Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'

[sevendogs]

Study: False statements preceded war - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com
A recent independent study showed that Bush and his administration issued hundreds of false statements to manipulate public opinion prior Iraq war. The question is if Bush and some of his administration would be tried as war criminals?

[xyzer]

More unadulterated junk! All one has to read is this ..

"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."

to see the intended deceptiion by the authors of the study? He did have nuclear intentions even though the Israelis had smashed his program earlier.Iraqi Nuclear Weapons - Iraq Special Weapons
The term WMD includes biological and chemical agents and programs..No one doubts Iraq had those programs(just ask the Kurds)! This whole boondogle is typical of the illogical straws the leftist anti war press and believers attempt to pedal.

If the authors assume WMD are only nuclear then all the so called references they used also make that illogical assumption?

Besides there are a couple of other caveats...Congress had the same intelligence information that the Administration did? Intelligence gathering is not guaranteed 100% accurate? It's illogical to generalize off one specific? It is unwise to generalize off an interpretation of one general term?

There were(and are) all sorts observed actions and reports showing Saddam was a disruptive and dangerous destabilizer in the middle east? He attacked Kuwait, Iran, slaughtered many Kurses with e chemical WMD, paid terrorist bombers families, shot at our patrol aircraft, etc.
Nonsense..

[thx1138]

Quote by: xyzer More unadulterated junk! All one has to read is this .. to see the intended deceptiion by the authors of the study? He did have nuclear intentions even though the Israelis had smashed his program earlier.Iraqi Nuclear Weapons - Iraq Special Weapons The term WMD includes biological and chemical agents and programs..No one doubts Iraq had those programs(just ask the Kurds)! This whole boondogle is typical of the illogical straws the leftist anti war press and believers attempt to pedal. If the authors assume WMD are only nuclear then all the so called references they used also make that illogical assumption? Besides there are a couple of other caveats...Congress had the same intelligence information that the Administration did? Intelligence gathering is not guaranteed 100% accurate? It's illogical to generalize off one specific? It is unwise to generalize off an interpretation of one general term? There were(and are) all sorts observed actions and reports showing Saddam was a disruptive and dangerous destabilizer in the middle east? He attacked Kuwait, Iran, slaughtered many Kurses with e chemical WMD, paid terrorist bombers families, shot at our patrol aircraft, etc. Nonsense..

Let's not forget the threat of a Mushroom cloud over a U.S. city as well... oh wait you did forget about that.

There are many "destabliziers" in the world why would he be the only one the U.S. attacks? switching to the Euro to sell his old is why, the real and only reason for the war. This BS about the U.S. caring about the Iraqi people had nothing to do with it, but it makes good type and lets the U.S. wear the white cowboy hat.

[grandpa]

Quote by: thx1138 Let's not forget the threat of a Mushroom cloud over a U.S. city as well... oh wait you did forget about that.

Of course, Bush didn't even let the inspectors finish, which is well-known (or at least was).

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer The term WMD includes biological and chemical agents and programs..No one doubts Iraq had those programs (just ask the Kurds)!

That's right, Xyzer. And Spain had the world's most powerful Navy and every intention to use it for world domination, so let's invade them. Oh wait, that was centuries ago. And Iraq hadn't had any WMD for over 10 years.

And we best not ask the Kurds, because they'll likely remember that they were gased while we were Hussein's buddy and did nothing about it, and using precursors obtained from us.

Quote by: Xyzer Besides there are a couple of other caveats...Congress had the same intelligence information that the Administration did?

So exactly how gullible are you, Xyzer? Try to follow along... the report states that the administration - which controls the intelligence services of the CIA, State Department and military - knowingly gave the public false, misleading information. One can therefore assume they also knowingly gave Congress the same false or misleading information... just more in depth.

.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Of course, Bush didn't even let the inspectors finish, which is well-known (or at least was). Grandpa h.

Finish?? They had 12+ years to finish yet he never verifiably disarmed.

[Dieval]

Quote by: sevendogs Study: False statements preceded war - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com A recent independent study showed that Bush and his administration issued hundreds of false statements to manipulate public opinion prior Iraq war. The question is if Bush and some of his administration would be tried as war criminals?

I love the way this report basically says Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld said this on this day, prior to the war....then after the war, when the intel turned out to be incorrect, they hold it up as a shining example of what they lied about it....

What a load of crap...

[Dieval]

Quote by: sevendogs Study: False statements preceded war - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com A recent independent study showed that Bush and his administration issued hundreds of false statements to manipulate public opinion prior Iraq war. The question is if Bush and some of his administration would be tried as war criminals?

Oh, and just so everyone's clear as to where this AP news article came frome...

Quote by: link AP Reports 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros | NewsBusters.org What the AP forgets to mention is that the "two nonprofit journalism organizations" can hardly be imagined to be impartial. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is funded by well-known leftist, George Soros, as well as the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation -- all of which are exclusively leftist in political philosophy. Even more ridiculously, the second of these "non-profit journalism organizations" shares most of its board members with the first. So, the Fund for Independence in Journalism can hardly be considered a separate entity from the CPI.

[Charlatan]

So what if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, just because one country hates another doesn't mean they will declare war on them. A quick analysis would reveal that Iraq would fight on home soil and lose eventually, and there is no way they would be backed by the powers that be because they would lose their lavsh lifestyle. Many countries have these types of weapons and don't use them, so why would Iraq be taken by maniacal stupidity and try to attack this super power? So the threat of a war coming from Iraq was not existent was it?

So if they won't attack us, we will attack them might be the argument, as there was clearly a problem between the two, but why go to such lengths over a misunderstanding? Maybe Iraq is the launch pad for the middle east, where they will come to and leave from in time, as they might hope that due to the new democracy there they would forget about ties with their neighbours.

Ok, how does one president see that his will will be done by the next president? What drives a president to war? He will be out of office by the time the time to attack is there, so it must be compliance with the war advisor that led him to attack Iraq, as he might have ambitions in the area. But even generals are replaced, so who would benefit by attacking Iraq? The American people? Nobody would be better off, except the Iraqi people one day in the future, but why is Bush so over them and not other despots people? Logically you would say if he wants to liberate one people, he would want to liberate a good deal more, and one has only to look to South America for similar types of probelms. So it wasn't in good faith either.

We should forget about offensive power and good faith towards the people of either America and Iraq, right? What does that leave us with? Some other factor twisted the governments arm in making them attack Iraq. Was it for oil? That would not help Bush at all, personally, and you need to remeber if it doesn't help a leader personally, and neither his people - which also goes to making him better off respectively - then it must be some blackmail from the oil comapanies, right? I mean where is ther a benefactor elsewhere that is given a damn about? It doesn't equate any other way, it must have been for oil, or, maybe his 'wife' made him do it. There is no other logical reason to have attacked Iraq.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Finish?? They had 12+ years to finish yet he never verifiably disarmed.

He never verifiably disarmed? Where then were his weapons? What great finds did the inspectors make in all those 12 years?

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa He never verifiably disarmed? Where then were his weapons? What great finds did the inspectors make in all those 12 years? Grandpa h.

He played games with the majority of the time the inspectors were there. If he wanted to show that he was truely disarmed, it would have been apparent and wouldn't have required 12+ years of UN resolutions.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval He played games with the majority of the time the inspectors were there. If he wanted to show that he was truely disarmed, it would have been apparent and wouldn't have required 12+ years of UN resolutions.

What games did he play? Can you name a single site that the inspectors were denied access to? How about the disclosures saddam made that the U.S. immediately censored a third of, and still hasn't released? And finally, once again, how does one prove he's destroyed something he doesn't have in the first place?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dieval Oh, and just so everyone's clear as to where this AP news article came frome...

Ok, for the sake of argument, I'll pretend for a minute that the funders of the study are completely biased.

Now, explain to me how they fudged the data. From what I can see, this is what they did. They took a computer and fed it information. Just for the sake of simplicity, lets dumb it down. They say "Bush lied about the ingrediants found in a Big Mac. They input his statement from April 6, 2002 where he said" McDonalds is feeding our country dangerous lies. They say that a Big Mac has 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickels and onions on a sesame seed bun, but really it is made out of almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe and seaweed." Then they research McDonalds purchases, buy 2000 Big Macs in 500 different outlets in 40 major cities and microscopically inspect the contents. No Big Mac is found to have almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe or seaweed in it, no company can be found who has sold any of those products to a single franchise or to the corporation. The computer sorts all this input, and pops out the inescapable conclusion - Bush was lying.

Show me how they have, in their bias, carried off the swindle. What input was faulty? What parameter is so out of wack that it makes the truth seem a lie? Explain to me how they are wrong.

[thx1138]

We should forget about offensive power and good faith towards the people of either America and Iraq, right? What does that leave us with? Some other factor twisted the governments arm in making them attack Iraq. Was it for oil? That would not help Bush at all, personally, and you need to remeber if it doesn't help a leader personally, and neither his people - which also goes to making him better off respectively - then it must be some blackmail from the oil comapanies, right? I mean where is ther a benefactor elsewhere that is given a damn about? It doesn't equate any other way, it must have been for oil, or, maybe his 'wife' made him do it. There is no other logical reason to have attacked Iraq.

Not for the oil but to control the currency used to sell the oil.
This is most logical reason for the war, the WMDs were just BS to rally the public, who would not support a war based on oil sales.
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse

[Chaossaber314]

Why is this breaking news?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee What games did he play? Can you name a single site that the inspectors were denied access to?

I don't have to name one single site. I'm not an inspector....but here's a nice chronology of events that the UN put out..

Quote by: UN 23-28 Jun 1991 UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later seized and destroyed under international supervision. ... 28 Jun 1991 Statement by the President of the Security Council deploring Iraq’s denial of access to an inspection site and asking the Secretary-General to send a high-level mission to Baghdad immediately (S/22746). ... 6 Sep 1991 The first UNSCOM inspection team which intended to use helicopters is blocked by Iraq. 23 Sep 1991 Statement to the press by the President of the Security Council concerning Iraq’s failure to provide unconditional acceptance of resolution 707 (1991) (SC/5306 - IK54). 21-30 Sep 1991 IAEA inspectors find large amounts of documentation relating to Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iraqi officials confiscate some documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day stand-off during which the team remained in the parking lot of the site ensues. Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents following a statement by the President of the Security Council, threatening enforcement action by members of the Council. 24 Sep 1991 Statement to the press by the President of the Security Council concerning Iraq’s detention of an inspection team and reiterated that the Commission is the sole judge of the definition of documents, sites or materials subject to inspection (SC/5307 - IK61). Chronology of main events

This is just from 1991....shall we continue up to 2002?

[Dieval]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Ok, for the sake of argument, I'll pretend for a minute that the funders of the study are completely biased. Now, explain to me how they fudged the data. From what I can see, this is what they did. They took a computer and fed it information. Just for the sake of simplicity, lets dumb it down. They say "Bush lied about the ingrediants found in a Big Mac. They input his statement from April 6, 2002 where he said" McDonalds is feeding our country dangerous lies. They say that a Big Mac has 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickels and onions on a sesame seed bun, but really it is made out of almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe and seaweed." Then they research McDonalds purchases, buy 2000 Big Macs in 500 different outlets in 40 major cities and microscopically inspect the contents. No Big Mac is found to have almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe or seaweed in it, no company can be found who has sold any of those products to a single franchise or to the corporation. The computer sorts all this input, and pops out the inescapable conclusion - Bush was lying. Show me how they have, in their bias, carried off the swindle. What input was faulty? What parameter is so out of wack that it makes the truth seem a lie? Explain to me how they are wrong.

You're not taking in to account that the owners of McDonalds at one time HAD Big Macs that were made of "almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe and seaweed", would not comply with international inspectors for over 12 years to prove that they had changed their Big Macs, and every country on Earth believed that they were making Big Macs from "almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe and seaweed" and not "2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickels and onions on a sesame seed bun".

Also, I guess you didn't read much more of the article I linked, than the portion I linked...

Quote by: article Two things here. First, few people now think Saddam had WMDs, of course. But nearly everyone thought he had them before we went into Iraq -- including the leadership of every nation on the planet as well as Saddam's own generals. So, it was not a "lie" if it was commonly thought to be true by nearly every head of state in the world. That Saddam had WMDs may have been a mistaken notion, but it was not a lie before it was known for sure! ... Finally, it is also interesting to note that the database of "Bush lies" does not notate the context of those "lies." How many of them were widely believed by Democrats and Republicans alike at the time, but were proven later to be less than true? A statement given that is thought to be true (even if it turns out untrue later) is not a lie. It is just mistaken!

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval I don't have to name one single site. I'm not an inspector....but here's a nice chronology of events that the UN put out.. This is just from 1991....shall we continue up to 2002?

Garbage, and you know it. ALL of your events are from the first period of inspections. Let's see some events from the inspection period that bush used to justify his war. There were inspectors in Iraq working right up to the time bush invaded.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee Garbage, and you know it. ALL of your events are from the first period of inspections. Let's see some events from the inspection period that bush used to justify his war. There were inspectors in Iraq working right up to the time bush invaded.

You asked what games he played...I outlined what he did within the VERY FIRST YEAR. Enough said right there. Use the link and look at the rest of the years, if you want a broader picture of their lack of compliance. We wouldn't need CONTINUOUS resolutions for their actions(or lack their of) if they were complying with their obligations.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval You asked what games he played...I outlined what he did within the VERY FIRST YEAR.

So that justified invading how? All kinds of countries have irked the UN. What made Iraq such a unique danger (especially when, again, they didn't appear to have a weapons program in effect)?

Meanwhile:
U.S. war costs in Iraq up-budget report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq war may not dominate U.S. news reports as the carnage drops, but a new report underscores the financial burden of persistent combat that is helping run up the government's credit card. "Funding for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities in the war on terrorism expanded significantly in 2007," the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released Wednesday.

And here, for an estimate:

War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote.

Grandpa h.