WASHINGTON, D.C. January 23, 2008 — With many analysts contending that the Bush Iraq surge is successful, another surge proceeding—that of questioning the President’s actions pre-Iraq War.
Leading up to the five-year anniversary of the Iraq war, the Center for Public Integrity has released the first analysis of its kind, “Iraq – The War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War.”According to the Center, “this comprehensive examination of top Bush administration officials’ statements over a two-year period shows how top officials galvanized public opinion in the run-up to the March 18, 2003 invasion of Iraq. The project’s chronology provides a framework for examining how the administration’s false statements led the country into the war in Iraq. The results of this analysis question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were merely the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.
According to the Center founder Charles Lewis and researchers helping him write a forthcoming, new book, were instrumental in identifying 935 false statements by eight top administration officials that mentioned Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al Qaeda, on at least 532 separate occasions. The false statements included in the analysis were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleisher and Scott McClellan.
“Today, the Center is releasing a remarkable report that squarely meets our mission, to produce original investigative journalism about significant public issues to make institutional power more transparent and accountable,” said Executive Director Bill Buzenberg. “This is a report like no other, which calls into question more than 900 false statements that were the underpinnings of the administration’s case for war.”
“Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq,” said Lewis, now president of the Fund for Independence in Journalism and a professor at the American University School of Communications in Washington. “There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period, and now millions of White House emails from 2001 to October 2003 apparently may have been destroyed.”
The Center said that the analysis graphically shows how President Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials methodically propagated erroneous information over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. These false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, just prior to congressional consideration of a war resolution and during the critical weeks in early 2003 when the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable presentation to the U.N. Security Council. These statements have been included in a fully searchable 380,000-word database, assembled from primary and secondary public sources, major news organizations and more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.
President Bush, according to the Center, had the most false statements, at 260, about weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda in Iraq, followed by Secretary of State Powell with 254. The analysis reveals that officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements.
TW,
"my country is right, all the time, no matter what." That's your drink of choice . . "
The better phrasing is "MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG, MY COUNTRY!"
The actual phrase morphed from Commodore Stephen Decatur's toast, "In matters of foreign affairs, Our Country, may she always be right...".
Yes, my "friend" that drink is such sweet nectur, it is the tast of FREEDOM!!! Just remember, "For those who fought for it, FREEDOM has a taste the defended will never know"!!!!!!!!!!
We are (still) the greatest country in the history of the planet. Unlike the "Hate-America" LEFT, we conservatives believe that this Country is still worth fighting for. Unlike the LEFT, I am not willing to hand the sovereignty of this country over to the ACLU, European Union, UN or the wackjob muslims in the Middle-East.
Hey, TW, care for a sip? You'll feel better in the morning! LOL . . . Written by walker0416
on 2/22/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
TW,
OK, I'm supposed to ignore the historical FACTS about Iraq's WMD because someone, namely George Soros, with a grudge against George Bush, has made it his life's work to embarrass the "W" administration by funding LEFTWING, socialist agenda, organizations designed to do just that. No, I just consider the source and MOVEON- PUN INTENDED!!!!
Here's something that you can ignore- most people in their blind tirade against "W" have done so- why should you be any different. We have records, Congressional and UN, that DOCUMENT the belief that Iraq possessed WMD with intent to use them. The UN has, on record, created ten years worth of resolutions denouncing these WMB. Bill and Hillary, and every other left wing nut job in congress is DOCUMENTED for the record, the Congressional Record and the NYT, proclaiming Iraq's WMD are a threat to US security!!!! If "W" lied, then all of your left wing nutjobs, the UN, most 1st world and a few 3rd world countries lied too!!! That makes it a GLOBAL CONSPIRACY!!!!!!! LOL . . .
Even if Iraq's WMD did not exist, most politicians, LEFT and RIGHT, and most intelligence agencies, believed them to exist, and believed them to be a threat to global security (if there is such a thing as global security). Of course, the LEFT will proclaim that they made those comments based upon the information they had at the time and ask for forgiveness. However, the same empathy is not extended to the "W" administration. Why? Because it is easier to create talking points (Bush lied, children died") to embarrass the party in power than to stand up as the loyal opposition and unite as one country to fight these middle-eastern wackjobs!!!!
It is quite possible, but doubtful, that all of these global intelligence agencies got it wrong. It is possible that the UN and , egats the NYT, got it wrong too!!!It is also possible that the congressional democrats voted in error to support the war. If so, then, the "W" administration should be given the same pass for making a decision using the same information!!!!!!! Written by walker0416
on 2/22/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee, don't flatter yourself, I don't care what you think. And for goodness sake, take your own advice. Written by Sid
on 1/29/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Sid, don't worry about what I think. Think for yourself. Get information from beyond the corporate media. Question those in authority. In short, wake up! TW Written by Tee Dub
on 1/28/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Thank you Tee for enlightening me, I now where republicans come from...former democratic racists. Wow. I guess Robert Byrd is a slow learner? There's still time for him to switch parties. Onward Christian soldiers, let's take over the world for Tee Dub. Tee are you mad at the entire country or just those who have conservative ideals? Written by Sid
on 1/28/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You're not being intellectually honest, Sid. Most of the "Dixiecrats" who supported segregation jumped ship to the Republican party a long time ago. Where did all those Republicans across the South come from? Were they former Communists? Did they vaporize into existence out of the ether? No, they were racist Democrats who bolted the party to the party of Goldwater and Reagan. Good riddance to 'em, I say. To point at Robert Byrd is disingenuous. And call it what you want, it's a war over there in Iraq. We're no better than the 17-19th century missionaries who spread Christianity through fear, killing and intimidation. "Our way is the right way! Only we know truth! The war is not in Iraq, where our glorious footsoldiers are spreading truth and righteousness! No, the war is here at home, where we are fighting a war with liberals!" Give it a rest, Sid. Enough already - talk about Kool-Aid - your Kool-Aid is the "my country is right, all the time, no matter what." That's your drink of choice, Ace. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 1/28/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee Dub, I am amazed at your lengthy diatribes and your gift of gab. Only "wealthy" folks got tax cuts? I thought that anyone who paid taxes got tax cuts?? The USA is a bully? What about the Palestinians, the Syrians, and others that attack Israel on a daily basis, are they considered bullies or freedom fighters according to your demented thought process? I find it amazing that you refer to 9/11 as a "cheap rightard gimmick" my God Tee Dub, you should have stopped drinking the Kool Aid after the first cup. And of course the democrats are the only party that matters when it comes to freeing the slaves and promoting civil rights? I thought Lincoln was a republican, but nevertheless, I guess Robert Byrd, US Senator/democrat/former KKK member should have been a republican? The democratic of today is not the party that John F. Kennedy was part of...read his position papers and read the history books. And finally, my "relatives" say they are performing a "mission" to ensure continued freedom the the developing country of Iraq. The war is not in Iraq, it's right here between "rightards" and left leaning socialists like you(I am assuming). It's a shame that this is not one country anymore but a country being torn apart by idiots like you that refuse to enter into any type of intellectual debate. Keep drinking the Kool Aid! Written by Sid
on 1/28/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
From: "Reality Is Totally Different" Iraqis on "Success" and "Progress" in Their Country By: Dahr Jamail
On October 6, 2004, George W. Bush proclaimed: "Iraq is no diversion; it is the place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror -- and we must not waver."
Iraqis, of course, continue to witness firsthand this "decisive stand against chaos and terror." In our world, however, they are largely mute witnesses. Americans may argue among themselves about just how much "success" or "progress" there really is in post-surge Iraq, but it is almost invariably an argument in which Iraqis are but stick figures -- or dead bodies. Of late, I have been asking Iraqis I know by email what they make of the American version (or versions) of the unseemly reality that is their country, that they live and suffer with. What does it mean to become a "secondary issue" for your occupier?
In response, Professor S. Abdul Majeed Hassan, an Iraqi university faculty member wrote me the following:
"The year of 2007 was the bloodiest among the occupation years, and no matter how successful the situation looks to Mr. Bush, reality is totally different. What kind of normal life are he and the media referring to where four and a half million highly educated Iraqis are still dislocated or still being forcefully driven out of their homes for being anti-occupation? How can the people live a normal life in a cage of concrete walls [she is referring to concrete walls being erected by the Americans around entire Baghdad neighborhoods], guarded by their kidnappers, killers, and occupation forces? What kind of normal life can you live where tens of your relatives and your beloved ones are either missing or in jail and you don't even know if they are still alive or, after being tortured, have been thrown unidentified in the dumpsters?
"What kind of normal life can you live when you have to bid farewell to your family each time you go out to buy bread because you don't know if you are going to see them again? What is a normal life to Mr. Bush? If we're lucky, we get a few hours of electricity a day, barely enough drinking water, no health care, no jobs to feed our kids…
"Little teenage girls are given away in marriage because their families can't protect them from militias and troops during raids. Women cannot move unescorted anymore. What kind of educations are our children getting at universities where 60% of the prominent faculty members have been driven out of their jobs -- killed or forced to leave the country by government militias? Is it normal that areas [on the outskirts of Baghdad] like Saidiya and Arab Jubour are bombed because the occupation forces are afraid to enter the areas for fear of the resistance? It is always easier to control ghost cities. It becomes very peaceful without the people."
See the rest: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174886/dahr_jamail_missing_voices_in_the_iraq_debate Written by Tee Dub
on 1/28/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
We are not wanted there, guys. We are perceived as imperialist thugs. Note that the Administration is setting up future "contracts" with the Iraqi puppet government - we can't call them "treaties" because they don't want to run them by Congress. This whole thing is one big boon for the military contractors, who are making money hand over fist. And who's going to pay for this? Certainly not the wealthy, who've had their taxes cut (again). So the poor spill their blood over there, and the poor and middle class finance it - our grandchildren and their grandchildren will ultimately pay for it - what a colossal mistake. The one thing I've noticed about right-wing types is that they cannot, for the life of them, imagine what the world is like to people from other countries. They cannot, for the life of them, imagine that the US has done horrible things to people in other countries. They cannot, for the life of them, think that maybe, just maybe, their world view is erroneous. Liberals lose a lot of arguments because we tend to qualify everything. We know the world is complex, and most of us are empathetic. We can empathize with the plight of the poor, even if we are not poor ourselves. We can empathize with Iraqi civilians even though our country has not been invaded by a more powerful nation (well, maybe we southerners understand that better than yankees). Be honest with yourselves - were it not for oil, would we even be over there right now? Will Dick Cheney receive millions in delayed compensation from Halliburton, which was awarded fat no-bid contracts? MajorGross, war is not the answer. You think you can bully the rest of the world into submission, and it just comes back and bites you on the ass. Look what we did to Iran by toppling their democracy and re-installing the Shah. You fall back on 9/11 - a cheap rightard gimmick. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and yet the lying scoundrels in the Cheney Administration banged that point home every single day. I don't care about insulting people; I really don't. I watch Fox News and I see rightards insulting people every friggin' day. This is one liberal who has had enough of your sh*t, your lies, your closed minds, your hyper-religiosity, your stupidity, your blindness, your faux-patriotism. I'm biting back, y'all. Get used to it. Conservatism has fought on the wrong side of every battle in this country. Who resisted freeing the slaves - it was the Democrats, who then were the conservative party. Who resisted votes for women? Who resisted the Civil Rights movement? Who resisted social security? Who resisted health care for the poor? Who resisted healthcare for poor kids? Conservatives, conservatives, conservatives, and more and more conservatives. It's a bull-headed movement, a failed movement, an intellectually bankrupt movement. We progressives are going to take this country back from the corporate tyrants and Talibaptist preachers who have hijacked our republic. And finally, Sid - I'm glad I finally got your attention! Do your relatives tell you the war is over? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 1/28/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Tee Dub, my son and nephew are in Iraq right now and it's no vacation you idiot. We are involved in supporting a developing country who is under martial law. We are under attack by terrorists of course, but things are getting better...open your eyes. But first pull your head out of your anal opening and wipe your eyes. Written by Sid
on 1/28/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
One question that always confounded me was: "If Saddam did not have WMD, why did he allow the US to invade?" After seeing his interrogator's interview last night the answer appears to be: "He did not want Iran to know he did not have WMD and he only thought the US would bomb - not invade - Iraq."
Of course, the interview could just be B.S., but it at least makes sense.
Written by kerry fox
on 1/28/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
TW, President Clinton did not "keep Saddam contained" as you state. He just kept you civilians from noticing the on-going war. You didn't notice, but you can bet those of us who serve our country did. It was our buddies who have been standing on the line and dying since the first gulf war. I do like the way you simply choose to disbelieve any statement that contradicts your position. You can do your own research or you can take my word. Either way, I don't care. You state that "our own government did not" believe saddam was seeking uranium at the time of the STOTUS, but in this also, you are wrong. A majority of our intelligence community believed this. Despite what you read in the NYT, Ambassador Wilson's "fact finding" tour added weight to this position. War is always the last resort, but it shouldn't wait one minute beyond that point either. If you really paid attention and had some involvement in this, you would know we probably waited too long. Many of us hold that we waited over a decade too long. We should have finished this when it was my problem. Instead we listened to the UN and now it is my son serving on the front lines. That you believe this was dreamed up like a prank or to make money says much more about you than it does about President Bush or President Clinton who also supported it and in his term in the White House made it the policy of the United States to rid the world of Saddam. And lastly, almost your every sentence is littered with insults everything from rightard to moron to idiot. And they are almost all personal attacks with little basis in fact. I, on the other hand, made reference not to democrats or liberals or even the left, but to those I separate out as the loony left such as Rosie O'Donnell, who believe President Bush was either involved in the 9/11 attacks or at least knew about it in advance. And all those other loonies out there who prove themselves to be loonies on the internet everyday. By attacking me and everyone else on this board the way you do, you put yourself in the category. You can either choose to see yourself as a 9/11 truther and a "Bush Lied, People Died, No blood for oil, or you can be a reasonable proponent of your position. Your choice.
Written by MAJ Gross
on 1/27/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Sid, if the war's over, maybe you'd like to take a vacation there? Bring the wife and kids? Tour Ancient Ur, maybe take in the sights of Baghdad? Maybe you could tell that to the thousands of men and women stationed there? Or better yet, maybe you could explain the following?: "A suicide bomber blew himself up in front of a high school north of Baghdad on Tuesday, wounding 22 people including teachers and students arriving for the beginning of the school day…U.S. commanders credit anti-al-Qaida fighters from Sunni groups, a six-month cease-fire by a Shiite militia and the dispatch of 30,000 additional U.S. soldiers last year for the reduction in violence. But there has been an uptick in high-profile bombings in recent weeks, suggesting al-Qaida remains a potent threat. * * *On Monday, a suicide bomber apparently targeting a senior security official blew himself up inside a funeral tent, killing 18 people in Hajaj, a village about midway along the nearly 20 miles between Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit and the oil hub of Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad. * * * The attack comes one day after a 15-year-old suicide bomber walked into a party carrying a box of chocolates and detonated hidden explosives, killing himself, his cousin — a Sunni fighter working with U.S. and Iraqi forces — and four others.* * *
Meanwhile, a military spokeswoman said a soldier killed over the weekend south of Baghdad was the first American casualty in a roadside bomb attack on the newly introduced, heavily armored MRAP, or Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicle. * * *
At least 100 predominantly Sunni militiamen, known as Awakening Council members or Concerned Local Citizens, have been killed in the past month, mostly around Baghdad and the provincial capital of Baquba, urban areas with mixed Sunni and Shiite populations, according to Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani. At least six of the victims were senior Awakening leaders, Iraqi officials said. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 1/26/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The Center for Public Integrity? Strange that I've never heard of them before. And now they are the leading authorities! Are they authorities because they single out the Bush Administration? Bush lied?, the British government lied? Mrs. Clinton must have lied as well as Sen. Kerry (but this was before they were against the war?) The war in Iraq is over. We are presently engaged in overseeing the establishment of a new government elected by the Iraqi people...do any of you remember the elections that were held over there? We are fighting terrorists who do not want the Iraqi government to succeed. They can ill afford to have another Kuwait in the region. Written by Sid
on 1/26/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
At least Clinton (and Bush Sr., for that matter) had the sense to keep Saddam contained and not bog us down in what now appears to be an endless war. I don't think you're right about the Brits; I'd like to see independent confirmation of that. But it wouldn't matter to me if they did believe it was still true. Our own government DID NOT at the time of the speech. And let's go back to the leadup to the war - I'll be honest - I thought he had those damn weapons, too, but even then, I was opposed to war because war should always be a last resort. Clearly this was a war of convenience, a neocon wet dream dreamt up by armchair warriors in Washington - folks like Bill Kristol, who has had a distinguished military career. These imperialist morons thought the war would finance itself; they thought we would be greeted as liberators; they (and Cheney) thought we'd be done in a matter of weeks or months. What a Pollyanna pile of cow dung. Finally, you're right, I did insult you, and I am absolutely convinced that you're an idiot, but I would remind you that before I called you anything, you referred to us as "the loony left," so you're not exactly pure as driven snow in that regard. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 1/25/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Your attack is more evidence of the inability to argue coherently. NOT EVEN THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS REFUTED THIS STATEMENT. What don't you understand? President Clinton made it the policy of the United States to overthrow Saddam because who believed this information to be true. President Bush and every intelligence agency around the world believed it to be true. But because Bush acted on it and he is a Republican he is a liar. I don't know what bothers me more that I have served my country over 20 years protecting people like you or that you can't recognize the difference between the truth and a lie. I'm going with the former. When you can't argue anymore, you insult. Well done. Written by MAJ Gross
on 1/25/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I have one more question for the major rightard Gross - if it were Bill Clinton who had parsed his words so carefully, and knowing that the information was false, went ahead and said it anyway, do you think Rush Limbaugh and you and other idiots like you would be okay with that? Huh? Think you'd be saying - "it can't be a lie; it might be false, but it can't be a lie?" Do you honestly believe you'd be saying that? Second: here's the Merriam-Webster definition of the verb "lie": 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive; 2: to create a false or misleading impression. What do you think? Think either of those definitions applies to the Bush statement? What a pinhead. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 1/24/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jésus Javier Morales! The Administration knew by the time he gave that speech that the information was FALSE! You need to get your head out of the sand you friggin' smackin' snaggle-toothin' RIGHTARD! And in what gd universe is lying about a bj impeachable but lying to bring us to war isn't? Your argument is the saddest piece of unthinking right-wing-fairytale tripe I have EVER read here, and that's saying something, 'cause there used to be some big-time idiots who would post here. My God, what a moron. Sorry to be so blunt, mais fils de p*&%#$, ça c'est la vérité! TW Written by Tee Dub
on 1/24/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
perhaps we haven't seen impeachment proceedings because nothing Bush/Cheney did is impeachable. If liberals would get their collective heads out of the sand and look at the so-called information being put forth by this Soros funded organization they might actually learn something.
Read these words and tell me how they make the president a liar: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
The left loves to trot out the infamous sixteen words and say this somehow proves the president lied to us. This has been the centerpiece of the loony left for years and the statement cannot possibly be a lie. It can be false, but not a lie. And it is important to note that British Intelligence STILL believes that Saddam sought uranium.
How can otherwise semi-intelligent people be so blinded by their irrational hatred of President Bush? Written by MAJ Gross
on 1/23/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Bet you won't see this reported on Drudge, CNN or Fox.... Written by B C Bass
on 1/23/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Would someone please remind me why impeachment proceedings were opened against Bill Clinton and yet none has yet been opened with regard to Cheney and Bush? What is wrong with this picture? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 1/23/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
