1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Study: False statements preceded war

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by big dog cowboy, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. big dog cowboy

    big dog cowboy THE BIG DOG Staff Member

    48,683 Messages
    3,177 Likes Received
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

    Study: False statements preceded war
    By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET


    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.
  2. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,020 Messages
    960 Likes Received
    Posting articles that denigrate Bush has become like shooting fish in a barrel. It really is simply too easy to look at him and say he has been dishonest, secretive, manipulative, ineffective, misguided, and generally just plain bad.

    All his defenses now begin with a shortcoming/././. i.e. Bush doesn't lie he is just dumb/././ or Bush really thought they had Weapons of Mass Destruction because Cheney told him so....
  3. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    32,772 Messages
    524 Likes Received
    The same can be easily said about the Clinton's. So why do you support them?
  4. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,020 Messages
    960 Likes Received
    It can not be said that the Clintons were ineffective nor misguided.
    You can call into question their honesty about trivial things but not about matters of national security.

    They took tons of heat about shady business dealings but those were personal business dealings not multi-billion dollar deals awarded by the government to their buddies in on-compete fashion.

    It is hysterical that any intelligent being would try to claim Bush is more honest and forthright than the Clintons who lied to cover up Bill's many dalliances but did not lie to affect policy.
  5. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    32,772 Messages
    524 Likes Received
    Yes it can

    Selling secrets to China

    Bombing Iraq only while getting impeached.

    Not defending our attacked soldiers and marines abroad.

    The list goes on and on.

    They are no better than Bush. Just slicker.
  6. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,282 Messages
    1,753 Likes Received
    As far as I was concerned Iraq broke the peace agreement as they continued to fire missiles at US jets patrolling the no fly zone. I think the big mistake was not finishing the job the 1st time around but that does not change the fact that we failed to hold Saddam and Iraq to the peace agreement they signed from the continual cat and mouse game with UN inspectors to attacks on US fighter Jets.
  7. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,964 Messages
    3,178 Likes Received
    They did not do the job the first time because they knew that it would end up being a quagmire.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwXCZOD8jwg
  8. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    75,282 Messages
    1,753 Likes Received
    That was the reason but I think this was going to happen regardless unlike some I don't think Saddam changed 1 bit nor ever intended to live up to the agreement. No doubt this has been messy but at least there is hope now for that country as things are starting to get better. I was never under any illusion that this was going to be a cake walk and we are not out of the woods yet but I think it is important to see this through and think the region will benefit from this down the road. I don't look at any of this on the same short term basis that many others have
  9. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    What's ironic is that Cheney is taken at his word in this context.
    When it suits a particular agenda, Cheney is the devil and unable to tell the truth, yet in this case, he's being... honest? Not likely. He was covering his *** back then, too. Making excuses for a policy that was questionable in the eyes of many.
  10. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,020 Messages
    960 Likes Received
    those are silly claims but i'll forge ahead...
    ROFL!!! This is typical neo-con nonsense. The "secrets" were computers. Technology jointly created by Silicon Graphics and Hughes to guide missiles. Technology other countries had access to. The US allowed those companies to sell that technology to China. That happened however long ago and China has not attacked us or anyone else....

    You mean like Bush attacking Iraq to get re-elected?
    Bush Sr and Clinton both recognized Iraq was a problem but neither were willing to create a "quagmire" to resolve it. Just go back and read Sr. Bush's comments on Iraq. Clinton was ocnsistent with those earlier Bush statements, dumbya was not. We can thank dumbya for getting Saddam out of office and raping our financial coffers to do so. All so we can hopefully give Iraq its country back, and allow them to elect whatever radical nutjob can hold the peace together as Saddam did. We are beyond this democratic fairy tale for them.


    No President defends every soldier attacked worldwide and even less do so when the attackers are not a country but a movement who hides in hills and operates anonymously. We should just deploy all over the world and police everywhere right????

    Actually it never really started but if you have more to offer please do so.




    They were better, and if 'slick' in neo-con means intelligence than you are correct.
  11. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Nothing could be further from the truth in the instance of the Khobar Towers, and a certain instance I hated Clinton for. He completely ignored his own administrations intelligence, which told him it was Hizbollah, (Iran) and he never acted on it. Instead opting to move forward with his own misguided notion that the 'moderate' administration in Iran was open to diplomacy.
  12. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,020 Messages
    960 Likes Received
    We still do not know to this day that Iran was really involved.

    It has been more and more likely that Al Qaeda staged the attack. Those known to be involved were highly concentrated to Saudi Arabia by nationality. That day we have footage of Osama Bin Laden receiving congratulations.

    For the 19 people who died and their families that is tragic, but who were we supposed to retaliate against? A country who may or may not have sanctioned the attack or Al Qaeda? If if we do not know for certain today how was President Clinton supposed to respond then? Perhaps like Bush with half-arsed comments from his advisors but no real proof?
  13. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Perry might want to rewrite history now, over 10 years later, but the fact is it was universally acknowledged that it was Hizballah Al-Hijaz and Al Qeada was never mentioned. Hizballah, who despite being 'illegal' operates in Saudi Arabia, is Iran.

    At this point it has become another polluted matter, obfuscated by dishonest politicians.
  14. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,020 Messages
    960 Likes Received
    It took 5 years to offer evidence against these attackers.

    The Hizballah mentioned was the Saudi arm with some of the Lebanese arm's involvement. They were pro-Iran but Iran's involvement was mostly assumed or rumored never proven.

    I think you fail to grasp that we did not have evidence enough to attack anyone over this as tragic as it was.

    In the indictments handed down under the Bush admin, there is not a single word associating Iranian leadership with any involvement.

    You can not just jump up and go attack organizations that operate in many places at once without any real tie. If anything the real country to be tied to this was in fact Saudi Arabia but they were who helped us get evidence as to the perpetrators.
  15. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    You might want to see what the Director of the FBI at the time, Louis Freeh, has to say about it. Clinton's Secretary of Defense is hardly going to be a definitive voice on it.

    Freeh spent his time in Riyadh, investigating the matter and trying to get Clinton's administration to act on the FBI's evidence, Their response was to leave Iranians alone, as it was hampering Bill's 'relationship' with Tehran.

    It didn't take Freeh five years to come up with the truth, it simply took 5 years for corrupt politicians to come up with enough to cloud the issue and deflect blame for their misguided policies.

    It's not a stunning revelation of fact where most of the bodies to fill the position on terrorist comes fom, Saudia Arabia; anymore than it is who is the main benefactor of Hizbollah. Iran.
  16. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,439 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    Jterrel, the fact is that the latest generation of Chinese missiles were built with the technology that CLINTON specifically allowed them to have.
    BUT you are so far up Hilary's butt that you cannot admit what has been documented by many over the years.
    I love how you say it was being dishonest about trivial things.
    Someone who lies in one area= why would he not lie in others?
  17. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,439 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    The fact was that the CIA director in the end told the President that it was a slam dunk that saddam had WMD. That was an easy answer since he had had them and had used them.
    As it turned out, there was not much to be found. I beleive the count was at around 500 shells loaded with either mustard or nerve agent (that is nothing to sneeze at- those 500 shells have the potential to kill 100,000) that have been found in Iraq.
    Saddam had connections to terrorists- just not Al Queda.
  18. Hoov

    Hoov Senior Member

    4,733 Messages
    246 Likes Received
    How is there no accountability for this ? I would think that spraeding lies to start a war would result in some type of punishment.
  19. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,439 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    A lie is when you say something you know is false. We did not know that most of Saddams WMD was already gone or had never existed (a mistake made by all the major Intelligence Agencies of the world, by the way)
    SAddam did have connections with terrorists- just not Al Queda.
    So they were not lies- they were statements based on BAD intelligence.
  20. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,105 Messages
    1,156 Likes Received
    did or did not the clinton administration before bush came into power also say saddam was a threat that needed to be removed?

    http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols.com/msg00208.html

    lots of quotes from dems long before bush came into office. they want to say bush fed people faulty intel, but didn't he inherit clintons intel ont he matter? not defending bush but tire of the cherry-pickers with short memories. it's possible bush did this to "galvanize" public opinion but when you ignore the democrats saying the same thing for 6+ years yet never doing anything about it, what's the point?

Share This Page