(PV) Study finds false statements preceeding Iraq War - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

cucamelsmd15 · 01-23-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

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.
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/...ormation_study

I can honestly say this doesnt surprise me in the least.

I guess the people at PNAC got accomplished what they wanted...

**eric_t12** · 01-23-2008, 03:17 PM

i was standing in line to get my ETS orders, and i saw wolf blitzer mention this in the SITUATION ROOM.

surprising? def not.

retired · 01-23-2008, 03:24 PM

The obvious question that comes to mind is what is the backround of these two journalism organizations. Is this a factual, non-biased report or is it a report propogated by two organizations with either an axe to grind or financially backed by those who have their own agenda. You know, a MovingOn type.

I'm not accusing, just inquiring.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it proven that Saddam used WMD, i.e. poison gas, on the Kurds, at one time. If so, tho not nuclear weapons, that would still qualify under the defintion of WMD I believe.

cucamelsmd15 · 01-23-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retired

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it proven that Saddam used WMD, i.e. poison gas, on the Kurds, at one time. If so, tho not nuclear weapons, that would still qualify under the defintion of WMD I believe.

Yeah, but those were the chemical weapons we provided him with during the Iraq-Iran war, so thats cool.

As far as who conducted the study, Ive been looking into that for the past few minutes:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
http://www.tfij.org/

Both say they are nonpartisan and nonprofit.

LKB3rd · 01-23-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retired

The obvious question that comes to mind is what is the backround of these two journalism organizations. Is this a factual, non-biased report or is it a report propogated by two organizations with either an axe to grind or financially backed by those who have their own agenda. You know, a MovingOn type.

I'm not accusing, just inquiring.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it proven that Saddam used WMD, i.e. poison gas, on the Kurds, at one time. If so, tho not nuclear weapons, that would still qualify under the defintion of WMD I believe.

Take a look at these videos and you can see them lying with your own eyes. The first one shows that Cheney knew that going into Baghdad would create a quagmire.
The second one shows various officials saying one thing, immediately followed by them saying something else.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/133.html

cucamelsmd15 · 01-23-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKB3rd

Take a look at these videos and you can see them lying with your own eyes. The first one shows that Cheney knew that going into Baghdad would create a quagmire.
The second one shows various officials saying one thing, immediately followed by them saying something else.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/133.html

Exactly. They knew what this would bring on this country, yet they did it anyway. But, the push into Iraq started long before Bush & Co. took office.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Quote:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Gee, any of the names on that list look familiar?

**AZXD** · 01-23-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retired

The obvious question that comes to mind is what is the backround of these two journalism organizations. Is this a factual, non-biased report or is it a report propogated by two organizations with either an axe to grind or financially backed by those who have their own agenda. You know, a MovingOn type.

I'm not accusing, just inquiring.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it proven that Saddam used WMD, i.e. poison gas, on the Kurds, at one time. If so, tho not nuclear weapons, that would still qualify under the defintion of WMD I believe.

He did, and we have the receipt that shows where he purchased the gas

But that doesn't change the way this whole fiasco was presented to the American public

cucamelsmd15 · 01-23-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZXD

He did, and we have the receipt that shows where he purchased the gas

You need to go back to reading your America hating websites. Damn you for actually thinking our actions in foreign policy have consequences.

**AZXD** · 01-23-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cucamelsmd15

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZXD

He did, and we have the receipt that shows where he purchased the gas

You need to go back to reading your America hating websites. Damn you for actually thinking our actions in foreign policy have consequences.

In all fairness, the former Soviet Union has a few receipts as well.

However, this article has a little more bite than the one you posted and states flat out where the searchable data originated.
The rest of it, is distortable as nothing more than sound-bite press stuff. Ya know, those transcribed audio quote things

Quote:

Bush administration officially called liars over Iraq
January 23, 2008

Two respected nonprofit journalism groups have released a study showing that President Bush and his top aides publicly, and intentionally, made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following Sept. 11, 2001.

"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," reads an overview of the study, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials - including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice - made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study is based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, like official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources mainly quotes from major media organizations.

AlaskaReport.com

**Moose13** · 01-23-2008, 08:16 PM

One statement/question and a statement and I will not add anymore to this. (for now)

If Clinton would have done his job at protecting this country 9/11 would have never happened. (My Opinion) If I am wrong why did Sweet Sandy have to steal files from the National Archive to protect Clinton's sorry rear.

Why does it matter at this point; How or Why we are in Iraq. We have young men and women who have written a blank check for their life that could be cashed at any moment. Why dont we find a way to back them, Win this damn thing and bring them home. Pulling out is not an option (at least not one with any good endings). We know where we are at the present time, yesterday is gone and all we have it tomorrow. If you want to bicker and fight about How and Why................Wait until they come home and then do it. Until then say, Thank you and shut up.

01-23-2008, 03:17 PM	#2
eric_t12 XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: SD Posts: 3,767	i was standing in line to get my ETS orders, and i saw wolf blitzer mention this in the SITUATION ROOM. surprising? def not. __________________ FBI: Gun Owners are Potential Terrorists Our Economic Future: GAO 21st Century Challenges The Police Have No Duty To Protect You VFW Life Member GOA Life Member "There are lots of problems, but if you destroy the dollar, you're going to destroy a worldwide economy, and that's what we're doing." Ron Paul - Speech on the house floor 29SEP2008 opposing the reworked economic 'rescue' plan

01-23-2008, 08:16 PM	#10
Moose13 XDTalk 500 Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Martinsburg, WV Posts: 787	One statement/question and a statement and I will not add anymore to this. (for now) If Clinton would have done his job at protecting this country 9/11 would have never happened. (My Opinion) If I am wrong why did Sweet Sandy have to steal files from the National Archive to protect Clinton's sorry rear. Why does it matter at this point; How or Why we are in Iraq. We have young men and women who have written a blank check for their life that could be cashed at any moment. Why dont we find a way to back them, Win this damn thing and bring them home. Pulling out is not an option (at least not one with any good endings). We know where we are at the present time, yesterday is gone and all we have it tomorrow. If you want to bicker and fight about How and Why................Wait until they come home and then do it. Until then say, Thank you and shut up. __________________ XD 45ACP Compact State's Brady Rating - T-37 WEST VIRGINIA 6

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-23-2008, 03:24 PM	#3
retired XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: S. Calif. Posts: 5,532	The obvious question that comes to mind is what is the backround of these two journalism organizations. Is this a factual, non-biased report or is it a report propogated by two organizations with either an axe to grind or financially backed by those who have their own agenda. You know, a MovingOn type. I'm not accusing, just inquiring. Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it proven that Saddam used WMD, i.e. poison gas, on the Kurds, at one time. If so, tho not nuclear weapons, that would still qualify under the defintion of WMD I believe.