 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: Study: Hundreds of false statements preceded war |
 |
|
| Quote: |
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET
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." |
| Quote: | 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. |
| Quote: | | "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. |
Um.... yeah. I'm glad people are doing their studying.
Someone who goes by the handle of White Rabbit on Political Fever Forums said this:
| Quote: | So, does everyone NOW understand what the Republicans were up to when they moved to impeach Clinton in the 1990's?
By moving a wildly unpopular and entirely partisan political impeachment of Clinton, they effectively killed the mechanism.
Now, anyone who even suggests impeachment is tarred with the brush of 'pure partisan gamesmanship' (since that is the model of impeachment that everyone understands - the Republican game during the 1990's, not the Nixon issue of the 1970's). All impeachments are now see as equal to the Republican one in the 1990's - pure partisan gamesmanship.
Brilliant strategy by Republcans - effectively preventing any of their Presidents from ever being impeached. And of course, the Republicans retain the use of impeachment as a partisan weapon against the Democrats, but vice versa is not the case. This is brilliant partisan 'hardball' gamesmanship - raises partisanship to a whole new level. Very impressive.
Though, I'm sure also the 'Quayle' strategy of having a VP that is more hideous than the President you want to remove also has protected Bush here. |
I've really wondered this. I know that Clinton had a number of bad things about him, but the only focus the republicans had on him was the affair. SURE, AFTER everything's all over, THEN the republicans talk about the other aspects to Clinton, but NOT during that time. I think it's funny that the republicans disliked Clinton--he did more for the republicans than he did the democrats, that's for DAMN sure.
I really wonder whether White Rabbit might be right about this. Could this have been a well-orchestrated plan by the republicans so they could get a president that nobody could impeach? Was it a plan to eventually attack the whole middle east without having to worry about the repercussions? Conspiracy-ish, but I just don't think Bush is as stupid as people make him out to be.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
| |
|
