http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
i guess it wouldn't be so hard to believe this if they could just tell me "why would he lie"?
So, George Bush, because he promoted the war, is responsible for Hurricane Katrina shutting down most of the Gulf Coast refineries and Gulf oil production, which sent gasoline prices through the roof.
i am familiar with the term "supply and demand", but i don't ever remember there actually being a shortage of gas. as long as i could caugh it up(cash) there was plenty to go around. not like in the seventies where pumps were closed due to a lack of gas.
(doh! i just hijacked my own thread.)
So, George Bush, because he promoted the war, is responsible for Hurricane Katrina shutting down most of the Gulf Coast refineries and Gulf oil production, which sent gasoline prices through the roof.
i am familiar with the term "supply and demand", but i don't ever remember there actually being a shortage of gas. as long as i could caugh it up(cash) there was plenty to go around. not like in the seventies where pumps were closed due to a lack of gas.
(doh! i just hijacked my own thread.)
Do you know what the difference is between the 1970s and today?
Today, the price of oil is set by commodities traders. Oil, gas, and other fractals trading started in 1982 or 1983. Prior to that the supply, and price, had been set by the Arabs.
Obviously, George Bush is to blame for BOTH of those events.
In the 1970s the Arabs actually refused to ship oil to the United States by refusing to fill ships that were destined for the US.
They could likely do the same thing today, although wtih the commodities market in place today, that would be a lot more difficult.
Do you know how commodities work?
Do you know how and why commodities trading affects the price of oil (or any other product traded on a commodities basis)?
Do you know why you can have a severe spike in price based on a singular event even though there is never a shortage of the actual product?
Until you understand those things, and the larger economy in which they function, the premise that the war is the sole reason for the instability in the oil market is a pile of crap.
So, if the Arabs have no influence over the price of oil, why was Bush just over there begging the Saudis to increase production?
Did I SAY that?
No.
Of course the originator has a hand in the overall price structure because they supply the raw material. That's simply supply and demand economics.
But to claim that it's all the Arabs, OR all George Bush, OR all Iraq war, is just stupid because it completely ignores the worldwide forces that are at work OUTSIDE of that framework, i.e., the Chinese and Indian economies.
You want to really drop the price of oil per barrel?
Hit China with a recession that affects their manufacturing sector.
But no, that wouldn't mean anything, right? Because it's ALL George Bush's fault.
Funny how the Democrats were the ones who originated the concept of governments spending more than they take in, but you'll never hear a Democrat/Liberal admit to that....
Oh? When was that?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So, George Bush, because he promoted the war, is responsible for Hurricane Katrina shutting down most of the Gulf Coast refineries and Gulf oil production, which sent gasoline prices through the roof.
i am familiar with the term "supply and demand", but i don't ever remember there actually being a shortage of gas. as long as i could caugh it up(cash) there was plenty to go around. not like in the seventies where pumps were closed due to a lack of gas.
(doh! i just hijacked my own thread.)
Do you know what the difference is between the 1970s and today?
Today, the price of oil is set by commodities traders. Oil, gas, and other fractals trading started in 1982 or 1983. Prior to that the supply, and price, had been set by the Arabs.
Obviously, George Bush is to blame for BOTH of those events.
In the 1970s the Arabs actually refused to ship oil to the United States by refusing to fill ships that were destined for the US.
They could likely do the same thing today, although wtih the commodities market in place today, that would be a lot more difficult.
Do you know how commodities work?
Do you know how and why commodities trading affects the price of oil (or any other product traded on a commodities basis)?
Do you know why you can have a severe spike in price based on a singular event even though there is never a shortage of the actual product?
Until you understand those things, and the larger economy in which they function, the premise that the war is the sole reason for the instability in the oil market is a pile of crap.
have i implied that i know this? i spend most of my time asking questions, and making personal observations.
does the US import gasoline or crude oil?
has the oil infrastructure in the south been fixed?
did anyone see a shortage in the supply of gas at a working station where trucks could get through in the year after katrina?
Funny how the Democrats were the ones who originated the concept of governments spending more than they take in, but you'll never hear a Democrat/Liberal admit to that....
Oh? When was that?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=10534.25
So you measure expenditures without the offsetting income. How intellectually dishonest is that?
With spending I think you always need to look at who is leading the House of Reps also since they probably have the most say in spending bills. I would also like to see a annual revenue line added to that chart also.
Overthrowing foriegn governments to spread democracy and support american interests is war profiteering. Bush certainly didn't start this trend, though.
It would be one thing if we were prone to "overthrowing foreign governments to spread democracy" - our greater tendency is to overthrow democracies in order to spread sympathetic strongmen.
"It would be one thing if we were prone to "overthrowing foreign governments to spread democracy" - our greater tendency is to overthrow democracies in order to spread sympathetic strongmen."
Not entirely a bad thing in and of itself, either.
Yeah it is. How many of these puppets of ours have turned around and all of the sudden become enemies. Hell, in this "War" on "terror" public enemy number one is a guy we supported. Iraq, once again, is another guy we supported. What has it given us? A lot of dead soldiers, an economy crumbling to the ground, and a rapid loss of liberty. Are we better off for going into Iraq. No, and nobody can argue otherwise. All we have succeed in doing over there is pissing even more people off.
Yep, and let's not forget the co-conspirators.....
- A Bunch of quotes from people most of us despise.
Just further proof that we are not a nation of two parties but one party with two names.