Study: False statements preceded war

[geronimotwo]

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"?

[Manedwolf]

BLLARG HATE BUSH HATE BUSH ARRRG *foam*

 

[Tecumseh]

He lied so that him and his buddies could take this war and profit.  Ask yourself why oil is getting so expensive?  Why Halliburton is profiting and other corporate interests? 

I am sorry but we all know why Bush went into Iraq.

[K Frame]

"Ask yourself why oil is getting so expensive? "

Yep, it's ALL about the war, and it's all George Bush's fault.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that India and China are both undergrowing levels of economic growth that the United States hasn't seen in decades.

The last time the United States enjoyed that kind of economic growth coal was the main fuel of industry.

Today oil is the fuel of choice.

So, George Bush, because he promoted the war, is responsible for India and China's superheated economies.

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.

So, George Bush, because he promoted the war, is responsible for the ongoing terrorist/sepratist issues in Nigeria, including the blowing up of pipelines and taking hostage of oil workers.

Yep, it's ALL about the war.

Nothing else matters at all.

Hell, even Lil' Baby Jesus blames George Bush for the rise in oil prices because he promoted the war...

[ilbob]

GWB refused to open ANWAR to oil drilling, thus further artificially restricting the supply of oil. Wait, maybe that wasn't GWB.

But I am sure it was GWB that created the mish mash of federal, state and local laws that have basically prevented any new refineries from being build in the US in 30+ years. Well, maybe not. Maybe that was someone else too.

[K Frame]

Hum...

I wonder if that someone could have been Lil' Baby Jesus, Bob...

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[geronimotwo]

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.)

[K Frame]

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.

[Paddy]

So, if the Arabs have no influence over the price of oil, why was Bush just over there begging the Saudis to increase production?

[K Frame]

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.

[Paddy]

And how did the Chinese and Indian economies become such powerhouses?  We financed them by way of job outsourcing and insatiable consumerism fueled by debt.  In the '70's we were the largest creditor nation in the world.  Now, we're the largest debtor nation, thanks to Reaganomics and global corporatism.

[Jamisjockey]

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Smedly Butler, in his 1935 book. 



Overthrowing foriegn governments to spread democracy and support american interests is war profiteering.  Bush certainly didn't start this trend, though.

[K Frame]

The only reason the United States became the world's biggest creditor nation is because of World War II.


"Reaganomics..."

What, you mean deficit spending?

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....

Or that the Reagan period reversed nearly 30 years of New Deal fiscal failures. Or that the American standard of living rose in a fashion not seen since the days just after World War II, and that was an artificial rise.

"And how did the Chinese and Indian economies become such powerhouses?  We financed them by way of job outsourcing and insatiable consumerism fueled by debt."

Yep, that that is ALL George Bush's fault, and it's all because of the war.

[Paddy]

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

[geronimotwo]

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?

[MechAg94]

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.

[wooderson]

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.

[CAnnoneer]

Riley, the graph is fine but you are forgetting the other side of the coin. I can quickly balance the budget and cut debt too if I choose to cut programs I do not like to a point at which the next administration will have to get heavily into debt to repair the damage. Best example is Clinton vs military.

For me the better criterion of governship is to what extent the policies stimulate a strong economy in the long term by increasing efficiency, investment in new tech and equipment, education of skilled workers, fair foreign trade, avoidance of undue tax burden, stimulation of foreign investments coming in, etc. As far as I can tell, both parties have been failing quite miserably in the above as a whole. Dems grow gov and Reps cut taxes, but that's pretty much that. Newt has some pretty good ideas but nobody in Washington is listening.

[coppertales]

The reasons for the high gas prices is because of the refinerys in this country.  No new refining capacity has been built because the green weenies have kept any expansion of refineries at a standstill through the courts.  This puts an artifical supply and demand on gasoline.....chris3

[K Frame]

"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.

[Finch]

"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.

[Scout26]

Yep, and let's not forget the co-conspirators.....

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed my Iraq's WMD program. Let's imagine the future. What if [Saddam] fails to comply [with U.N. sanctions], and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction and some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Clinton's Feb. 17, 1998 speech on Iraq

Here are some more quotes from charter members of Team Bush:

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Clintons Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clintons National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

" Iraq's search for WMD has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that is will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.  We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -Al Gore Sept 23, 2002

"We have known for years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA) Sept 27, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[Finch]

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.

[MechAg94]

On foreign policy, that shouldn't be a bad thing.  On domestic issues, I prefer some choices.

[wooderson]

let's just make a quick run down of those...

The 1998 quotes are either prior to the attacks on the WMD programs, or before inspectors had analyzed the aftermath. The UN inspectors, of course, largely credited the 1998 attacks for ending any substantive weapons program.

The Gore quote is falsified - the actual statement was "impossible to completely deter," and he goes on to argue that no evidence of continued viability had been offered in defense of war.

And the Hillary quote ellipsizes "though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." And halts before
"Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."