Study concludes Bush lied

Well, I didn’t really need a study to figure this one out…but maybe it will help dhunley come to terms a bit. 😉

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

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.”

  • http://rowanreview.com Dhunley

    Oh for crying out loud, Dave. How could a reasonable person call this a “LIE”? Did Bill Clinton lie (well…lol…of course he did, but I mean about Iraq’s WMD?)? Did Albright lie? Did Gore lie? Did Hillary lie? Dave, this is utter nonsense.

    A rational, reasonable person could well make the case that war was unnecessary; and a rational, reasonable person could make the case that President Bush chose the wrong option among MANY options. That kind of argument might merit a listen.

    But to call them “LIES” is inaccurate, unfair, and indicates a lack of credibility on the part of the person making the accusation. Now do you REALLY want to still call them lies? Because the only people you MIGHT be convincing are people determined to believe what they want—facts be darned—and those people are NOT the kind of people we want in positions of power.

    Now…by the way…have you seen my posted response to your “economic” and “climatic” cycles? I thought I posted it…I might have made a mistake.

    Also, I’m waiting for Paula to present her plan for getting rid of 8 out of 10 people—AND I’m waiting to show her a few more “fools”.

    Talk to you soon.

  • admin

    hey, don’t misunderstand…i absolutely think that Clinton lied…Version 1, and Version 2…

    they ALL lie, man! that’s what i’m trying to get across here, but for some reason, you seem to have a soft spot in your heart for ol’ GW that keeps you from being able to accept the fact that he LIED, whether by words or actions.

    we never get the truth…not from most politicians, or the media…every once in a while, a candidate has the cojones to actually TELL us the truth, but we don’t want to hear it…or the media make sure that we either A) don’t hear it, or B) when we DO hear it, it is distorted in an effort to make that person look like a nut-job/loose cannon/dimwit (see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich).

    nosir…not until we come up with some MAJOR reforms in our election process will we ever have a shot at electing an honest politician…and even then, probably not.

    as for your other comments, they aren’t showing up…i will check to see if they are in the moderation section, waiting to be approved. if a comment contains more 2 links or more, i think it automatically holds them back for manual approval.

  • http://www.cyberhillbilly.blogspot.com Cyberhillbilly

    Dave:

    Were these guys lying:

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
    – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
    – (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
    – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    These folks had access to the same intelligence that the White House did.

    I think Bush made an error talking so much about their having WMD, but I think it was an error made in good faith b/c they were so confident they would find them. But it wasn’t the only argument they made. The most important argument was removing Saddam Hussien b/c he was such a wild card in an era where borders mean littl e and governments can cooperate w/ terrorists to give them the means and ability to kill thousands in one fell swoop.

    Let me close with this Hillary quote, repeated one more time:

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

  • admin

    CH…
    in the post above, i said that i think they ALL lie…they lie, because most of the American public cannot handle, and does not want to, hear the truth.

    however, i don’t think that all the quotes listed from the 90’s can really be fairly considered in this discussion, because it is one thing to say you thought he had WMD 5 years before the war began vs. still thinking it in 2001 or 2002, leading up to the invasion.

    in regards to the quotes you gave from those years leading up to the war, it reads like a who’s who of the Democratic Senior Citizens Home and Mental Institute. 🙂

    i hold many of the democrats just as responsible for the war in Iraq. however, i’m not so sure just exactly how much of the pre-war information was actually made available to Congress. it is one thing to say they knew everything the President knew, but if his true goal was to invade Iraq, then he most certainly would NOT share all of the information, especially if it did not support his cause.

    your opinion can really only be as good as the information you are given.

  • http://rowanreview.com dhunley

    I beg your pardon, Dave,but…huh…what are the “truths” that people can’t handle? What I see is “opinions” that people try to present as “truth”. Care to refresh my memory?

    Any lies identified? Any rights lost? Any facts to support evolution (aside from the “overwhelming evidence” everybody always talks about but never presents :)?

    Any evidence available that the world is over-populated (other than a glance out the window :)? Oh…and any evidence to support that magical engine that can get 100 mpg?

    And besides, we wouldn’t have to worry about whether or not people could “handle the truth” if we properly supported the constitution. But since we’ve long since trampled the principles of the constitution, we’re left to battle “opinions”.

    Good luck to everyone involved.

  • http://www.cyberhillbilly.blogspot.com Cyberhillbilly

    Admin:

    The list reads like a who’s who of Senate Demo foreign policy experts. Joe Biden, Bob Graham, Jay Rockefeller, Sandy Berger… they’re not partisan hacks. And many of these quotes were from more recent years including the lady who I assume you’ll be supporting for Prez come Nov.

  • http://ablogination.tn420.org/blog captainkona

    The democrats in Congress were given intel that BushCo fabricated.
    They saw intel they thought was legitimate and assessed that there was a threat where there wasn’t one.

    Again, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Feith, Libby and the rest of the PNAC traitors fabricated the intel. That is a proven fact.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

    Saddam did have WMD programs while Clinton was in office and his capacity to produce them was destroyed then.

    What this means is (for the brain-dead Nazi f*#ks on board) that Bush and his treasonous ilk LIED and all and the others are guilty of is being gullible and stupid enough to trust a Repig’s word for anything.

    Nice try, half-wits. But no cigar.

  • http://rowanreview.com dhunley

    Even with his boot on the back of our neck…he’d call us Nazi! What can you do with a person this irrational? Well…probably nothing with him individually. All we can do is try to protect our selves from him—and perhaps use him as an example.

    No where on here, or anywhere else, can anyone find where I’ve advocated the loss or rights and freedom; yet this yahoo wants to go spouting NAZI junk. You folks out there —who THINK people like Obama and Clinton and McCain have your best interest at heart—had better know that someone like captainkona is waiting at the end of it.

    This socialistic path we’re heading for in such a blind rush will lead us to another Stalin as sure as the sun rises. Because when their idea of a perfect society doesn’t pan out, they’ll start blaming people…when potatoes start rotting in the field, it’ll be the “Jews” fault, or the “rich man’s” fault,

    And Captainkona will be the type of thug who’ll do the bidding or someone like Hitler, or Mussolini. They’re just mindless fountains of rage and there is no reasoning with him. He’ll dream up or out-right make up whatever information he needs to justify what he wants to believe.

    And why do you think they’re whining about global warming or global poverty or the environment? It’s because they intend to use those ideas—that they’re trying to “SAVE THE PLANET”—to justify putting us in a police state.

    I’m telling ya…it’s happened over and over and over.