Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Camden28

Study finds 935 false statements on Iraq

24 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to beat a dead horse here but post a link and a summary so as DM doesn't get in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to beat a dead horse here but post a link and a summary so as DM doesn't get in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Since there is no link I think it is his original work so he can post it in its entirety if he so desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Since there is no link I think it is his original work so he can post it in its entirety if he so desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Since there is no link I think it is his original work so he can post it in its entirety if he so desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just shows how easy it is to manipulate people when they are emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros. Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soros. Enough said.
Edited by Jimmy Leeds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Soros funds these radicals who distort to try and create an America no one here would recognize. Sheep like Manta, PeteyN, and Camden can't see through this fog.

Funny, they don't link to all the Dems who said Saddam had weapons, etc.

Not worth the paper it's written on. Funny how we instituted a "Newsmax" rule, but our resident loons can post any garbage they wish.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Edited by Camden28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Soros funds these radicals who distort to try and create an America no one here would recognize. Sheep like Manta, PeteyN, and Camden can't see through this fog.

Funny, they don't link to all the Dems who said Saddam had weapons, etc.

Not worth the paper it's written on. Funny how we instituted a "Newsmax" rule, but our resident loons can post any garbage they wish.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keeping your head in the sand isn't a solution. Ignoring reality because you can't accept it is probably why your so bitter to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yahoo News just repackages AP stories. It is entirely legitimate. The NY Times and LA Times may be right of center papers but they are not unabashedly partisan like NewsMax or Fox News. Although it seems you think some place has to be unabashedly partisan to your side to be "objective".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yahoo News just repackages AP stories. It is entirely legitimate. The NY Times and LA Times may be right of center papers but they are not unabashedly partisan like NewsMax or Fox News. Although it seems you think some place has to be unabashedly partisan to your side to be "objective".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It must be interesting living in your warped world, or are you just kidding us with this?

How can you be taken seriously when you write the NYTimes and LATimes "may be right of center".

Unbelievably deranged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yahoo News just repackages AP stories. It is entirely legitimate. The NY Times and LA Times may be right of center papers but they are not unabashedly partisan like NewsMax or Fox News. Although it seems you think some place has to be unabashedly partisan to your side to be "objective".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To my point.. The NY Times writers are picked up by Yahoo and 99% of the internet and liberal media news outlets (including print) via the associated press! You don't get the point do you Peetee? Sure Yahoo is legit, so is NewsMax and there is no reason why one should be banned while liberal :puke: is nothing but the liberal LA/NY Times writers being picked up by the associated press wires!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you understand how the AP works. The NY Times, Yahoo News and other news sources pick up AP stories not the other way around. NewsMax is as legit as Huffington Post or Daily Kos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol, I understand how it works because Yahoo relies on the LA/NY Times for Most of it sources.. how big is Yahoo news? Does it rival Bloomberg News, NY Times or Washington Post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure you do. Yahoo News repackages stories. it is not in and of itself a news organization. They get the bulk of their content from the AP. The AP writes its own stories. Yahoo News also have links to other news sites including conservative places like the Christian Science Monitor and USA Today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0