oh the lies, the lies

Study: False statements preceded war By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer



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.


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 â?? amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts â?? 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 â?? indeed, even some entire news organizations â?? 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.

___

On the Net:

Center For Public Integrity: The Center For Public Integrity

Fund For Independence in Journalism: The Fund for Independence in Journalism

I watched a video of Dennis Kucinich moving for a resolution to impeach Cheney. Kucinich read for 20 straight minutes quotes of Cheney repeating the same lie over and over.

And no one really cares that the president lied to everyone.

What a country.

This story from AP, well it comes from a few different places and originates with.... Mr. George Soros.

Might as well jump on the Alex Jones bandwagon.


Bush has fucked us up bad and is bankrupting the country. But the above article is NOT accurate.

Here is the story and the link backtracking the source.




Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate!

This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by reporter Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined "Study: False statements preceded war," the AP reveals how, "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."

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.

The AP merely spews the claims form this study as if they are real news, but much of the APs story is disingenuous as is the "study.":

"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."

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!

Secondly, it is interesting that this "study" claims that Bush "lied" about links with al-Qaeda. Yet even they have to massage that claim of a lie into "meaningful ties to al-Qaida." This means that even they are admitting that there are ties with al-Qaeda but that they aren't "meaningful."

Does that mean the "lie" is not that the ties exist but how "meaningful" they are? Instead of a lie we are squabbling over semantics. In essence, Bush DIDN'T lie about ties to al-Qaida, the is just a debate on how "meaningful" those ties are.

In these very first two instances, Bush's "lies" turn out not to be lies at all.

The New York Times also regurgitated this "study" without bothering to disclose that it was funded by some very left agenda-pushing folks, but the Times does have one interesting line...:

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously.

So, the question remains, why is this such big news, then? Why did the AP and the NYT rush to report a story that has "no startling new information" in it?

Was it just a new chance to say, "Bush lied, people died"? It must be because there isn't any real news here.

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!

Regardless, that neither the AP nor the NYT revealed the leftwardly, partisan financial backers of the so-called "non-profit journalism organizations" behind this "study" is unforgivable.




AP Reports 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros | NewsBusters.org

if the story is propaganda i beg forgivness. i do not wish to spread propaganda for anyone left or right. i think alex and george are both wacked and are working for there own agendas. i did however hink that the AP was an upstanding news orginazation and that i could get a storie from them that was not completly biased.

but....
when we first went to iraq i remember it was to defeat the terrorist orginization al-queda, when there where no ties to al-queda found the mission was the changed to weopons of mass destrution, when them weopons were found to be non-existant we were there to free the iraqi people. and now there seems to me no way out. that is the thing that really sticks in my craw. is that we dont have an exit strategy. i may be a liberal but i also understand that the worst thing we could o is just up and leave. that ould have horrible repercutions for us and the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

And no one really cares that the president lied to everyone.

What a country.

---

Well, I think people DO care. Everyone knows he lead us into a disaster, and he will probably be the most hated president in history.

The question is what to do now that we are in this mess, and that's where people have disagreement. People get labeled as "supporting the president" if they think the best thing to do is to see this disasterous war through to the end, even if they think this president is the worst ever.

Once we get past this mess. I think the whole country will come together and agree that George Bush is a liar and a fool and led us into a nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yokinazu

if the story is propaganda i beg forgivness. i do not wish to spread propaganda for anyone left or right. i think alex and george are both wacked and are working for there own agendas. i did however hink that the AP was an upstanding news orginazation and that i could get a storie from them that was not completly biased.

but....
when we first went to iraq i remember it was to defeat the terrorist orginization al-queda, when there where no ties to al-queda found the mission was the changed to weopons of mass destrution, when them weopons were found to be non-existant we were there to free the iraqi people. and now there seems to me no way out. that is the thing that really sticks in my craw. is that we dont have an exit strategy. i may be a liberal but i also understand that the worst thing we could o is just up and leave. that ould have horrible repercutions for us and the rest of the world.

---

I don't think it was propagnda. And the AP is a reputable news organization.

Bush's statements in the lead up to the war were lies because he knew more of the truth and told us different. It's not right to say these were not lies because all the other governments believed the same thing at the time. The Bush administration was the source of the information that most of those other governments believed. It was the source of the information that the Senate and Congress believed and that the US citizens believed. It's fairly clear that US intelligence sevices knew most of these things Bush said were not absolutely conclusive and that there was often conflicting or contrary information available, but it was presented by the president as conclusive.

One thing about this is that the only reason the truth is eventually coming out and people care about the lies is that the war is such a disaster. If we had won the war and then also not bungled the post-war, no one would care about the lies. It's somewhat sad but true. If Iraq were stable, no one would have cared about the lack of WMD and ties to Al Qaeda. We would have just been glad Saddam was gone and moved on. I think that's what Bush and the neo-cons were counting on, but they fucked it up so bad, now people want to know whey we are in such a disaster.

News is always propaganda. They all have an axe to grind so you have to filter the news. But it still has a core of truth like most news does. Cheney,Bush, and all there chronies lied to the American people and the world to try and justify this personal vendetta of Bush's. And they made a few bucks on the way.
Clinton gets a blow job and everybody screams for impeachment.Bush kills 4000 soldiers and 150,000 civilians and its all quiet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humboldt215

This story from AP, well it comes from a few different places and originates with.... Mr. George Soros.

Might as well jump on the Alex Jones bandwagon.


Bush has fucked us up bad and is bankrupting the country. But the above article is NOT accurate.

Here is the story and the link backtracking the source.




Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate!

This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by reporter Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined "Study: False statements preceded war," the AP reveals how, "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."

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.

The AP merely spews the claims form this study as if they are real news, but much of the APs story is disingenuous as is the "study.":

"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."

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!

Secondly, it is interesting that this "study" claims that Bush "lied" about links with al-Qaeda. Yet even they have to massage that claim of a lie into "meaningful ties to al-Qaida." This means that even they are admitting that there are ties with al-Qaeda but that they aren't "meaningful."

Does that mean the "lie" is not that the ties exist but how "meaningful" they are? Instead of a lie we are squabbling over semantics. In essence, Bush DIDN'T lie about ties to al-Qaida, the is just a debate on how "meaningful" those ties are.

In these very first two instances, Bush's "lies" turn out not to be lies at all.

The New York Times also regurgitated this "study" without bothering to disclose that it was funded by some very left agenda-pushing folks, but the Times does have one interesting line...:

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously.

So, the question remains, why is this such big news, then? Why did the AP and the NYT rush to report a story that has "no startling new information" in it?

Was it just a new chance to say, "Bush lied, people died"? It must be because there isn't any real news here.

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!

Regardless, that neither the AP nor the NYT revealed the leftwardly, partisan financial backers of the so-called "non-profit journalism organizations" behind this "study" is unforgivable.




AP Reports 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros | NewsBusters.org

---

The miscalculation of how tight this connection was between Al-qaeda and Iraq justifies the Bush administration to go to war? Woohoo.

Did everyone forget UN inspections were underway before the lead-up to invading Iraq? That Saddam turned over documents, and allowed them to visit the sites they were used to be produced in? Did everyone forget about Colin Powell presentation to the UN Security council? How there was ample proof that there were mobile trailers running around Iraq producing WMD, even nuclear bombs. Satellite imagery, the accusations that Saddam-led Iraq posed an imminent threat. I like the vocabulary they used. It could happen at any moment, whether one second or a billion years from now, any moment now.

I'm not saying the war was wrong. I agree with the war from an economic perspective. Bush pulled it off effectively as an econonic stimulus. I believe it was his real intent. The world after 9/11, a recession, Bush needed to prop up the economy and Iraq provided a great economic opportunity. He needed to come up with a diversion to prevent everybody from selling securities, leading to an economic crash. His administration exaggerated the threat of the claims to sell the war. Anyone who denies this has already forgotten the events that led up to Iraq.

Bush wouldn't receive the majority of the guilt, he left most of the puffery to Cheney, Powell, Rice, Ari, Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yokinazu

if the story is propaganda i beg forgivness. i do not wish to spread propaganda for anyone left or right. i think alex and george are both wacked and are working for there own agendas. i did however hink that the AP was an upstanding news orginazation and that i could get a storie from them that was not completly biased..

---

Whoa, just taking a second to register all that. Ok, I admire your objectivety, it's awesome that you came back and with a complete context made an informed decision. Just had an epileptic fit when I read that you thought the AP was.....:jawdropper:..."upstanding" and....:jawdropper:..."not completely biased". :wtf:

I don't think that there is really any "non-biased" media, everyone has an opinion ya know? Everyone has an agenda too, and NO I don't mean like in the "Black Helicoptors" way.:S4: I mean in the way that they have intrests that are usually practical that they have in their minds committed to and they want everyone to join their club. Just human nature, you just have to figure out how to sift through the caca and put your intrests in what you want what ever that may be. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humboldt215

This story from AP, well it comes from a few different places and originates with.... Mr. George Soros.

Might as well jump on the Alex Jones bandwagon.


Bush has fucked us up bad and is bankrupting the country. But the above article is NOT accurate.

Here is the story and the link backtracking the source.




Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate!

This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by reporter Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined "Study: False statements preceded war," the AP reveals how, "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."

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.

The AP merely spews the claims form this study as if they are real news, but much of the APs story is disingenuous as is the "study.":

"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."

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!

Secondly, it is interesting that this "study" claims that Bush "lied" about links with al-Qaeda. Yet even they have to massage that claim of a lie into "meaningful ties to al-Qaida." This means that even they are admitting that there are ties with al-Qaeda but that they aren't "meaningful."

Does that mean the "lie" is not that the ties exist but how "meaningful" they are? Instead of a lie we are squabbling over semantics. In essence, Bush DIDN'T lie about ties to al-Qaida, the is just a debate on how "meaningful" those ties are.

In these very first two instances, Bush's "lies" turn out not to be lies at all.

The New York Times also regurgitated this "study" without bothering to disclose that it was funded by some very left agenda-pushing folks, but the Times does have one interesting line...:

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously.

So, the question remains, why is this such big news, then? Why did the AP and the NYT rush to report a story that has "no startling new information" in it?

Was it just a new chance to say, "Bush lied, people died"? It must be because there isn't any real news here.

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!

Regardless, that neither the AP nor the NYT revealed the leftwardly, partisan financial backers of the so-called "non-profit journalism organizations" behind this "study" is unforgivable.




AP Reports 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros | NewsBusters.org

---

It made my day to read this thank you Humbolt!!! Really I smiled!! It's right to the point!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Watch out for the black helicopters!!! AWWWWWWWWWWWW.
:apachecopter::apachecopter::apachecopter::apachec opter: