We all knew they were liars, but someone finally counted how many times

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Study: False statements preceded war

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

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...ation_study;_ylt=ApSAivwkPt6Qqk_9EHs7W8Os0NUE


I really don't know how can dislike a man even more than before, but just to see the amount of times he lied on paper makes me even angrier. Especially at the journalists for bending over for them
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']We get it, they fucked up. Get over it.[/QUOTE]

Sure, as soon as they bring back the 4,238 dead soldiers and the 100,000+ dead Iraqis.

Intentionally lying to push a fringe political strategy leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men and women is not "fucking up."
 
Bush lost count after three....

And while this is great and all, how we all contemplate, research, and AGREE how much this guy and his allies have fucked up over the past 7 years, continue to fuck up, and have expressed full intentions on "World War III", despite the fact that they are not fighting it against ANYONE (Iran doesn't have nukes, you fucking twits)...

...At what point are people going to take away power from these people? Before or After we bomb someone?

~HotShotX
 
I've always gotten a kick out of listening to Bush speak. It's like he just sucks at the skills most fundamental to a political leader: (1) basic public speaking (2) Knowing how to hedge statements so they're "fuzzy" or can be interpreted as true.

Bush just fucking flat out lied not in the "my interpretation of 'sexual relations' is different from yours" way but in the "unequivocally saying something is true when it is not"/affirmative mis-statement way.

I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but do any of you really think that lies and propaganda are a novel idea? We're all sheep to some degree, even smart ones.
 
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....

:twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted:

200px-Rumsfeld1.jpg


:twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted:
 
But what about American Idol?[quote name='HotShotX']Bush lost count after three....

And while this is great and all, how we all contemplate, research, and AGREE how much this guy and his allies have fucked up over the past 7 years, continue to fuck up, and have expressed full intentions on "World War III", despite the fact that they are not fighting it against ANYONE (Iran doesn't have nukes, you fucking twits)...

...At what point are people going to take away power from these people? Before or After we bomb someone?

~HotShotX[/quote]
 
[quote name='dopa345']Just wait a few years. They're still trying to count all of Bill Clinton's lies.[/QUOTE]

How many of his lies ended up with a six figure body count?
 
[quote name='Cheese']How many of his lies ended up with a six figure body count?[/quote]

Ohhhhhhh damn! Zzzzzzzing! Pwnage. :drool:
 
[quote name='Cheese']How many of his lies ended up with a six figure body count?[/QUOTE]

Never, ever try to debate anyone using the "Well, X did this, but Y did that, too!" apologist argument. It's fucking intellectually dishonest and unworthy of any acknowledgement.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']We get it, they fucked up. Get over it.[/QUOTE]

"They fucked up" makes it sound like it was unintentional.
 
[quote name='trq']"They fucked up" makes it sound like it was unintentional.[/QUOTE]

There's also the "I ordered a cheeseburger, and this is a chicken sandwich" aspect of "oops, we fucked up."
 
I guess I don't get the point of this. This feels eerily akin to a video game fanboy argument where someone would count all the gigaflops their opponents' system doesn't have.

I don't think a number at this point in time is going to change anyone's impression of the current administration. Not to undermine the severity of these things, but it's all changing in November so I'm at a loss to really understand the purpose of doing something like this.
 
It's truly sad that someone has nothing better to do with their day than count the number of times Bush said something false during a two-year period in which he believed in what he was saying. So many people blame Bush for every bad thing that happens, but it was Congress that voted FOR this war instead of against it.

Bush'll be out of office soon anyways, so who gives a fuck? *goes back to playing Halo*
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Bush is a fucking idiot and will probably have killed billions by the end of his term.

/thread[/QUOTE]

So he'll have killed at LEAST 1/6th of the world's population.

Not so much /thread, but /logic.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Bush is a fucking idiot and will probably have killed billions by the end of his term.

/thread[/quote]Or at least as many brain cells as you seem to have killed.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Causing a full scale nuclear war can kill billions.[/QUOTE]

You should kill yourself now and spare your eyes from the horror that's bound to come.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Causing a full scale nuclear war can kill billions.[/quote]That's obviously the next logical step.
 
Mr. Fullmetalfan,

The current administration has neither the money, troops, time, reason or backing to invade Iran. While maybe 2 years ago, if things had gone better in Iraq, maybe, it's certainly what the PNAC playbook suggests, and what Cheney wants. But they have been lame ducks for a year already, no one is going to follow them into a war now. Iran would have to actually bomb Israel for us to attack them, and they have neither the tech or the will.

Akmadeenajhad (not looking up the correct spelling) may talk a big talk, but he holds no real power in the government, he's just riling up his base supporters, much like Bush talking about Osama Bin Laden. Iran has 25% unemployment and 50% of the population is under the 30. The young people love the west and want to be part of it, all we need to do is nudge them in the right direction and they'll overthrow the hardcore mullahs and be our pals again in no time. I've said it before, who knows more about manipulating youth culture then the good ole USA? Carson Daily could take over the country in two weeks using nothing but ipods and internet porn.
 
[quote name='daroga']I guess I don't get the point of this. This feels eerily akin to a video game fanboy argument where someone would count all the gigaflops their opponents' system doesn't have.

I don't think a number at this point in time is going to change anyone's impression of the current administration. Not to undermine the severity of these things, but it's all changing in November so I'm at a loss to really understand the purpose of doing something like this.[/QUOTE]

In a world where more than half of Americans believe we found WMD and Iraq had Al Qaeda ties before we got there, I assure you, there's very much a point to this. Further, it's not just about "the current administration." Now, I don't mean to break this down on party lines (I'm from New Jersey; I knew what a "kickback" was by the time I was 11, so I know Democrats can be just as corrupt as anyone), but assuming it's all hunky-dory, "mission accomplished" once Bush Co. is out of office is wishful thinking. As with any politician, he didn't get elected all by his lonesome. He was put there with the help of loyal party members at all levels, and those people -- those Roves, DeLays, Perlmans, and on and on -- have no term limits to their influence. The new candidates on that side of the aisle might want to kinda-sorta wash their hands of the situation now, but that's because it's not politically smart to do otherwise; Bush is unpopular, so it's foolish to stand by him any more than they have to to pander to the diehards. It's nothing more than a snake shedding its skin and this is only going to happen again, as long as people insist on turning a blind eye to it. To whit:

[quote name='CrimsonSnipette']It's truly sad that someone has nothing better to do with their day than count the number of times Bush said something false during a two-year period in which he believed in what he was saying. So many people blame Bush for every bad thing that happens, but it was Congress that voted FOR this war instead of against it.

Bush'll be out of office soon anyways, so who gives a ? *goes back to playing Halo*[/QUOTE]

Well, we're pretty much faced with two options when we interpret "Bush said something false." Option 1: Bush is a liar. Option 2: Bush believed in what he was saying. Now, roughly half the country said "No, wait, that doesn't add up. Where's the evidence? Maybe we should have some actual facts before we start shooting people" when they were presented with this administration's most compelling arguments for the war ... and those people turned out to be right. So. Again. Either the man in the highest office in the land lied to the people he's supposed to represent in the service of war, or roughly 150 million Americans have better critical facilities than he does. That doesn't seem to be a fairly important thing for people to know?

Daroga, Exhibit A.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Mr. Fullmetalfan,

The current administration has neither the money, troops, time, reason or backing to invade Iran. While maybe 2 years ago, if things had gone better in Iraq, maybe, it's certainly what the PNAC playbook suggests, and what Cheney wants. But they have been lame ducks for a year already, no one is going to follow them into a war now. Iran would have to actually bomb Israel for us to attack them, and they have neither the tech or the will.

Akmadeenajhad (not looking up the correct spelling) may talk a big talk, but he holds no real power in the government, he's just riling up his base supporters, much like Bush talking about Osama Bin Laden. Iran has 25% unemployment and 50% of the population is under the 30. The young people love the west and want to be part of it, all we need to do is nudge them in the right direction and they'll overthrow the hardcore mullahs and be our pals again in no time. I've said it before, who knows more about manipulating youth culture then the good ole USA? Carson Daily could take over the country in two weeks using nothing but ipods and internet porn.[/QUOTE]
How did we end up at war with Iraq?
A: Bush lied about Iraq having WMD and ties to Osama.
How do we know that Bush wouldn't try this again with Iran?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']How did we end up at war with Iraq?
A: Bush lied about Iraq having WMD and ties to Osama.
How do we know that Bush wouldn't try this again with Iran?[/quote]
Surely you know the story of the boy who cried wolf. It's unlikely the country would follow this president into another war so soon. Especially after his nuclear Iran rhetoric was shot down by his own intelligence gatherers.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']How did we end up at war with Iraq?
A: Bush lied about Iraq having WMD and ties to Osama.
How do we know that Bush wouldn't try this again with Iran?[/quote]

1. He has used up any and all credibility he had at the on-set of the iraq war.

2. He has less than a year left in office, not enough time to drum up enough support, if he even could at all.

3. Nobody is buying the nuclear iran argument.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']If Bush were to go to war with Iran it could escalate into a conflict with China and Russia.[/quote]Yes, because in the last 8 months of his term, he's going to do that unless provoked.

And if we were provoked, to place all that blame on this administration is silly. There's a whole history of enmity between the US and other countries that could come to a head, but to blame whomever happens to be in office at the time it does 100% for what happens is nuts.
 
[quote name='looploop']Surely you know the story of the boy who cried wolf. It's unlikely the country would follow this president into another war so soon. Especially after his nuclear Iran rhetoric was shot down by his own intelligence gatherers.[/QUOTE]

What he said.
 
All of you who disclaim that Bush lacks the political capital to get us into a war with Iran (and therefore likely ending up in a global-scale World War as fullmetal correclty pointed out) seem to be forgetting the fact that HE WOULD IF HE COULD BUT HE CAN'T.

So I agree that he can't unilaterially sua sponte get us into a war with Iran with the ease that he did with Iraq, but it doesn't mean he doesn't want to as FullMetal correctly points out. Moreover, Bush already HAS tried to get us into a war with Iran. Too bad for him (good for the rest of the country) we didn't have any burning skyscrapers to help us throw reason and logic out the window in favor of emotional revenge.

Geeze, CAG is so quick to gang up on people, its a fuckin groupthink frenzy sometimes. Ease up and think a minute; it's easy to jump on top of a gang-rape when the victim is down, it's much tougher to think critically and support the victim or at least try to figure out what he was saying.
 
bread's done
Back
Top