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

[sportschick]

Defend this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

 

[buckweaver]

Jesus. That's got to be impeachable.

 

[GB-Hack]

There was a certain truthiness to a lot of the statements.

 

[friend of a friend]

Well, it is pretty much the same lie 900 times.

 

[sportschick]

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any less of a lie.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I'm glad I'm feeling well and can appreciate this thread before it becomes the bloody nightmare of political slanging and bull****-hurling that is its inevitable destiny.

 

[sportschick]

I'm pretty sure I won't even bother opening it tomorrow, but I wanted the super late night tennis crew to get to see it.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

The phrase "lied us into a war" is not an exaggeration any more.
Will anyone even mention these studies at any debate soon?

 

[DanOregon]

Bush didn't waste any time getting the lies going when he swore he would "support, uphold and defend" the Constitution on Day 1. More like lawyer holes in the thing you could drive a truck through.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Jesus. That's got to be impeachable.

Tomorrow, this group will release the study that the sun will rise in the east....

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Jesus. That's got to be impeachable.

Tomorrow, this group will release the study that the sun will rise in the east....

First of all, it's two groups.
Second, it's never wrong to state clearly the historical record.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

I'd like to know where this study was four ****ing years ago.

Wexler has introduced impeachment of Prince Regent Cheney.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Jesus. That's got to be impeachable.

Tomorrow, this group will release the study that the sun will rise in the east....

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.

 

[D.Sanchez]

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.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

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.

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.

 

[D.Sanchez]

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.

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 responsibility for what they say.

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.

 

[alleyallen]

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.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

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.

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 responsibility for what they say.

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.

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.

 

[Boom_70]

"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

 

[D.Sanchez]

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.

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.