Question
•
General Government, Politics & Law
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/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinforma...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324753,00.html
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/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinforma...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324753,00.html
Loading...-
Answered Yes. Enough studying these criminals, I want justice!
Dennis Kucinich has successfully passed an impeachment bill in the House, voted for by all the House Democrats and 20 of the House Republicans. Let's hope it doesn't get torpedoed in the Senate. -
Answered Yes. Enough studying these criminals, I want justice!
It seems their evil plots are all starting to unravel - I believe we will see justice done. Senator Obama has said that one of the first things he will do is have congress investigate all of this. I assume Hillary would , too. -
Congress Has investigated. See the Report for yourself.
http://intelligence.senate.go...
then come answer my question about it. -
Support Dennis Kucinich
by Committee to Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich
June 21, 2008
Only one Congressman had the personal courage and the profound respect for our Constitution to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and exercise his right and his responsibility to bring Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush - Ohio Representative Dennis J. Kucinich. Now is the time for Americans to speak with one voice to support his bold and historic efforts to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. (Impeachment)
Beginning today, Americans who cherish our Democracy and the Constitutional principles upon which it was founded can stand up, speak out, and take action by signing the one official petition that carries the full and unqualified support of the one and only original sponsor of the impeachment resolution: Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich. Read the Articles (Articles of Impeachment) and exercise your right to be heard by signing the official Kucinich Petition at http://www.freepress.org/doit...
Thank you -
Answered Yes. Enough studying these criminals, I want justice!
When Clinton lied, nobody died.
I want both Bush and Cheney impeached - Cheney first. (God help us if Cheney were ever President.)
The list of impeachable offenses is is long (http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/) enough. -
Answered Undecided
I'm sor far past being enraged I just want them gone and any democrat beats the whole Republican mantra. Bush walked into a stable government, peace, a huge surplus, and a perking economy. Are we better off? He took care of the peace with two wars, blew the surplus and went further into debt, shook up the government, did not listen to the warnings about Terrorism, and blew the economy until the indicators now say we are headed for the worst recession since 29. At this point we can't fix it we can only fight to climb out of this monstrous hole he has dug for us before they throw in the dirt and it is all over. Maybe the one good thing he did is to destroy the far right wing of the Republican party. We now know we need not the left left wing or the right right wing. We need to pull together as Americans quit digging at each other and calling each other names and work this out. We have to or our country is in worse peril of becoming Rome and I certainly hope noone ever writes a book The Rise and Fall of the United States. -
Answered Undecided
The study concluded that false statements were made, which is a far cry from proving foreknowlege or intent. In a court of laaw, this is called slander.
Even if true, what a shocker: politicians lie? I suppose the same dopes think Hillary or Bill or Mitt or Rudy are telling the truth ;-) Grow up! -
I would agree with you but if it is true and he lied our young men and women into graves that is really what I think our founding fathers would call abuse of power. I don't know if he lied and I don't care at this point I just want him and his entire crew out of there and I will make a point to vote against any person who has an R behind his name if that is what it takes to send them a message that they get.
-
Could you answer me this. Were you as fired up with all of the Clinton's wrong doings? Please don't use the "our young men and women into graves" statement as an excuse to not be as upset.
Maybe they wouldn't have been if Clinton would have done his job in the first place. We had eight years of no responce to over 3,000 military and civilians killed because of terrorist attacks.
This is coming from a person who voted for him during his first run for President, and I am a Veteran to boot. Please do a little more deeper research at legitiment sites. -
Look I despised the pervert Bill Clinton and yes I was furious with him too. But his blow job did not cost our kiddos their lives so which abuse of power is the worst? If we impeached every politician for just lying about their sex life that wouold take half of them out. But that would be silly. But this lie lead us to war so no my anger at this one is much greater.
-
I wasn't even thinking about his sex life and it has nothing to do with this discussion, and your correct that they didn't cost any lives and I agree.
But, what I am saying it was his lack of action when our embassies were hit, our ships were hit, our military barracks were hit, the Twin Towers were hit and other too numerous to name. That mounts up to almost the same amount of American men and women, military or civilian that have been killed in Iraq during about the same time -- 7 years. And on top of that the information that Clinton shared with China. Now, these are all facts.
I understand that you are driving your remarks to Bush's lies and how it has affected many lives and I am truly sorry for that. Please do more research with more of an open mind and you will see that Bush didn't lie as much as you believe. Again, I voted for Bush the first time. I am not a Republican, read my bio, but I am in wonderment when people start piling on Bush II ever since 9/11 and most of the critizim comes from the far left and they are complete distortions. It is like a book that is based on fact, but incidents are changed to make the story more interesting. Is the book considered Fact or Fiction? They judge it as Fiction. -
I read your criticism and I want you to know I am abolutely an independent. I don't love either party. But I seem to remember when the first trade center was hit they caught the guys or did I mishear that? Then after the Kobar Towers when he sent bombers they accused him of wagging the dog, then when he had a positive citing of Bin Laden and hit again at the aspirin factory he was ridiculed horrifically. The Cole was just prior to his leaving office and they could not conclude conclusively that it was Bin Laden. Just because everyone knew he could attack but then where? So perhaps my memory and yours are not identical but I can't just lob blame at Clinton for his action or lack of it. But that and launching an all out war that is bankrupting this country and killing our yourn soldiers seems so much worse especially when it is based on intel that was wrong. Would I be yelling any less at Clinton if he had launched an over 5 year war based on bad intel that bankrupted this country and killed so many of our soldiers - No I'd be pissed at him too.
-
We are agree more than we disagree, and your response is accurate. Our memory is the same. What I am trying to say is this and you made a great statement. "Just because everyone knew he could attack but then where?" That is the same for Bush, people as you said "just lob blame at Clinton for his action or lack of it." In my humble opinion they do the same for Bush. I do not like what has happened in Iraq, I do not believe that we should have done what Bush II did. But, I do have to take my hat off that he at least took action, either good or bad especially in Afghanistan. It was swift and accurate. We just missed Osama, and it wasn't on purpose. As for Iraq, that is a different twig on the tree.
Clinton did know who was the man behind the first Twin Towers, in fact during Bush I, reign, they talked about him constantly, but nothing happened in those four years to warrant going after him.
Clinton's' Intelligence did know who put the money up for the two attacks on our military personnel, it was Osama. Of the two ships again in money trail lead to Osama. It is true that Clinton did have cause to pick up Osama and had at least 5 chances, but fail miserably.
And as I stated before, if Clinton would have done his job and picked Osama up when he had his chance we might not have had 9-11 and that is true. For Osama was the architect of 9-11 no doubt about it.
As far as Bush II is concerned he went over the edge in invading Iraq at that time.
As you, I have no ...We are agree more than we disagree, and your response is accurate. Our memory is the same. What I am trying to say is this and you made a great statement. "Just because everyone knew he could attack but then where?" That is the same for Bush, people as you said "just lob blame at Clinton for his action or lack of it." In my humble opinion they do the same for Bush. I do not like what has happened in Iraq, I do not believe that we should have done what Bush II did. But, I do have to take my hat off that he at least took action, either good or bad especially in Afghanistan. It was swift and accurate. We just missed Osama, and it wasn't on purpose. As for Iraq, that is a different twig on the tree.
Clinton did know who was the man behind the first Twin Towers, in fact during Bush I, reign, they talked about him constantly, but nothing happened in those four years to warrant going after him.
Clinton's' Intelligence did know who put the money up for the two attacks on our military personnel, it was Osama. Of the two ships again in money trail lead to Osama. It is true that Clinton did have cause to pick up Osama and had at least 5 chances, but fail miserably.
And as I stated before, if Clinton would have done his job and picked Osama up when he had his chance we might not have had 9-11 and that is true. For Osama was the architect of 9-11 no doubt about it.
As far as Bush II is concerned he went over the edge in invading Iraq at that time.
As you, I have no love for either party nor do I trust them, and just look at what we have running. Well, that is another debate.
I lob the blame on Clinton for not reacting hard enough and I blame Bush for invading Iraq at that time. I do say that he did the right thing in going into Afghanistan.
I guess what we must to do and that is what when and if the Clinton's release all his archives in the Clinton Library and wait for the government to release records through the Freedom of Information Act. And, then we still might not anything.
You have great thoughts and I must give you a thumbs up.(less) -
Answered Undecided
Maybe Bush lied...but who specifically gave our President the information to make the best possible solution to the scenario being played out...Who is his closest confidant and all of his so called advisers...This cannot be blamed on just Bush...being no fan of Bush...but I will not let him take the rap, by himself...I would be looking from his VP all the way down to the last Congressman/Woman. -
raves +2
Answered Yes. Enough studying these criminals, I want justice!
We should ALL be enraged. The apathy is disgusting