23 replies to this topic

[Camden28]

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 — 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.

[Devilish34]

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

[PeteyNice]

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

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.

[Don]

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.

That's a lot of benefit.

[Devils731]

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.

And he releases his writings from Washington

[PeteyNice]

And he releases his writings from Washington

That is the magic of the Internets!

[Camden28]

It WAS the lead story on Yahoo news an hour ago, but mysteriously has buried to the end of the features story list.

http://news.yahoo.co...bcMWAPzhEmyFz4D

[Devilish34]

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.

Or not

[emptynet]

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

[LetsGoDevils]

Soros. Enough said.

[MantaRay]

Soros. Enough said.

Yes, Soros made them lie.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Soros. Enough said.

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.co...r/wmdquotes.asp

Edited by Jimmy Leeds, 24 January 2008 - 10:03 AM.

[Camden28]

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.co...r/wmdquotes.asp

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.

Edited by Camden28, 24 January 2008 - 12:05 PM.

[PeteyNice]

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.co...r/wmdquotes.asp

Did you even read those? All of them before Bush was appointed President talk about "potential" and "programs". The talk of actual physical weapons didn't start until Bush and his people made it up out of whole cloth.

Bush would have said Saddam was the father of Britney's baby if he thought it would help sell his war.

[Jimmy Leeds]

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.

Haha. Looking for conspiracy's under every rock isn't going to get you very far.

How does your husband deal with it?

[LOULAM1]

It WAS the lead story on Yahoo news an hour ago, but mysteriously has buried to the end of the features story list.

http://news.yahoo.co...bcMWAPzhEmyFz4D

Wow! Credible source! Yahoo news... is that associated press writer linked to the LA Times, San Fran Chronicle or the famous NY Times? Do your homework before you post and at least try to grab an objective news source.

To the point of Leeds, if NewsMax is not allowed... ban Yahoo and the NY/LA Times!

[PeteyNice]

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".

[Jimmy Leeds]

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".

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.

[PeteyNice]

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.

Did you read any of their pre-war coverage? They carried the water for the administration. They also sat on the illegal spying story until after the 2004 election. Those are not things liberal newspapers do.

[LOULAM1]

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".

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 is nothing but the liberal LA/NY Times writers being picked up by the associated press wires!