Guess what??? Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses', Hundreds of false st

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
Not that the act of using false statements to send us into that situation is a shock, but the high numbers of lies may cause jaw-dropping even among the most jaded of observers...

Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'
Hundreds of false statements on WMDs, al-Qaida used to justify Iraq war

Associated Press
updated 2:30 a.m. ET, Wed., Jan. 23, 2008

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.

WMD, al-Qaida links debunked
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.

Media 'validation'
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.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
________________________________________________


Soros hasn't really been a bastion of truth himself.

Thoughts?
 
#3
#3
how do they have access to enough intel at this point to even make the assertions they're making?

I'll readily grant that this admin miscalculated, but knowingly lied to go to war when it was going to be proven a fraud over time. That's a huge leap.
 
#7
#7
If you believe the AP to start with, I feel bad for you. Add George Soros, the nation's leading socialist, to the mix... nuff said.
 
#8
#8
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.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the count include these similar statements from other leaders (e.g. democrats and republicans). This information was repeated pre and post the invasion.

If this is lying, the guilty list is a mile long.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
I'd like to see the count include these similar statements from other leaders (e.g. democrats and republicans). This information was repeated pre and post the invasion.

If this is lying, the guilty list is a mile long.
Click to expand...


How dare you!

:furious3:
 
#11
#11
#12
#12
I like the fact that if we had not acted on the supposedly false info that was given to us by our allies, including the Russians (not allies but still), then Bush would have been perceived as weak. Listen to Hillary's comments about her vote on Iraq.

Bush Derangement Syndrome at its finest.
 
#13
#13
I actually believe that the administration had intelligence to support all the claims it made. However, I also believe that they also had more reliable intelligence to suggest an alternative description, and they chose to ignore it (perhaps institutionally at times) for intelligence that better fit what was becoming a clear agenda.

I point to the case of uranium enrichment and the aluminum tubes that the CIA analyst found through reviewing procurement forms. The CIA analyst made an awesome catch, the intelligence position was pitched that these tubes were being used to enrich uranium in centrifuges, and the administration bought it. Once samples of the tubes were obtained, the state department nuclear analysts, and more importantly, the department of energy nuclear analysts (at Tennessee's very own ORNL and Y-12 NSC) determined that these tubes could not be used to enrich uranium and were most likely for more conventional arms purposes.

However, despite this new intelligence, the CIA analyst and his superiors continued to drive home the original intelligence position that the administration bought into - uranium enrichment, no doubt about it.

The administration new about the conflicting intelligence, but it isn't clear to me that they ever knew (or in particular, that the President ever knew) just how conflicting and more reliable this intelligence was. Instead, by this point, it was clear that we were going to war, and we were looking for ammunition. The President wanted a message, and I'm convinced those around him made sure he got it - to a fault at times.
 
#14
#14
TennTradition said:
I actually believe that the administration had intelligence to support all the claims it made. However, I also believe that they also had more reliable intelligence to suggest an alternative description, and they chose to ignore it (perhaps institutionally at times) for intelligence that better fit what was becoming a clear agenda.

I point to the case of uranium enrichment and the aluminum tubes that the CIA analyst found through reviewing procurement forms. The CIA analyst made an awesome catch, the intelligence position was pitched that these tubes were being used to enrich uranium in centrifuges, and the administration bought it. Once samples of the tubes were obtained, the state department nuclear analysts, and more importantly, the department of energy nuclear analysts (at Tennessee's very own ORNL and Y-12 NSC) determined that these tubes could not be used to enrich uranium and were most likely for more conventional arms purposes.

However, despite this new intelligence, the CIA analyst and his superiors continued to drive home the original intelligence position that the administration bought into - uranium enrichment, no doubt about it.

The administration new about the conflicting intelligence, but it isn't clear to me that they ever knew (or in particular, that the President ever knew) just how conflicting and more reliable this intelligence was. Instead, by this point, it was clear that we were going to war, and we were looking for ammunition. The President wanted a message, and I'm convinced those around him made sure he got it - to a fault at times.
Click to expand...

We are going to get into this when I get back from dinner, even if everything you just said is true (which you left out some key points), that doesn't explain the chemical or biological weapons, and those are WMD's as well. The critics are so mad at Bush for being pre-emptive, but that's exactly what he said he'd do after 911.
 
#15
#15
volsforever27 said:
We are going to get into this when I get back from dinner, even if everything you just said is true (which you left out some key points), that doesn't explain the chemical or biological weapons, and those are WMD's as well. The critics are so mad at Bush for being pre-emptive, but that's exactly what eh said he'd do after 911.
Click to expand...

Most of the intelligence about biological weapons...if not all...supposedly came from an Iraqi defector who was brought to the administration by the same Iraqis in the US group (can't remember its name) that supplied the administration with its first prime minister (Al'...something or other...I'm in a hurry and can't remember his name either).

Anyway..they had something ridiculous like 80 reports of biological weapons labs (the mobile labs)...but it turns out that just about all 80 came from debriefings of this one guy. And, the other reports were from foreign intelligence services (like the Italians), but it turns out that supposedly the Italians were sold the intelligence from this same guy. I really don't remember the complete story on this one as well - so I may have some errors ... and I say supposedly because this comes from only one book that I read ... so take it for what it is worth.

Does anyone else know/remember more details about this that could actually fill in the multiple gaps?
 
#16
#16
volsforever27 said:
We are going to get into this when I get back from dinner, even if everything you just said is true (which you left out some key points), that doesn't explain the chemical or biological weapons, and those are WMD's as well. The critics are so mad at Bush for being pre-emptive, but that's exactly what he said he'd do after 911.
Click to expand...

Also....I may have to go out later and not be around to discuss...but when I get back I'd be happy to reply/post what I think/know/can remember.
 
#18
#18
TennTradition said:
I actually believe that the administration had intelligence to support all the claims it made. However, I also believe that they also had more reliable intelligence to suggest an alternative description, and they chose to ignore it (perhaps institutionally at times) for intelligence that better fit what was becoming a clear agenda.

I point to the case of uranium enrichment and the aluminum tubes that the CIA analyst found through reviewing procurement forms. The CIA analyst made an awesome catch, the intelligence position was pitched that these tubes were being used to enrich uranium in centrifuges, and the administration bought it. Once samples of the tubes were obtained, the state department nuclear analysts, and more importantly, the department of energy nuclear analysts (at Tennessee's very own ORNL and Y-12 NSC) determined that these tubes could not be used to enrich uranium and were most likely for more conventional arms purposes.

However, despite this new intelligence, the CIA analyst and his superiors continued to drive home the original intelligence position that the administration bought into - uranium enrichment, no doubt about it.

The administration new about the conflicting intelligence, but it isn't clear to me that they ever knew (or in particular, that the President ever knew) just how conflicting and more reliable this intelligence was. Instead, by this point, it was clear that we were going to war, and we were looking for ammunition. The President wanted a message, and I'm convinced those around him made sure he got it - to a fault at times.
Click to expand...

exactly. clinton saw exactly the same intelligence when he was president and came to the same conclusions. it should be noted he said this right before we went into iraq. i don't think GW is teh most moral guy on earth, but i also don't think he thought he wasn't telling the truth.
 
#19
#19
droski said:
exactly. clinton saw exactly the same intelligence when he was president and came to the same conclusions. it should be noted he said this right before we went into iraq. i don't think GW is teh most moral guy on earth, but i also don't think he thought he wasn't telling the truth.
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure that Clinton ever saw the Oak Ridge analysis. I thought this came in 2001 (approximately) after we had obtained tube samples. Do I have my years off?
 
#20
#20
Just my two cents on the matter:

There is a distinction between outright lying and using facts to support you point of view.

I believe the Bush admin thought Saddam had WMD as did virtually all leading politicians and most of our allies. There were likely varying degrees/assessments of the nature of these WMDs with the nuclear (nucular) end having the least certainty.

Bush and Co. wanted to go to Iraq to fulfill the neo-con strategy of longterm stabilization via some form of self determination. This was underway in Afghanistan and Iraq appeared prime. WMD was but one of the reasons for the war but it was the most sellable reason.

Throughout the build up, the Bush admin never hid the neo-con agenda. They regularly discussed the role of liberation, democratization and long-term stability along with the treaty violations of Iraq. However, WMD was the strongest selling point and was emphasized.

At the same time, anti-war advocates took the same approach. They had many arguments but chose the ones they felt were most effective and hyped them.

In short, it was a political decision where both sides attempted to persuade by emphasizing the facts they deemed most effective to their cause. Both sides played a bit fast and loose with these facts to make their points.

To criminalize this is nuts in my opinion.
 
#21
#21
An interesting compilation of comments/quotes regarding Iraq, Saddam, WMD etc.

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

This is what I mean by the guilty list being a mile long. Most of these people made their comments to state their political position - to persuade action. Take a look a comments from Madeline Albright for example - she's trying to persuade action against Iraq. Is she being completely candid or is she presenting the facts best suited to her aim?

I'm not excusing it but this is a political reality.
 
#22
#22
volinbham said:
Just my two cents on the matter:

There is a distinction between outright lying and using facts to support you point of view.

I believe the Bush admin thought Saddam had WMD as did virtually all leading politicians and most of our allies. There were likely varying degrees/assessments of the nature of these WMDs with the nuclear (nucular) end having the least certainty.

Bush and Co. wanted to go to Iraq to fulfill the neo-con strategy of longterm stabilization via some form of self determination. This was underway in Afghanistan and Iraq appeared prime. WMD was but one of the reasons for the war but it was the most sellable reason.

Throughout the build up, the Bush admin never hid the neo-con agenda. They regularly discussed the role of liberation, democratization and long-term stability along with the treaty violations of Iraq. However, WMD was the strongest selling point and was emphasized.

At the same time, anti-war advocates took the same approach. They had many arguments but chose the ones they felt were most effective and hyped them.

In short, it was a political decision where both sides attempted to persuade by emphasizing the facts they deemed most effective to their cause. Both sides played a bit fast and loose with these facts to make their points.

To criminalize this is nuts in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think that this analysis sounds very accurate. It still bothers me that there appeared to be better intelligence available on the nuclear front, but it was largely ignored to support the known agenda.

But, I do agree with you. There was an agenda and the facts were sought to support that plan. I think that your description is a good fit.

However, I somewhat disagree with your conclusion - which is purely a matter of opinion. I still have problems with the picking and choosing of "facts" to make an argument for the invasion of another country. I know that intelligence is never cut and dry ... and when it is, then you have reason to be worried. But, it just seems that on the nuclear end, there was more reliable evidence available than the "facts" with which they chose to proceed forward. I'm not criminalizing that - literally. But, that is not what I want out of my President.

Of course, we were sold on "they are enriching uranium" and "developing nuclear WMD" ... do we know what the bases for the conclusions were? I am inclined to think that it was the Niger connection along with the aluminum tubes. Were there also defector debriefings like the biological WMD case? Any other intelligence that is known? I'm just curious about this point because it could influence my opinion.
 
#23
#23
OrangeEmpire said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also, since when is 259 less than 254? It says that Bush led...but then goes on to say that Bush's numbers were second only to Powell's. Perhaps the authors were referring to the statements about WMD, but that is not how it reads to me!

Besides - does the number of times really matter? It was the same few inaccuracies/lies (depending on the situation - and we'll probably never really know which) repeated time and time again in various stump speeches, no? We know that politicians talk a lot, and say the same thing a lot....the fact that it is inaccurate is probably nothing all that new, no?
 
#24
#24
TennTradition said:
I think that this analysis sounds very accurate. It still bothers me that there appeared to be better intelligence available on the nuclear front, but it was largely ignored to support the known agenda.

But, I do agree with you. There was an agenda and the facts were sought to support that plan. I think that your description is a good fit.

However, I somewhat disagree with your conclusion - which is purely a matter of opinion. I still have problems with the picking and choosing of "facts" to make an argument for the invasion of another country. I know that intelligence is never cut and dry ... and when it is, then you have reason to be worried. But, it just seems that on the nuclear end, there was more reliable evidence available than the "facts" with which they chose to proceed forward. I'm not criminalizing that - literally. But, that is not what I want out of my President.

Of course, we were sold on "they are enriching uranium" and "developing nuclear WMD" ... do we know what the bases for the conclusions were? I am inclined to think that it was the Niger connection along with the aluminum tubes. Were there also defector debriefings like the biological WMD case? Any other intelligence that is known? I'm just curious about this point because it could influence my opinion.
Click to expand...

This is not behavior I want out of my president or Congress. That's my main point. The intelligence wasn't just the property of Bush Co. Many eyes saw it and many made the same statements.

Part of it was a group think scenario, part of it was politics.

Take gander through the link I posted - some pretty powerful statements from many who later criticized the admin for actions.

I would spread the blame across a much larger group including many democratic leaders. I'm not condoning Bush's actions, I'm condemning his and the larger group's actions. To single out Bush & Co. is simply partisan BS IMHO.

Politics is always disappointing to me. I wish our leaders would be straight with us. However, I also hate when one side singles out the other side when both sides are guilty of the same sin.

On a personal note, I never believed Iraq was a nuclear threat. I thought the info provided by Bush Co. was the most speculative. I did though believe the that chemical and biological WMD were present and considered that along with the general view of Iraq as a consistent and repeat violator of treaty and UN sanctions. I saw this more of a stand on the world's response to these violations than a direct response to a nuclear threat. Unfortunately a line in the sand was drawn and we virtually compelled ourselves to make good on our threats. The actions of the security council didn't help either.
 
#25
#25
volinbham said:
This is not behavior I want out of my president or Congress. That's my main point. The intelligence wasn't just the property of Bush Co. Many eyes saw it and many made the same statements.

Part of it was a group think scenario, part of it was politics.

Take gander through the link I posted - some pretty powerful statements from many who later criticized the admin for actions.

I would spread the blame across a much larger group including many democratic leaders. I'm not condoning Bush's actions, I'm condemning his and the larger group's actions. To single out Bush & Co. is simply partisan BS IMHO.

Politics is always disappointing to me. I wish our leaders would be straight with us. However, I also hate when one side singles out the other side when both sides are guilty of the same sin.

On a personal note, I never believed Iraq was a nuclear threat. I thought the info provided by Bush Co. was the most speculative. I did though believe the that chemical and biological WMD were present and considered that along with the general view of Iraq as a consistent and repeat violator of treaty and UN sanctions. I saw this more of a stand on the world's response to these violations than a direct response to a nuclear threat. Unfortunately a line in the sand was drawn and we virtually compelled ourselves to make good on our threats. The actions of the security council didn't help either.
Click to expand...

Again...I can't say I disagree with you volinbham...thanks for clearing up your general take on the issues. I think that your perspective is probably pretty accurate on this one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top