Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Bush Administration's Private War


Recommended Posts

Hundreds of lies led to war, study says

2 journalism groups find U.S. made 935 false statements

Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

(01-23) 04:00 PST 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 Center for Public Integrity, a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy, designed the new Web site to allow simple searches for specific phrases, such as "mushroom cloud" or "yellowcake uranium," in transcripts and documents totaling some 380,000 words, including remarks by President Bush and most of his top advisers in the two years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

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 Qaeda, or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, 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 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 Qaeda, 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 Qaeda.

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.

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard Nixon used to dismissively call "wallowing in Watergate."

Online resources

Center for Public Integrity:

www.publicintegrity.org

Fund for Independence in Journalism:

www.tfij.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTE: I feel the following article which appeared today is appro for this Forum and at this location.

It shows that this has been going on far to long in AMERICA.... IT HAPPENED IN WATERGATE, THE 60's, 70's AND con't TODAY

THE MAIN THRUST IT HAPPENED IN THE 63 DEATH AND INVESTIGATIONS of JFK SAME TYPE of MO... I FEEL THIS IS A FORM ...., OF WELL YOU KNOW THE WORD: LIES from HIGH PLACES.... IT HAPPEN WITH THE DEATH OF COL JAMES E SABOW UNITED STATES MARINE CORP AND OTHERS. BUT SOME DN NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT OR READ THIS ARTICLE.

Hundreds of lies led to war, study says

2 journalism groups find U.S. made 935 false statements

Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

(01-23) 04:00 PST 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 Center for Public Integrity, a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy, designed the new Web site to allow simple searches for specific phrases, such as "mushroom cloud" or "yellowcake uranium," in transcripts and documents totaling some 380,000 words, including remarks by President Bush and most of his top advisers in the two years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

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 Qaeda, or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, 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 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 Qaeda, 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 Qaeda.

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.

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard Nixon used to dismissively call "wallowing in Watergate."

Online resources

Center for Public Integrity:

www.publicintegrity.org

Fund for Independence in Journalism:

www.tfij.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving topic to Political Conspiracies

Threads of this type of government lies can be found running all through the JFK assassination investugations... lies, lies and corruption...cover-up.

TWO BIRDS IN THE SAME NEST.... LETS THROW ONE OF THEM OUT.... THE MO FOUND IN THIS ARTICLE IS THE SAME AS THE JFK INVESTIGATIONS. ITS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. NONE THE LESS.. DON"T DARE TAKE OFF OUR BLINDERS ...SOME OF US MIGHT SEE SOMETHING WE DO NOT LIKE.

WAKE UP AMERICA. WE GET THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE. APATHY IS THE STARTING POINT TO LAUNCH GOVERNMENT MISDEEDS AND LIES. I LOVE AMERICA. I WISH I COULD DO SOMETHING TO SAVE HER.

Edited by William Plumlee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving topic to Political Conspiracies

I apologize I was mis informed as to moving something to another location. I understand now. Dawm M explained this to me... please forgive...

However, what the article does point out is that this type of activity has been going on for years in America and the JFK assassination did not escape this forum of politic under dealings. I will go in Peace.

"... A man doesn't know what he knows until he knows what he doesn't know. Laurence J. Peter...".

"...Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret. Laurence J. Peter...".

Edited by William Plumlee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not necessary to apologize(you said nothing wrong), and I can understand why you felt the way you did. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hundreds of lies led to war, study says

2 journalism groups find U.S. made 935 false statements

Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

(01-23) 04:00 PST 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 Center for Public Integrity, a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy, designed the new Web site to allow simple searches for specific phrases, such as "mushroom cloud" or "yellowcake uranium," in transcripts and documents totaling some 380,000 words, including remarks by President Bush and most of his top advisers in the two years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

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 Qaeda, or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, 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 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 Qaeda, 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 Qaeda.

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.

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard Nixon used to dismissively call "wallowing in Watergate."

Online resources

Center for Public Integrity:

www.publicintegrity.org

Fund for Independence in Journalism:

www.tfij.org/

Isn't this the study that George Soros funded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

The additional problem though, is that it's not just Bush and his admin. lying to the American people, but the US lapdogs, like Tony Bliar, lying to us Brits about it so as to be able to send UK forces to fight alongside Uncle in the crooked wars. It's a bloody disgrace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this the study that George Soros funded?

I have no idea. Do you think that would affect the credebility of the report one way or the other? If you don’t like the conclusions it reached you should try showing that it’s wrong rather than worry about who paid for it. I haven't read the whole thing yet but it seems very solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
Ah yes, the Senator from the UK...he was a good boy....and is being rewarded well now for his loyalty to the Group.

Yup, dear old JP Morgan to the rescue with half a million quid a year, for a couple of days a week resting his shoes on an executive desk as he swills coffee, -- leaving our "Tone" enough time to trot around to other bidders ready to fill his wallet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this the study that George Soros funded?

I have no idea. Do you think that would affect the credebility of the report one way or the other? If you don’t like the conclusions it reached you should try showing that it’s wrong rather than worry about who paid for it. I haven't read the whole thing yet but it seems very solid.

Of course I think that the source and funding of a study may well affect its credibility.

Do you think that it couldn't?

Maybe it did in this case, maybe it didn't.

A couple of nights ago, I watched a show on Jack Ruby (Mobsters, on the Bio Channel, I think).

I was excited, until I noticed that the primary authority for a good bit of the info on Ruby was Gerald Posner.

I took a lot of what I heard from him with the proverbial grain of salt, because he has a vested interest in propagating his LN tripe and his book.

I certainly would look askance at a study of the JFK assassination funded or sponsored by Posner or VB.

As a matter of fact, I recently purchased Case Closed, and I plan to read it.

I expect it to appear solid to someone who hasn't spent a good deal of time studying the assassination, because I expect him to present evidence in a manner which is designed to point me to his desired conclusion.

Soros has a remarkable amount of money and an agenda.

If he hadn't spent so much money advancing his agenda, I would be less concerned about its objectivity.

Money can frequently buy results and sycophants.

As much as I loathe "bipartisan studies (i.e. whitewashes), I distrust partisan ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
This issue of lying, I have to say, Amy, I’ve never quite understood it. I mean, it’s sort of like asking, to me, whether they, you know, forgot to put their turn signal on before they drove off a bridge. I mean, they took us into the midst of a—you know, a terrible, a horrific, tragic war, and they did it on the basis of ponied-up false intelligence. And sort of where they pushed the evidence here or there is sort of—to me, is sort of secondary. The fact is, they got it absolutely wrong on every single quarter.

The question not asked nor even attempted to explain here is the why?

Why did Bush, his Administration, the CIA et al go to these lengths to go to war?

Once we know that the rationale was fabricated (as if some of us were ever in doubt) the next immediate question has to be why?

Answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...