935 False statements on Iraq

[gela]

US made 'hundreds' of false claims | The Australian

Study: "False Pretenses" Led U.S. To War, Journalism Groups' Research Finds 935 False Statements By Bush Administration - CBS News

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 counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Mr. 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 Qaeda or both. "It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," 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." Mr. Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al Qaeda, 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 Qaeda. "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.

[Nono]

One notes that almost 60 hours after this was posted, there has been no reply at all. That is because it's now well established that George "Chicken Walk" Bush and his gang of Busheviks are poolroom liars and delusionists, and always have been.

It's simply no longer a matter for debate.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Nono One notes that almost 60 hours after this was posted, there has been no reply at all. That is because it's now well established that George "Chicken Walk" Bush and his gang of Busheviks are poolroom liars and delusionists, and always have been. It's simply no longer a matter for debate.

Well, that, and the fact that theres a thread in Breaking News about the same thing that took off.

[sevendogs]

False statements always work, when they come from the Government. Remember Hitler, when he came to power in then democratic Germany. It worked very well. The same even here, in USA, when Bush and his supporters trumpeted war, our media was easily swayed and the country became ingulfed in pseudopatriotic fever. It seems conservative part of American public still did not learn much and we are going to have another very close elections.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: gela US made 'hundreds' of false claims | The Australian Study: "False Pretenses" Led U.S. To War, Journalism Groups' Research Finds 935 False Statements By Bush Administration - CBS News

This is very interesting; except that is can't be correctly assessed as being "non political" if this same analysis was not performed on other presidents' as well. If one is going to truly assess a president's word of honor, one must first create a measurement by which to evaluate the statements. This evaluation would have to come form the truthfulness of past presidents, which was not conducted. Therefore, the study must be voided. Or taken as proproganda.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Sweet Katie This is very interesting; except that is can't be correctly assessed as being "non political" if this same analysis was not performed on other presidents' as well. If one is going to truly assess a president's word of honor, one must first create a measurement by which to evaluate the statements. This evaluation would have to come form the truthfulness of past presidents, which was not conducted. Therefore, the study must be voided. Or taken as proproganda.

Why, when assessing this president's honesty, would it be necessary to reference other presidents at all?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Sweet Katie This is very interesting; except that is can't be correctly assessed as being "non political" if this same analysis was not performed on other presidents' as well. If one is going to truly assess a president's word of honor, one must first create a measurement by which to evaluate the statements. This evaluation would have to come form the truthfulness of past presidents, which was not conducted. Therefore, the study must be voided. Or taken as proproganda.

So, if I did a study that proved that McDonalds (using the same construct from the other thread) was lying when it said that a Bic Mac only has 100 calories, it would be "voided" unless I did a study to see if Wendys was honest in its claims? That is just silly. If it is a lie, it is a lie. It does not matter if someone else lied about other things as well. Still freakin' lies.

[gela]

Well, that, and the fact that theres a thread in Breaking News about the same thing that took off.

Well, that, and the fact that theres a thread in Breaking News about the same thing that took off.

My bad. If its a dud then just let it die.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Zeebadee Why, when assessing this president's honesty, would it be necessary to reference other presidents at all?

It would be only be a contributing factor if one wanted to appear to be impartial, which is what the studied is claiming to be.

Furthermore, how does one determine a lie? Is misinformation, bad intelligence, later proven to be false a lie? Is one telling a lie if he doesn't know it to be a lie at the time?

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, if I did a study that proved that McDonalds (using the same construct from the other thread) was lying when it said that a Bic Mac only has 100 calories, it would be "voided" unless I did a study to see if Wendys was honest in its claims? That is just silly. If it is a lie, it is a lie. It does not matter if someone else lied about other things as well. Still freakin' lies.

They are still lies but the study is biased.

[Rainbow]

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."

Wrong conclusions.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Sweet Katie It would be only be a contributing factor if one wanted to appear to be impartial, which is what the studied is claiming to be. Furthermore, how does one determine a lie? Is misinformation, bad intelligence, later proven to be false a lie? Is one telling a lie if he doesn't know it to be a lie at the time?

One is telling a lie if one claims certainty where none exists. "We know they have WMD and we know where they are keeping them" was a lie because they did not know. They had at least as much (but really more) evidence that they no longer had shit. They did not say, "There is a slight possibility", nor did they say "there is a 50/50 chance". They said, "We KNOW..." and that makes it a lie, because if nothing else, they knew they did not KNOW.

If you were on trial for your life and your neighbor got on the stand and said, "I know Sweet Katie killed that man" and his certainty level was the same as theirs was, you would say he lied on the stand and you would be right.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Sweet Katie They are still lies but the study is biased.

And you have admitted as much here. They are lies. The study may be argued to be incomplete, but it is not wrong in it's conclusions. They lied.

Bias is a loaded term. If (and that is a big "if") the study that claimed Bush & Co. lied is biased in some way, you still need to show just how that bias has affected the study's conclusions. I could really love ducks and fund a study about ducks that concludes ducks are water-fowl. My "bias" does not make the conclusion wrong. If you challenge the validity of the conclusion, you must show how the conclusion is erroneous. Showing how it "might" be wrong is not enough. Show how the bias actually caused a wrong conclusion, show how the bias turned the conclusion away from the truth, please.

[robby 1957]

Quote by: Nono One notes that almost 60 hours after this was posted, there has been no reply at all. That is because it's now well established that George "Chicken Walk" Bush and his gang of Busheviks are poolroom liars and delusionists, and always have been. It's simply no longer a matter for debate.

What a bunch a BS . . . go back and re-read the Joint Resolution
http://www.robbycleary.com/ff/address_2002_0911.html
Those that say that GW lied are liers and propagandists in bed with the enemy

The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.

president George W Bush ~ Oct 11th 2002

[gela]

The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.

What does this have to do with the topic?

So its ok that he led you to iraq under false pretenses, because he was fighting against a government that isn't democratic?
If you don't love freedom then your an enermy?

Those that say that GW lied are liers and propagandists in bed with the enemy

Those that believe politians don't lie are idiots.

[rmnunez]

The conclusion Bush lied is premised mainly on insufficient evidence of his WMDs after intervention and on perceived exageration regarding allegations of terrorist ties.

From what I've read the terrorist ties claims have solid basis and have been substantiated, though governments have not been invaded before for having contacts with terrorists. I think circumstances changed after 911 so that the faintest terrorist connection was highly objectionable and quite actionable, the US wanted to make an example and highlight its "zero tolerance" approach on this. Nonetheless, Saddam's contacts with terrorists was not the most compelling justification adduced for intervention.

The WMDs were the ostensible reason for intervention. If you remember, this was something that the UN had spent a dozen years trying to document with two separate teams of inspectors. Saddam himself produced, after lenghty delays and at the last possible point in time, a 12 thousand page report detailing whatever proscribed weapons programmes his regime had undertaken -and some of them were so sensitive the US censored the materials so Syria (a rotating Security Council member at the time) could not derive any technical information for its own suspected efforts to obtain proscribed weapons.

After more than a decade of off and on weapons inspections from the UN with rather inconclusive reports neither confirming nor denying any WMDs, Bush delivered an ultimatum -come clean or there will be regime change. Saddam refused, Bush started pilling up troops, Saddam continued to stall. At some point there were more than enough US forces in the area to quickly overwhelm Iraqi forces and there was still no certainty one way or another over these forbidden weapons.

If this was a farse from the beginning, Saddam could have proven it really easily. If the UN's inspectors had genuinely "unfettered" access to whatever they wanted to see, they'd report there was nothing forbidden going on. But at the very end there still were ostancles, Blix himself said he had the impression Saddam was in procedural, but not substantive compliance. Whatever was meant by that, it was something short of complete compliance.

After intervention there was no smoking gun, so Saddam fooled everyone. If Bush was deceived into believing Saddam actually had proscribed weapons and evidently wouldn't cooperate and disclose their location nor provide adequate evidence of their destruction, why would Bush's reliance on this be deceptive? And if Bush really believed Saddam had WMDs, with all those troops deployed in the vicinity, how could Bush have gone along with a process that likely would have required years of UN inspectors documenting procedural, though not substantive compliance?

[thx1138]

Those that believe politians don't lie are idiots.

Well said.

But what is scary is that yesterday's heros that becomes today's villians may become villians for a reason.

What if eveyone calls for a new hero to replace old G.W. and the new hero is worse?

[Nono]

Quote by: rmnunez The conclusion Bush lied is premised mainly on insufficient evidence of his WMDs after intervention and on perceived exageration regarding allegations of terrorist ties.

No, an objective fabrication.
Saddam doubtless had links with some pretty nasty people (so does Washington of course) but the idea that he was cozy with Al Qaeda is absurd, (1) because he was just the sort of secular ruler they hate and (2) because it's difficult to imagine what interest he would have had. On the contrary.

From what I've read the terrorist ties claims have solid basis and have been substantiated.

Not from what I've read -- at all.

If this was a farse from the beginning, Saddam could have proven it really easily. If the UN's inspectors had genuinely "unfettered" access to whatever they wanted to see, they'd report there was nothing forbidden going on. But at the very end there still were ostancles, Blix himself said he had the impression Saddam was in procedural, but not substantive compliance. Whatever was meant by that, it was something short of complete compliance.

Think Iran, rum. The Iran-Iraq conflict is the key to understanding th matter. Saddam made the mistake of thinking the US wouldn't really do something so stupid (thus underestimating the Bushistas' incompetence). Thinking the Americans wouldn't take action, and wishing to keep the Iranians guessing ......... he did his best to cultivate uncertainty.

[robby 1957]

GOOD JOB rmnunez .. I like your line of reason .. it looks like (at this point) no one can refute you .. keep up the good fight

There are no passengers on this space ship we call earth .. we are all crew

[Jack]

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions Saddam began to tell the story of his weapons. It was a breakthrough that had taken five months. "He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says. "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks. "It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says. Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most. "He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks. "Absolutely," Piro says. "As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks. "He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says. Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says. "Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks. What was Saddam's opinion of Osama Bin Laden? "He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, 'You can't really trust fanatics,'" Piro says. "Didn't think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?" Pelley asks. "No. No. He didn't wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn't want to associate with Bin Laden," Piro explains. Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions, Tells 60 Minutes Former Iraqi Dictator Didn't Expect U.S. Invasion - CBS News