 minutes." That sort of stuff.

That was all sheer fantasy and anyone who repeated it knew that to be the case.

A lot of people died as a result of these deliberate lies. Many more have had the bodies shattered and will never be the same. No one will be held accountable for any of it. The instigators of the war meanwhile go on to great financial and professional rewards.
 
Last edited:

varanook

Toad
Joined
Oct 4, 1998
Messages
5,196
Reaction score
352
Age
46
Location
Ascension Parish
Offline
So-called "big oil" doesn't get rich off of Iraq... they would do better to reduce the supply instead of increasing it. Iraq was limited in the amount of oil they could produce under UN sanctions as the result of the first Gulf War.

Those sanctions have since been lifted.

And the fact that "big oil" doesn't control the price anyway...

There are too many previous threads here, let alone articles, blogs, etc.. with people speaking who are much smarter than me to believe that it wasn't for oil and oil services contracts.

It had little to do with freedom or WMD's or any other lie this administration comes up with.

Edit: My opinion form what I have read on the Iraq war.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom