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 said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.
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.
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. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123...xc58xSMC1cGw_IE
what wonderful precedents to set for our future kings
Krypton
"Bush is probably THE worst president in the history of the United States."
Bush the CEO of America on CNBC
LOL...:p
2008 is the year of the unraveling of that truth.
MisterOpus1
In other news, the sun is a star and is quite bright.
donnybrasco
quote:
Originally posted by josh4
...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...
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...
This is surprising? They talk to the press CONSTANTLY. I'm sure the figures are not that far off from other statements they make on any given topic, in terms of pure numbers.
quote:
Originally posted by josh4 ... "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."
Yah. They wanted to be sure that everyone heard their intentional "lie" about WMD's, so that when it turned out not to be true, they could receive this avalanche of criticism that they have been getting ever since. BRILLIANT plan!
:rolleyes:
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by donnybrasco
Yah. They wanted to be sure that everyone heard their intentional "lie" about WMD's, so that when it turned out not to be true, they could receive this avalanche of criticism that they have been getting ever since. BRILLIANT plan!
:rolleyes:
yeah, that's pretty much my opinion. as shady and dodgy as the administration is, i really don't think they knew there were no WMDs in iraq.
donnybrasco
^^^Ironically though, I think that this is the cornerstone of why the 9-11 "troofers" have even gone where they have in terms of their grand conspiracy theories; They think "Bush lied", and now they're REALLY on to something! They're "geniuses" who have seen what is REALLY going on, all because they think they've caught Bush in a "Lie".
If they'd just slow down for a second and think about what a POINTLESS, non-self-serving and even quite damaging lie this would be for him to make, they'd come full circle back to reality; The Administration thought WMD's were there, but they were wrong. Imagine that! Human beings who are sometimes WRONG!! Who knew??
And as I've always said; If Bush DID lie about WMD's, then why did he stop at; "Oopss, there weren't any there...sorry everyone!" :conf: If he really was the crafty liar the "troofers" believe him to be, wouldn't it be smart of him to PLANT some WMD's in Iraq then, to help perpetuate his grand lie and to save face?
That would CERTAINLY have been a LOT easier to do than to put bombs in the WTC buildings for "controlled explosions", so that we might then have a reason to go attack Iraq...don't yah think? ;)
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, that's pretty much my opinion. as shady and dodgy as the administration is, i really don't think they knew there were no WMDs in iraq.
Questionable, yet if that's the case, the administration is guilty of incompetent corruption.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by donnybrasco
If he really was the crafty liar the "troofers" believe him to be, wouldn't it be smart of him to PLANT some WMD's in Iraq then, to help perpetuate his grand lie and to save face?
That would CERTAINLY have been a LOT easier to do than to put bombs in the WTC buildings for "controlled explosions", so that we might then have a reason to go attack Iraq...don't yah think? ;)
agree 1000%.
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Questionable, yet if that's the case, the administration is guilty of incompetent corruption.
having seen them in action for almost 8 years, are you really willing to doubt their capacity for incompetence? as much as i despise the bush regime i just can't fathom why they would make such a song and dance about WMDs if they knew for a fact that there werent any. they may well have lied about ALL of the evidence, but to me that's just because they expected to find what they were accusing saddam of possessing. in other words, they ended up convincing themselves with their own lies.
donnybrasco
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
...they may well have lied about ALL of the evidence, but to me that's just because they expected to find what they were accusing saddam of possessing. in other words, they ended up convincing themselves with their own lies.
Something like that. I think that they saw things that they wanted to see in the Intel they were getting (satellite pix and other bits and pieces that they glommed on to). But that's not that hard to fathom either. Your enemy isn't going to make it easy for you to discern what he's up to. At times, he may even WANT you to believe that he has capacities which he does not, in order that you might fear him and not call his bluff due to that fear of his supposed capacities.
It's not the first time in the history of the world that a country has gone to war over wrong information. But in this case, it wasn't the main reason for the war anyway (as I've stated in other threads). It was just a supposed convenient reason that turned out to simply have been unsubstantiated.
Hey, if anything, try sympathizing with Bush and his Administration for a change! Picture yourself having the best intelligence agencies in the world at your disposal, who then give you incorrect intel, which you then shop to the world as "fact" and use as a pretext to go to war. But now, the whole world hates you.
Got to suck, no? lol ;)
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by donnybrasco
Hey, if anything, try sympathizing with Bush and his Administration for a change! Picture yourself having the best intelligence agencies in the world at your disposal, who then give you incorrect intel, which you then shop to the world as "fact" and use as a pretext to go to war. But now, the whole world hates you.
that's simply not true. there is no doubt that the administration "sexed up" the intel they were receiving. indeed, after being presented with a dossier by CIA, bush's response was "is that all we have?"
dont blame the intel services, they were completely marginalised by the government.
Lebezniatniko
This thread begs the question: is it really a lie if you just don't know any better?
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatniko
This thread begs the question: is it really a lie if you just don't know any better?
Can we afford a president who makes us even ask such a questions?
