Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Media Study Claims Bush Administration Lied Hundreds of Times About Iraq
Associated Press ^ | January 22, 2008

Posted on 01/22/2008 9:17:48 PM PST by Tut

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: Tut
“Center for Public Integrity” my butt.

It's another Left wing outfit like People for the American Way.

41 posted on 01/22/2008 10:45:48 PM PST by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dead

AP reporters play with dolls!

42 posted on 01/22/2008 10:59:33 PM PST by weegee (Those who surrender personal liberty to lower global temperatures will receive neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Soros also funds the Center for Independent Journalism

43 posted on 01/22/2008 11:29:21 PM PST by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

44 posted on 01/23/2008 3:53:56 AM PST by Enterprise (Those who "betray us" also "Betray U.S." They're called DEMOCRATS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Thank You.

45 posted on 01/23/2008 3:56:58 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, 'em what you will...They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tut

46 posted on 01/23/2008 4:54:05 AM PST by pookie18 (Of course I'm voting for the Republican nominee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tut

AP - American Pravda

47 posted on 01/23/2008 4:55:33 AM PST by sergeantdave (The majority of Michigan voters are that stupid and the condition is incipient and growing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tut

“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.”

And not one Democrat who made similar statements. “A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations” my a**. A hit piece during an election year by a democratic supporting disingenious clown group. Soros study2.0.

Neat trick too, repeating the same “lie” gets to count multiple times. All the morons will repeat the 900 number like they parrott the 600,000 dead.

48 posted on 01/23/2008 5:58:04 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tut
FLASHBACK: DEM STATEMENTS OMITTED FROM THE STORY Lies, Misrepresentations and More Left-Wing Extremist Propaganda By California Yankee Posted in Iraq | Left-Wing Extremist Propaganda | lies | Misrepresentations | War — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment » To paraphrase President Reagan, there they go again. Associated Press writer, Douglas Daniel has written an article promoting more lies, misrepresentations, and left-wing extremist propaganda trying to revive the loony left's thoroughly debunked fiction that we were "misled" into war in Iraq by "false statements" and "lies." On Yahoo the Douglas article is titled "Study: False statements preceded war." But CBS News, the ever accurate former employer of Dan Rather, originally carried the article under the headline "Study: 2 Years Of Lies Led To Iraq War. That was too much even for the President Bush hating propagandists at CBS, who toned it down to "Study: 'False Pretenses' Led U.S. To War." I am so very tired of this propaganda. Mr. Douglas does not acquit himself well as a reporter here. Perhaps that is why he is identified as a writer. He does little, other than regurgitating the misleading talking points put forth in the press release posted on the Web site of the cleverly named Center for Public Integrity. According to wikipedia, despite its claims to be a nonpartisan news organization "the Center has been accused of bias toward left-wing political causes because it has accepted money from organizations and individuals that favor liberal policies and/or actively oppose right-wing political causes." Read on. At the New York Times, John Cushman Jr., doesn't do much better, but the headline is more restrained. Even though Douglas and Cushman put forth the press release talking points claiming that President Bush and other administration officials made hundreds of "false statements" leading us to war in Iraq, they both fails to do any fact checking. Oh they note that journalists and news organizations have issued mea culpas, saying their pre-war coverage was "too deferential and uncritical." But they fail to mention that no less than three exhaustive studies have concluded that there is no justification for the false allegation that the administration lied about the WMDs. Everyone was convinced that Saddam had WMDs. It remains a fact Saddam used WMDs against Iran and his own people. The intelligence and common wisdom that Iraq still possessed such weapons at the time we liberated Iraq proved to be wrong, but that doesn't equate to a lie. So lets go over the facts again. The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the report states: Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. [Redacted] Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments. Besides that report, two other independent investigations came to the same conclusion. The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction likewise found "no evidence of political pressure." At pages 50-51 the Robb-Silberman report states: The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments. The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction similarly "found no evidence of deliberate distortion." At page 110 the British Butler report states: Treatment of intelligence material 449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence. The effect of departmental policy agendas 450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC. The consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction formed in the Clinton administration. The consensus was more than evident in 1998, when President Clinton was threatening to attack Iraq. President Clinton:: 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. Secretary of State Madeline Albright: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem. "The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities." Is it so much to ask that news service "writers" and reporters do a little fact checking?
49 posted on 01/23/2008 6:01:49 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tut

Study already being debunked

January 23, 2008
How to Lie About Lying
Iraq Matters , Media Madness
Hatched by Dafydd
This one is simply befuddling:
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.”
Now, would any disinterested party read the above — and not think the study authors were accusing President Bush and his administration of deliberately lying us into war? Surely this subtextual implication must have crept in because of bad writing; I can’t imagine that the elite media would be so intentionally partisan.
Here are the specific charges:
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.”
One notes that “Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members” — isn’t that a lovely grammatical construct? — do not deny that Iraq was “trying to... obtain” WMD, even though they appear to include such claims under the category of “false statements.”
Nor do they deny the administration’s claim that Iraq had “links” with al-Qaeda. They merely dispute the meaningfulness of those links... and dub that another “false statement” by the president and his administration.
Here is that section from the report itself, from their database of “false statements;” it’s a perfect primer on the anatomy of a falsehood:
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.”
This one is instructive to deconstruct:
1. What they say: “In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: ‘Sure.’”
What they mean: Rumsfeld asserts that relationships exist between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
2. What they say: “[A]n assessment... found an absence of ‘compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.’”
What they mean: The later assessment found that there were relationships, but they did not rise to the level of military alliances.
3. What they say: “[A]n earlier DIA assessment said that ‘the nature of the regime’s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.’”
What they mean: Before we found out the nature of the relationships, we did not know the nature of the relationships.
If you can find that Rumsfeld’s statement (1) — which evidently consisted of the single word “Sure” — is falsified by either (2) of (3), please take to the comments and explain it to the rest of us... because to me, laboring under the disadvantage of having been intensely trained only in the lesser rhetorical art of mathematical logic, they appear to be able to exist in the same ‘hood without bothering each other.
Here is another “false statement” (we are meant to understand “obvious lie”) that the Center discovered, after digging deeply into the substrata of hidden rhetorical diplospeak. I must admit, this one was a marvel of original research that all by itself may justify the report — if only to bring this one hidden, obscure falsehood to the light of day:
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
This is such an out of the blue, never before seen accusation that I haven’t had time to formulate a response. He has me there!
Thus the massive database of dishonesty and mountain of mendacity they unearthed, dutifully reported by the Associated Press... with but a single effort to elicit a general response from the administration — and no attempt whatsoever to delve into these alleged “false statements” to see whether there is even a contradiction between what the administration said and what the Center for Pubic Integrity said. Yet there is also this unanswered (unasked) question that seems somewhat pertinent, at least to me:
How many of these “false statements” were, in fact, believed true by virtually everybody, Republican and Democrat alike, when they were made? How many were parroted by Democrats, including those on the House and Senate Permanent Select Intelligence Committees, who thereby had access to the same intelligence as la Casablanca? The Center doesn’t tell, and the incurious media elites don’t ask.
This is as close as they come in their executive summary:
Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.
On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials [Eric Shinseki? Weasely Clark? Bill Clinton?], have publicly — and in some cases vociferously [”rabidly” would be the better word choice] — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence.
A growing number of critics! Well, who could argue with that?
Here are a couple of inconvenient truths the AP story neglects to tell us:
o “A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations...”
The Fund for Independence in Journalism says its “primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups.” Eight of the eleven members of the Fund’s board of directors are either on the BoD of the Center for Public Integrity, or else are on the Center’s Advisory Board. Thus these “two” organizations are actually joined at the hip.
o “Fund for Independence in Journalism...”
The Center is heavily funded by George Soros. It has also received funding from Bill Moyers, though some of that money might have actually been from Soros, laundered through Moyers via the Open Society Foundation.
Other funders include the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts (used to be conservative, but in 1987 they veered sharply to the left, and are now a dyed-in-the-wool “progressive” funder), the Los Angeles Times Foundation, and so forth. The Center is a far-left organization funded by far-left millionaires, billionaires, and trusts.
Even the New York Times, in their “me too” article on the data dump, admits that there is nothing new in this release... just a jumble of statements, some of which later turned out to have been erroneous, others which just constitute heresy within the liberal catechism:
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 M. Nixon used to dismissively call “wallowing in Watergate.”
By “wallowing,” the Times means those in the terminal stage of BDS can search for phrases like “mushroom cloud” or “yellowcake” and be rewarded by screens and screens of shrill denunciation of the Bush administration... just as Watergate junkies used to do (without the benefit of computers) in the early 1970s. (Mediocre science-fiction author and liberal “paleotruther” Isaac Asimov called this, evidently without realizing the irony, “getting my Watergate fix.”)
The Nixon reference appears to have been suggested by the report itself; the executive summary ends:
Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?
I’m certain it’s sheer coincidence that this nonsense was spewed across the news sockets during the peak of the election primary season... and right before the primary in Florida, of all states. Had anyone at AP or the Times realized how this might affect the election, I know their independent journalistic integrity would have suggested they hold this non-time-constrained story until afterwards. Say, they could even have used the time to consider whether “Iraq and al-Qaeda had a relationship” and “the relationship didn’t amount to direct cooperation” contradict each other.
A less charitable person than I might imagine this “database” was nothing but a mechanical tool to allow good liberals easier access to a tasty “two-minutes hate.”
But realizing that the elite media has only our best interests at heart, my only possible conclusion is that, despite the multiple layers of editorial input that must occur at these venues, several important facts just slipped through the cracks:
o The fact that the Center for Public Integrity is a Left-funded, leftist, activist organization with a serious hatchet to grind with the Bush administration;
o The fact that the Fund for Independence in Journalism is neither independent, nor is it engaged in journalism (it’s a front group of mostly the same people whose purpose is to shield the Center from lawsuits);
o And the fact that the vast majority of the supposed “false statements” are in fact simply positions with which liberals disagree, or else statements widely accepted at the time that later investigation (after deposing Saddam Hussein) showed to be inaccurate.
I must assume that these self-evident facts must simply have been honestly missed by the gimlet-eyed reporters and editors at AP and the NYT. Heck, even Pinch nods.

Shouldn’t be too hard, after all this is a Soros project

50 posted on 01/23/2008 6:39:37 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tut

BS exposed

51 posted on 01/23/2008 7:18:41 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

Wednesday, on Brit Hume’s news hour on FOX, he reported that both these organizations are funded by George Soros.

52 posted on 01/24/2008 9:14:50 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee ("A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
Good. I am glad to hear that. I highly respect Brit Hume. On the other hand, I find it outrageous that ran the story on Tuesday without bothering to mention that the supposedly impartial nonprofit organizations are funded by George Soros. So, we have either extremely shoddy, incompetent journalism or an intention to obfuscate the facts. See:,3566,324753,00.html
53 posted on 01/24/2008 9:36:07 AM PST by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
I just noticed that the original story is the same article posted on Fox news. So, never mind following the link in my last message!
54 posted on 01/24/2008 9:40:36 AM PST by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
FOX News has been a low budget, high profit business. They use AP, Reuters and other “news” services in place of a large staff. Hopefully this will improve over time. CNN, in my opinion, is a much more qualitative outfit with a worldwide staff. Unfortunately, CNN insists on shaping news to fit a liberal, partisan agenda.
55 posted on 01/24/2008 10:19:35 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee ("A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Regardless of how low budget Fox’s operations may be, how much does it cost to spend a few seconds checking out a story before reporting it as fact? Isn’t that, after all, their job? I am constantly amazed at the shoddy state of journalism these days. Journalists are supposedly “professionals” in their field. Yet, time after time they violate rules that are taught in a Journalism 101 class.

56 posted on 01/25/2008 2:21:49 PM PST by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Tut

Hundreds of times is far less than all the time. The AP can never be believed. They never tell the truth.

57 posted on 01/25/2008 2:23:44 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Moveon is not us...... Moveon is the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
I don’t know if those rules are taught in “broadcast journalism” which has always, to me, been an oxymoron. The emphasis is on appearance, taste in dress, voice, “personality,” and the ability to read a script in front of a camera.
58 posted on 01/25/2008 2:33:25 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee ("A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Tut

George Soros is stirring again.

59 posted on 01/25/2008 2:35:23 PM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris

To me, the way I look at it, a socialist named George Soros spent vast fortune, with help for the left wing crowd to over throw the duly elected president of this country and failed miserably.

I think he needs to go back where he comes from and take his buddies with him.

60 posted on 01/25/2008 7:18:35 PM PST by Tut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson