1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bush administration made over 900 false statements in lead-up to Iraq

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by sportschick, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    I suppose next, they'll tell us that Brad Renfro died. (I know, I'm late to the party :) ).

    I would just love the WH press corps to hammer Bush on this at his next press conference on Iraq (if he ever does one again). But they probably won't.
     
  2. D.Sanchez

    D.Sanchez Member

    I'm curious why the article made no mention that the "Center for Public Integrity" is a George Soros funded venture? No bias there. Just asking the question.
     
  3. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Sure, there might be some bias. But nobody ever aimed a gun at this administration's head and told them to make these statements 900 times. Ultimately, they are the ones who bear responsiblity for what they say.
     
  4. D.Sanchez

    D.Sanchez Member

    I'm not really questioning the content of the study, I haven't read it. However, in my opinion it's pretty lazy/sloppy journalism to insinuate that the group behind this report is nonpartisan when it is largely funded by one of the loudest Bush bashers in the world. If this was a Heritage Foundation study or a group funded by Rubert Murdoch I GUARANTEE that the potential bias would have been mentioned.
     
  5. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    D. Sanchez....did the story say nonpartisan? Or did it say nonprofit? There is a big difference.

    And once again, this is like shooting the messenger, not the message.

    Try reading the report, first.
     
  6. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Everyone and every group has its biases. It's human nature. Having said that, yes, they should have mentioned the sponsor of the group. At the same time, that doesn't dismiss their study. The administration was the one making these statements. This group is merely keeping count of what they said.
     
  7. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
    develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
    That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
    clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
    mass destruction program."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], 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, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
    times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton 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 (including, if
    appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) 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 Sens. 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
     
  8. D.Sanchez

    D.Sanchez Member

    Damn right I'll shoot the messenger, if George Soros is prominently involved. His history requires it. Just as you would if the sponsor of a study was a right-wing idealogue. "Two nonprofit journalism organizations" with names like "Center for Public Integrity" and "Fund for Independence in Journalism" with no explanation of what those groups actually are. Come on. Without any context for the reader, that is very misleading. A short sentence on the true funding source is all that is needed.
     
  9. They were all wrong, too. What's your point?
     
  10. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    I'll admit that if a story comes from Fox News, I'm immediately skeptical. But I will, at least, read it and see if there's what I believe is a shred of truth to it.

    Not attacking you, nor the sources in whom you trust, just asking that you look beyond the source. The statements were made and that part's not debatable. So why not focus on the statements instead of who's reporting them? Seriously.
     
  11. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Boom, I will readily grant you that they were wrong, too.

    But Clinton's not in office anymore. Bush is.
     
  12. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    You're obviously new here.

    Boom NEVER has a point and he's been posting that same tired shit for five years now. I
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page