Study: False Statements Preceded War

WASHINGTON (AP) – 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 said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.

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.”

Full Story Here:
Study: False Statements Preceded War 

Of course the Bush Bots are going to say that this is a left wing lie, they will say that the study groups are nothing more than ultra liberal anti Bush think tanks, right??

I mean there’s NO WAY that any of this could be true, could it??

Some of us made NO secret of how we felt regarding the Bush reasoning for going to war in Iraq, some of us have said the same thing this report is saying, and we have said it for quite a long time, and while I can’t speak for anyone else, I know that I didn’t have millions of dollars and a study group to use as I came to my conclusions, all I had was accurate sources and resources that spoke the truth, and didn’t sugar coat things to keep their position in the Bush administration or to retain, or gain some rank.

So, does this mean the impeachment proceedings will be starting soon?? I doubt that we’ll ever see a Bush impeachment, I’m pretty sure the left will be screaming for it, but it’s a bit late in the game to remove Bush through impeachment isn’t it?? A lot of money would be wasted and the hearings wouldn’t be even close to over when his term in office runs out??

So, IF all of this report is substantiated facts and can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, indict him, indict and prosecute Bush and Cheney and the whole crew, prosecute them under any laws that may have been broken, pursue any avenue that can and will force them to accept responsibility, put them in jail and throw away the key.

This isn’t a dalliance with a cute little fat girl, troops have died, BILLIONS of dollars have been wasted, this nation is on the verge of bankruptcy because of the expenses we have incurred in Iraq, IF this is an accurate story, there must be a course of action that can be taken to mete out justice to the guilty.

And that justice should be swift, sure and severe.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in America 1st and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Study: False Statements Preceded War

  1. Ranando says:

    I’m pretty sure the left will be screaming for it.

    If this turns out to be fact the entire country should be screaming for it, not just Liberals. If true, this man sent over 3000 of our best to their deaths and he and Cheney should pay.

    If this is true, not only should Bush and Cheney pay but so should the people who stood in the courtyard and chanted, do it – do it.

    If this is true we need not worry, God will take care of him and I have no problem with that.

  2. ablur says:

    I think the whole thing is a waste of breath. We had plenty of reasons to go into Iraq in 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 2000. Clinton had passed US policy demanding regime change.

    This may be unpopular words but Iraq needed doing long before Bush. I wish there was a way to wager on what would have happened if we had done something when it needed doing.
    Would the USS Cole bombing have happened? Would 9/11 have happened? If we would have taken care of small men of violent means when they had reared their heads, we may not have the horror that exists in the world today.
    We instead chose submissive, self serving representatives who did nothing to guard those they sworn to protect.
    We now have those in office who still avoid doing the very act that would have saved us. Close the boarders and monitor the foreigners who walk among us. How many thousands must die because of our unwillingness to do what needs to be done.

    If we are going to impeach Bush and Cheney it should be over our border and the fact that they chose to do nothing to save the citizens they took an oath to protect.

  3. David says:

    ablur, huh?

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Iraq did not have WMD’s, nor storage, nor production facilities for WMD.

    My goodness, at this point I can only hope that those Americans that REALLY matter, those in the middle of the bell curve, can see what a disaster this President and the far-right have been to America.

    Just horrible.

  4. GUYK says:

    Hell, Fred, Bill Clinton figured that Saddam was trying to build a nuke and so did every country in Europe that had intelligence agencies. I think Bush rushed into something that he was not prepared for but I am not buying into a left wing argument that he gave the public information that he knew was false.

    My biggest problem with the war in Iraq has been the fact that until recently the Bush people wanted to win the war by being politically correct and went in half stepping. It appears now that progress is being made as most of us figured it would once the troops were allowed to blow away the bad guys.

    I am still calling for a pullout because I really don’t give a rats ass if the Sunni and Shiite kill each other off.I figure that once Saddam was hung that the mission was accomplished. I don’t like the idea of being in the middle of a gotdam civil war.

  5. BobF says:

    All through the 90′s, Bill Clinton said Iraq had WMD’s. We launched cruise missiles in 98 at suspected suspected targets that were producing chemical weapons. A good part of the intelligence the Bush Administration and our allies had was turned over to them by the Clinton Administration. All during the 90′s we deployed as part of a Tanker Task Force to Saudi Arabia and Turkey in order to contain Iraq. We were briefed on their chemical and biological capabilities.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

    Here in 1992 we have Al Gore chastising Bush 41 for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism and WMD’s.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

    Going into Iraq and ousting Saddam isn’t the problem. The problem is what took place after we defeat Iraq and how the occupation was conducted. We saddled our troops with ROE’s that if your local dog catcher had, your neighborhood would be over ran with dogs. We displayed weakness to a people that only respects strength.

  6. TexasFred says:

    Bob, no doubt, there was faulty intelligence, and yeah, Clinton didn’t just not act ON it, he was one of the major causes OF it, he and his bitch destroyed the Intel services and damn near destroyed the services…

    And the aftermath was the problem, personally, I have NO problem with taking out Saddam and his bastard sons, but we didn’t go to Iraq to nation build, we didn’t go to bring about Iraqi freedom, we went to take out Saddam because little Bush was pissed off that Saddam had threatened big Bush, plain and simple, it was a temper tantrum, and many in upper echelon ranks advised Bush to NOT do this, that it was going to be a very bad mistake, but he didn’t listen, and thus, the aftermath, mismanaged and still going on, 5 years of death, destruction and wasted U.S. tax payer dollars…

  7. BobF says:

    I’ve always wondered? If after Desert Storm we had tried to bring Saddam around to our way of doing things instead of isolating him, would things have turned out different during the 90′s and into today? He was defeated and we just packed up and left him his own devises.

  8. TexasFred says:

    Bob, I posted that here on the blog a while back, that had we actually ‘mined’ Saddam would he have not been a decent ally, not one we could trust but an ally none the less, and we have a hell of a lot of allies that we can’t trust, so it wasn’t at all out of the equation…

  9. The problem with the report is that I could make a report like this and show ANYONE to be lying :)

    They took what we know now and retroactively ‘proved’ that someone lied about it THEN.

    Saying something you believe (that turns out to not be true) is not the same as lying.

  10. Before everyone runs off screaming, you might want to take a peek at Ed Morrissey’s Captain’s Quarters:

    George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied
    The AP reports, and the New York Times expands, on a new study by a supposedly “independent” organization that claims to have assembled hundred of “false statements” by the Bush administration in the course of the Iraq war. However, the Center for Public Integrity hardly qualifies as “independent”. It gets much of its funding from George Soros, who has thrown millions of dollars behind Democratic political candidates, and explicitly campaigned to defeat George Bush in 2004.

    BZ

  11. Ranando says:

    Who cares who funded it?

    Is it true?

  12. TexasFred says:

    Ed Morrissey is a bigger Bush Bot than Gayle and Amy put together…

    And as Ranando said, if it’s true, who cares where the funding came from, if it’s NOT true, debunk it…

    I don’t see anyone doing any major debunking at the moment…

    No 9-11 involvement, no WMDs that threatened us, oh, but wait, that study group was the U.S. Senate and Congress, a Republican controlled Senate and Congress, when we still had them, so, ya know, maybe it IS all just a left wing attack on a wonderful person and brilliant President… (/sarcasm)

  13. Bluebonnet Sue says:

    GUYK, I agree with you. There’s too much emphasis put on being politically correct…not only in Iraq but here at home. I’m sick of it!

    As for the report, just “follow the money.” Who funded it makes a lot of difference especially when there are those who will swallow what is said without question just because it is touted as being from an “independent organization”. I do agree that what matters is whether it’s true or not. I’m waiting for some rebuttal…but not holding my breath.

    Also, I would like to know where to find the documentation that GW went to war because he was angry that Saddam threatened his daddy? If that is an assumption or speculation, then that is no better than what took place in getting us into the war in the first place.

    NO… I am not a Bush Bot.

  14. TexasFred says:

    Sue, it’s a speculation on my part, and not all that far fetched actually, sounds as good as all the other bullshit floating out there, because for damn sure there were NO WMDs and our own Senate and Congress said Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9-11…

    So, can you think of any other reason??

Comments are closed.