MSM tools spread Soros propaganda
The right side of the blogosphere is all over the clueless media coverage of a new “study” and database compiled by “two nonprofit journalism organizations” that purports to show that BUSH LIED to entice American into Iraq. You would think by now that the MSM would try to spare itself some embarrassment and at least do a cursory Google search before casting the researchers as neutral, reliable, disinterested parties. But noooo. They dutifully published these transparent moonbat briefs for impeachment without disclosing the “nonprofit journalism organizations’” ties to BDS sugar daddy George Soros.
Here’s the 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 did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration’s position that the world community viewed Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat. “The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.
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.
The NYT has a similar, stenographic account of the study.
Big Lizards rips into the MSM omissions:
Here are a couple of inconvenient truths the AP story neglects to tell us:
* “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.
* “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…
…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:
* 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;
* 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);
* 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.
For chuckles, I point you back to NYT editor Bill Keller’s speech in December:
…we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a pre-conceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can.”
Self-delusion. It’s what’s for breakfast in America’s newsrooms.
***
Ed Morrissey roasts the MSM’s recycling of the Soros-sponsored website’s old, not-news:
…there is nothing new in this site that hasn’t already been picked apart by the blogosphere, and some of it discredited. It includes the debunked charge that Bush lied in the “sixteen words” of the 2003 State of the Union address. Joe Wilson’s own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger’s Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999. The CPI site has the sixteen words posted as one of their false statements.
Let’s boil this down. An organization funded by known political activists puts up a website with shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented — and this somehow qualifies as news?
Hey, AP. I’ll be posting a couple of essays today. I’ll be sure to look for your breathless report on the wires later this afternoon.
Gabriel Schoenfeld at Commentary turns the tables on the “Center for Public Integrity” and the NYT:
After delving into the database and reading the Center’s analysis, the question arises: did the Bush administration “methodically” lie to the public? The Center’s own answer is yes, and the same answer is the impression left by the news pages of the New York Times. Indeed, the paper reports that what the database exposes is akin to the worst political scandal of the American presidency: “Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard M. Nixon used to dismissively call ‘wallowing in Watergate.’”
Toward the end of its story, the Times notes that “officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time — although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.”
But that is an absurd way of putting it, minimizing and obscuring some central facts. Would it not have been more honest for the newspaper of record to recall that however “sketchy” the intelligence, it was not presented by the CIA to the administration as sketchy at all? Rather, it was presented as an iron-clad case, most memorably by CIA director George Tenet as a “a slam-dunk.” And would it not have been more honest to point out that the post-war studies of Iraq’s WMD program, like the Duelfer Report, had the benefit not merely of hindsight but the ability of investigators to roam freely through Iraqi archives and facilities? Back in 2002 and early 2003, when the U.S. was gearing up for war, things looked very differently than they did afterward.
This brings us back to the question which we began. What is a false statement? Did the Bush administration lie when it relied on the CIA’s estimates of Iraq’s WMD program, or is it the Center for Public Integrity that is now doing some lying, with the New York Times brazenly helping them along?
Lawhawk reminds the “Bush Lied” crowd of all the others who “lied” (bonus YouTube vid embedded and added below):
Let’s keep this in mind. The Administration based its statements on CIA information that both parties in the United States relied upon for more than a decade….how many of these so-called lies were repeated ad nauseum by the likes of President Bill Clinton, First Lady/Senator Hillary Clinton, Sec. State Albright, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards, and all the rest of the Democrats during the 1990s? It only came after 2003 that people realized that the CIA intel about the Iraqi WMD programs was found to be incorrect.
That’s not a lie. That’s bad intel, which was only discovered after Saddam Hussein was ousted.
James Joyner: “Being proven wrong is not ‘lying.’”
Jason Smith: “Another day, another Soros-funded, anti-Bush study being touted by the water-carrying MSM.”
Flopping Aces: “Non-Partisan my ass!”
RedState takes a stroll down memory lane.
Remember?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » The AP Lies about “Bush Lied and People Died”
- Texas Rainmaker
- Liberty Pundit
- Reporting On Bias « his vorpal sword
- A Blog For All
- Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Biased Report On Administration Statements Re: Pre-War Iraq
- The Crap the Mainstream Media Misrepresented | Fear and Facts
- Soros funded asshats sell tripe to Dominant Media calling it prime rib at DPGI v.3
- The never ending Soros connection « Bookworm Room
- Michelle Malkin » Video: Kucinich brings BDS to the House floor, withdraws remarks: “We already know the State of the Union. It’s a lie.”
- Soro’s Funded Bile Treated As Hard News « Nice Deb
- Michelle Malkin » FISA frenzy: Yes, there are still differences between the GOP and the Dems
- Soros funded asshats sell tripe to Dominant Media calling it prime rib « DPGI - the aftermath
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Moonbats, MoveOn.org
protein wisdom
» A Nannystatist Emily Litella moment [Darleen Click]
Ed Driscoll
» The University ArchipelagoNewsBusters.org
» The War on Terror Made Him Do ItEd Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take BerlinNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"Weekly Standard
» The Federal Bureau of Non-Investigation
lgm, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
1. I don’t think making false statements unless it happens under oath is grounds for impeachment. If I were a Dem, I would not be inclined to pursue an impeachment based on “lying to the public” because we would have to prosecute every public official.
2. If Bush statements of Iraq having WMDs are false and he should be impeached then can we also re-impeach Clinton since he said the same thing when he was in office? How about all the Dem Sens who said Iraq was a danger and had WMDs back when Clinton was wagging the dog?
Yeah, its amazing to see the vicious hatred they have for Bush. The Democrat candidates even do it in the debates (although it is a bit more turned down and cleaned up for television).
I’m sure the SOROS stuff is nutso, but it’s hard to get around the dishonesty of the administration. It’s not just the occasionaly slip-up. They have been fundamentally dishonest with us at every turn from immigration, to fiscal responsibility to the war.
You have to remember that to the left “unbiased” means anything or anyone that agrees with them.
Hillary also got on the floor of the Senate and stated that it was an indisputable fact that Iraq had WMDs.
But, WMDs or not – Saddam was still posturing that he had them and was going to use them. It still had to be dealt with.
i think the MSM thinks if they keep repeating it, it will become true. kinda like Dorothy clicking her heals…
derel: Please indicate where and how the Bush adminsitration has been fundamentally dishonest about the war.
and don’t use the propaganda from the liberals to support your statement.
The real disconnect is between the NYT and it’s former readers. Since they are leaving in droves, the NYT has to gin up something to hold on to the liberal faithful.
Wonder what Soros will do after GWB leaves office? Will his life’s work be completed? Or will he glom onto a new target and focus for his vile hatred?
I find it particularly interesting that the study stopped just in time so that all the Dhimmis and Clintonistas weren’t included in the study. From GulfI throughout the ’90s, until 9/11, the president(s) and congress were all convinced that there WERE WMDs in Iraq.
But since that fact doesn’t fit their world-view, it’s OK to overlook that, and blame BushII for his lies and deceit.
Incidentally, does anybody know why George Soros has such a vendetta against GWB?
Or ManBearPig having the election “stolen” from him.
I have to disagree. I don’t think with them or the Dems its about Self-Delusion, but rather misinforming the American people. A misinformed electorate is just as dangerous as an uninformed electorate.
I think it is MORE dangerous than an uninformed electorate, but I agree with the rest of what you said.
MSM wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them in the head. They don’t care about the truth anyway, only their leftist agenda which they feel is their duty to promote. Journalists no longer report the news; they are advocates. They have no credibility left with the public.
Ah yes, I should’ve known. I saw this in the NYT today and rolled my eyes, but didn’t make the connection to Soros. I guess he’s reared his ugly head again.
What will these people do when Bush leaves office?
That’s an easy question to answer …
if it is a Dem in the White House he will be getting all the payback from them of advancing his socialist agenda through Congress …
if it is a Rep in the White House … he will simply adjust his target and start attacking all over with charges against the new administration …
If a statement is made, and it is later learned to be false, the statement was not a lie at the time it was made. Even if (emphasis on if) there were no WMDs in Iraq (look to Syria), Bush believed there were.
He did not lie. And if that’s the worst “offense” the left has on him, then they should really be quite happy with his “compassionate” McCain-Feingold, No-Child-Left-Behind, sign-anything-until-the-GOP-loses agenda.
Not much conservative outside of the war. Soros should really concentrate on something else. He has lost his credibility.
I pity Soros. To be so rich in money and so poor in mind.
Was there any “timing” to this nonsense? If this was meant to hurt the GOP, I’m not sure where the vulnerability was.
Even if one is trusting enough to believe Bush/Cheney/neocons made honest mistakes and believed in WMD and so forth, they stated they KNEW Saddam had
WMD, when in fact this was not true and unknowable, and they should have stated that they had intelligence of questionable value that led them to BELIEVE Saddam had WMD.
Supposedly the war itself – is the GOP’s achilles heel. However, since things have turned around there so dramatically the anit-war nutroots have been silenced but that doesn’t stop the head huncho (Soros). The Democratic party has no other leg to stand on in a head-to-head with the Republican party. Their stances on taxes, illegal immigration, etc… Is not popular and they know it. So, they revert to what they believe won them the House and Senate. The War.
Oh my post (#20) was in response to #18, spidgy.
He’s screening his phone calls….
LOL!
Wow. Are you serious?
Here is another Tool site – David Brocks, I guess the truth won’t set you free. Imus was discussing what the Clintons wouldn’t do to get elected, he and guest couldn’t come up with anything ???
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801220009
Shouldn’t this really be water under the bridge? We are in Iraq now, Saddam & his sons are dead, Al Qaeda is having their A_____ handed to them, etc…
Hindsight is always 20/20.
1) Saddam’s own actions indicated he was hiding something. In fact, it appears he was willing to die for it.
2) We KNOW Iraq had WMD in the past as they used them in their own country
3) Hiding stuff in sand isn’t difficult.
4) Saying what you fully believe to be true is not lying – even if it’s proven to be false later. Lying is saying something you know not to be true.
I was going to ask “Are these (most)’journalists’ brain dead?” – but I think the answer is largely self evident.
If we, as a country, are going to attack and or invade another country, we need to do so based on facts. We should not act unless we have proof. (And don’t through out the “smoking mushroom cloud” canard.)
There were many “if’s”, “maybe’s” and suppositions in our intelligence estimates on Iraq. However, these nuances were not widely conveyed to the public. Our leaders only told us that they had hard facts.
So I agree with Alphonse. If the intelligence is not absolute, don’t tell me it is.
Its not hatred toward Bush. Its a ego to destroy nations, he wants the big boy to fall before he dies.
He is getting old. His ego will demand he win the White House, anything goes ANYTHING.
After he wins the White House he will make the GRAB: he will attempt to lock in socialism in such a way that our vote will no longer have influence. IE: we will formally be a socialist nation.
I am not sure he can do it in the 1st term, I suspect the first term will be setup and the move will happen in the second term.
woops!
meant “throw” out
Trust this, WMDs were found and reported:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
http://www.energy.gov/news/1388.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm
Since liberals like to quibble over semantics when the facts don’t support their arguments, both of the Clintons and ManBearPig had absolute facts about Iraq and its WMD’s. If they had invaded, would you have opposed it?
Maybe you missed the discovery of WMD’s in Iraq. Of course, that’s perfectly understandable if you get your news from the usual left-wing propagandists.
I say again:
and don’t use the propaganda from the liberals to support your statement.
Oh, and the “Bush/Cheney/neocons” comment gives you a credibility gap to begin with. Pleast try not to turn it into a credibility chasm.
It amazes me how either devoid of logic or completely dishonest most liberals are; pick your choice.
Evidence shows that both the Clinton and the Bush administrations forcasted the same Iraqi threat to US security from identical intelligence sources, both administrations subscribed to Iraqi regime change to protect US security and both administrations used military options to achieve their goals.
So, the disparity in liberal reaction to these administrative similarities is because, a) President Bush is a republican and President Clinton is a democrat, or b) President Bush’s overwhelming military reaction was too harsh while President Clinton’s underwhelming military reaction was just right?
Any organization calling itself ‘The Center for Public Integrity’ while calling for different penalties regarding the same set of circumstances should either consider changing their title, or applying their title to their advocacy more constructively.
Is the Nah Yawk Times deliberately trying to drive itself into bankruptcy financially? They are already morally bankrupt.
Where is the proof that Iraq had actually shut down their weapons program? The latest NIE has said that Iran ended their quest and that seems to be sufficient enough for us to cool our heels. All the while ignoring Ahmagonnameetallah’s provocating tactics and his own words that his wants and is pursuing nuclear weapons.
But, hey, lay it all at Bush’s feet. BDS at its best.
Saddam Hussein bluffed and he was called on it. The bluff was only realized after all the cards were on the table.
Liberals either fail to realize how big the pot (US security) was, or they are recreating the scenario of this hand for their own political expediency.
I remind them that, whatever their reasons, I don’t take them seriously on matters of national security.
Everyone believed Iraq had WMD’s, just ask the Kurds.
Saddamn HAD WMD’s. We know it. We just don’t know how many he had, and where the remainder of his WMD’s went.
I fear that someday, because of the overwhelming BDS and ‘ignorance by denial’ on the Left, someone will use those WMD’s on innocent people.
Does Syria have them? Iran? Is someone sitting on them in a cave out in the desert somewhere?
Saddamn had tens of thousands of chemical bombs, nerve agents, bio materials and they were not all destroyed. But the Soros/far left gang, out of BDS hate and delusions, has overlooked that possibility and in doing so they have misled the rest of the world to believe no more wmd’s exist.
500 old yet dangerous bombs were found yet ignored. And while everyone said those WMD’s weren’t a problem, no one… NO ONE would store them in their own garage or even their own city.
The WMD’s are out there, somewhere.
Does anyone here that thinks Bush was dishonost know whether or not there were actually WMD’s on the ground in Iraq prior to the war?
Someone already mentioned Syria. Isn’t it quite possible that the intelligence was 100% correct, and that the biggest smoking guns were removed during the run-up to the invasion?
This is at least as likely as the intelligence being wrong.
shooter:
Speaking of which, here’s an interesting read:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D47C7304-B454-4294-8A21-DBEC5E2AACBE}
It’s an interview with Bill Tierney, “a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker who worked….as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004. He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq.”
The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act signed by President Clinton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
When I saw this on Digg last night, my first thought was, “Who is this group and is Soros funding them?” The problem is that the Treason Media has the Big Lie advantage in that unless you’re a card-carrying member of the VRWC, they know people will accept these claims on their face and the “Bush Lied! People Died!” meme will be set in stone. Complaining that Clinton et al all said the same things in 1998 about Saddam won’t do any good because that has been tossed down the Memory Hole for inconvenient truths. Dubya lied to Congress and they fell for it is their story and they’re sticking to it.
1998 Iraq Liberation Act signed by President Clinton
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
‘…The Iraqi people are the first to suffer from the expulsion of UNSCOM
and the cessation of all its activities. They have repeatedly been the
victims of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. They call for the
elimination of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq…’
President Clinton signs Iraq Liberation Act in 1998…
‘…Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.
Therefore, President Clinton’s action today is the most appropriate
response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of
mass destruction…’
You keep forgetting, the nutty moonbats have this belief that if they shriek something repeatedly that makes it true. The sad part is, the way the election coverage is going, the less-than-vigilant will begin to believe it. That’s why folks like Michelle exist, to hopefully keep these guys on the run.
LOL 30!
Speaking of Iraq…
Chelsea Clinton went to visit the troops in Iraq to see where they stand on election issues. She asked a soldier what things worried him most while serving in Iraq. He replied, “there are 3 things that scare the the bejesus out of me: Osama, Obama and Your Mama!”
Just a little humor today.
I love it navywife, thanks for sharing!
I wish I could take credit for the Ahmagonnameetallah but it isn’t my baby. I borrowed the phrase.
Cut me a break. These BDS liberals never let it go. There were WMD’s in Iraq and I am sill waiting for someone to explain why Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and the rest said the exact same thing but because Bush acted AFTER 9/11 he is a liar.
STOP Already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Au contraire, Michelle. Intentional dishonesty is what’s being served.
For liberals, it’s axiomatic that their good intentions justify any means. That includes bald-faced lying, if it’s done for “The Greater Good.”(TM)
You’d lie to bring down Hitler, wouldn’t you? Well, for the left, nothing more need be said when it comes to taking down someone they feel is even worse.
The mouthpiece “reporters” and editors who parrot Soros propaganda know what they’re doing. A common-sense rule is that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is; but if you harbor an implaccable fear and hatred of someone, and somebody walks up and hands you information “confirming” exactly what you already believe about your nemesis, then even if you know the source is probably bogus you’ll run with it anyway.
This is exactly what ensnared Dan Rather and Mary Mapes; they’ll lie through their teeth about it until her dying breaths, of course, but both of them had to know that their “scoop” on George Bush reeked of BS.
Which is precisely why they didn’t check it.
People like Soros and Keller are are under no self-illusion whatsoever about the fact that they themselves are lying, or are rebroadcasting others’ lies. They can live with it because in their minds, they’ll be forgiven for anything as long as they “meant well” by it.
30
I’ve heard some funny plays on his name, but hadn’t heard that one yet. That joke was the best part of my neighborhood board meeting last night.
I would guess that neither of you have ever been in the military, let alone the intelligence community.
Absolute intelligence? Give me a break.
AP and the NYT have become a mockery of themselves and, the sad fact is, they allowed it to happen.
Overcome by their own self-importance in safeguarding what they interpreted to be American freedoms, The NYT and the AP began to corrupt their journalistic charge, to be objective, when they each began sourcing anyone whose claims fit their leftist, front-page narratives of America as a bastion of unbridled greed and corruption, with racist tendencies and militaristic goals.
As they have proceeded with this line of non-objective journalism for decades and have yet to be challenged on it in a way that has had any lasting effect, it is my guess they will continue to depict an America that is out of sync with the civilized world until they either loose their customer base entirely, and are forced to close their doors, or they achieve their goals and get the America they long for – one devoid of religious values, family traditions, or any amount of self-determination and free-thinking whatsoever!
My favorite is Ahmuhmoodynutjob.
Kaos,
That’s a good one. There are just too many to choose from. I think them all clever and witty. His name provides an endless source of entertainment.
Ahhh, therein lies part of the problem. Those who are clueless about how the IC works and those who were brought in to CHANGE how the IC works.
Clinton did more damage than we will ever know:
“If we just be nice to ‘em, they won’t hurt anybody”…that nicety got it’s legs under Clinton.
Things have only gotten worse since.
( sfcmac- good link, Thanks)
I prefer Ahmamadjihad.
or Ahmadingabat
I kind of feel sorry for the BDS crowd come next January. How will they be able to live their shallow lives without having someone to blame for the world’s problems. Our intelligence agencies haven’t been worth a damn since Carter gutted them in the 70s and the Clinton years didn’t help but make the problem worse. They have such a long history of being wrong or caught flat by world events it is not even funny. For those that would defend the Soros crowd the rest of the world’s intelligence agencies had the same assessment of the WMD capabilities of Saddam’s regime too.
Something to ponder:
Why is it that we are supposed to believe the Gorical because he claims there is a “consensus” of scientists that support him on Global Warming and Carbon Credits? …
But we are not supposed to believe the administration’s statements to the public regarding intelligence on Iraq when there was a “consensus” from virtually every country in the world’s intelligence agencies that Saddam had WMDs, was pursuing more WMDs, and had shown he would not hesitate to use WMDs? …
Ahhhh … I forgot … the former is a leftist tree-hugging lib consensus … while the latter is the result of information and analyzation by many countries including the libs fave U.N. …
What could I have possibly been thinking about? … DUH!!!
In their continuing-to-evolve storylines, CBS and Yahoo News have framed this “study”, as proof the Bush Administration “lied”, “propagated lies”, and “misled” the American people.
Examples of false statements:
From Wikipedia.org
* A Misleading Statement (Lie): John told his little brother that sea otters aren’t mammals, but fish, even though John himself was a marine biologist and knew otherwise. John simply wanted to see his little brother fail his class report, in order to teach him to begin projects early, which help him develop skills necessary to succeed in life
* A Statement Made Out Of Ignorance: James, John’s brother, stated in his class report that sea otters were fish. James got an F after his teacher pointed out why that statement was false. James did not know that sea otters were in fact mammals because he heard that sea otters were fish from his older brother John, a marine biologist.
Tar Heel Conservative said:
I could live with that. Release Compean and Ramos to make room for Bush and all the Dems who were parroting him 5-6 years ago. A small loss to see Bush go, a great boon to get rid of Pelosi.
Yes. The Bush administration apparently made “False Statements” in that they made statements that were factually incorrect. But that’s been known for years now. I believe that it’s been admited to by the White House.
The President and his people made statements about Iraq that they (and the rest of the world) believed at the time were true. The fact that they were not true was only discovered later.
That doesn’t mean that Bush lied. I don’t know that the study ever says that he lied. It plays this childish word game with the phrase “false statements” which can (depending upon context) can mean either that someone lied, or that they made statements based on erroneous beliefs.
The study doesn’t even say what the MSM wants us to believe that is says, but it uses the right phraseology to allow the MSM & other leftist groups to run with it and call Bush a liar. And that was the point of the study.
JS Ragland asked if I would have supported Clinton if he had invaded Iraq. Short answer, no.
I didn’t even agree with his bombing campaign of the aspirin factory. And most commentators at the time felt it was a “wag the dog” scenario.
After the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was trotted out as a convenient boogie man whenever Clinton needed a distraction.
And yes, I know there is no such thing as absolute intelligence. However, none of the intelligence regarding Hussein and his ambitions warranted immediate action my the American military.
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack
Iraq’s
nuclear,
chemical, and
biological weapons
programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
WJ Clinton, 12/16/98
If your premise is that Bush & Co. knew Saddam did not have WMD’s then logically a lot of those statements would be lies. Their problem is that if one starts with at least one faulty premise (e.g. Bush knew) then the logic can be solid but the conclusion will still be wrong.
All emphasis’ are added.
1) We won’t have access to all of the intel until it is declassified. IIRC Some of that will take up to 70 years.
2) Here’s one reason why they stopped at 9/11/2003. “Asked about the issue on Meet The Press (September 14, 2003), Cheney answered:“The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”
” (Source)
3) How is THIS a lie? Bush was asked what message he wanted to send Iraq shortly after we went into Afghanistan…”Well, my message is, is that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. If you develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to terrorize the world, you’ll be held accountable. ”
4) THIS is a lie?! “We cannot pretend that this regime is one that can be trusted not to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is a problem that the world had better get serious about very soon. ” I guess we know what the Soros moonbats ‘pretend’ are factual statements. It was a lie to say Iraq under Saddam can’t be trusted?
5. How is this a lie? “Well, I think—I guess the way I would characterize is [our allies] are uniformly concerned about the situation in Iraq, in particular about Saddam Hussein’s failure to live up to the U.N. Security Council resolutions, especially number 687, that he pledged to at the end of the war, that said he’d get rid of all of his weapons of mass destruction.” Uniformly? Is that the problem?
6. This is obviously opinion (except for you-know-who. “And this is a man who refuses to allow us to determine whether or not he still has weapons of mass destruction, which leads me to believe he does. He is a dangerous man who possesses the world’s most dangerous weapons. And it is incumbent upon freedom-loving nations to hold him accountable, which is precisely what the United States of America will do.” He stated his belief (and a reason why) that Saddam had WMD’s. To state later that he does posses them is not a lie, it could ONLY be incorrect.
Clearly if you believe Bush and the others knew Saddam had no WMD’s then you would believe it was a conspiracy to get us into war.
No need to feel sorry for them for they will be living in a win-win-win-win scenario no matter what happens. To wit:
* GOP wins/nothing bad happens – This will prove that the GOP is a fascist outfit and democracy is dead since no one likes them and would vote for them. The election was stolen (again) and only dumb luck protects us from blowback from our imperialist policies.
* GOP wins/something bad happens – The election was stolen and now we’re paying the price for Bushitler’s imperialism.
* Dems win/nothing bad happens – The people have spoken and now that the world knows that non-imperialists are in control, America can rejoin the community of nations for we will be nicer and less asking for it.
* Dems win/something bad happens – It’s not their fault!!! If only Bushitlerburton Inc. hadn’t tried to conquer sovereign nations on the basis of a lie and a greed to steal their oil, we wouldn’t have brought this down upon us. Don’t blame us! You morons should’ve elected us the last two times!
See? All upside for the Dems and downside for the Stupid Party, regardless of who wins and what happens. It’s like under the Goreacle’s theory of ManBearPig when it doesn’t snow much, it’s a sign of global warming and if it snows a lot, it’s a sign of global warming. Warm, cold, wet, dry, whatever – anything and everything is proof of global warming (and the need to have Dems rule us) just as anything bad that happens in the world is proof of Dubya’s malevolent incompetence (and the need to have Dems rule us.)
Any questions?
What the Iraq and Afganistan wars have done for us:
1) put in place a quick responding force on both sides of Iran, Saudia Arabia, north of Pakistan, west of Syria, south of Turkey.
2) put in place a practiced logistics support for anything to counter Iran.
3) put in place our young men with guns and support in a place convenient to our enemies. The deal is this: we’ll provide you (terrorists) targets close by to where you live (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran). It is true that our guys will kill your butts, but think of the airfare savings. Plus you don’t even have to learn English.
4) Stirred up the demographic pot enough to make real person spying possible. We have some friends around, it was much harder to talk to them before. (Question for retreat-aholic Presidential candidates: What will you to improve our intelligence assets in the Middle East? Follow up: will abandoning Iraq make that easier, harder or even conceivable?) How easy is it now? Well, we have armed men walking through neighborhoods every night all over Iraq. Stopping to collect a bit of intelligence is way easier than when Saddam was running the show.
Okay, you impeach President Bush. You have enough votes for a successful trial? I doubt it. But, say you do convict, hello President Cheney. Oh, you then going to impeach him too? On what charge? He has no power as the Vice-President. Or, are you going to be worse than the Congress of the 1860s…full of power unlimited and uncontrolled. By the time all of this is finally over, there will be a new elected President anyway. If I recall there were plenty of democrats who voted for the war, with the same intel and information. Show…all political show. It lets us all know how absurb you democrats can get. It’s why I left that party, and will never return.
Blast from the Past:
Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism
CSPAN October 1992
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
I guess ethics and journalism are oxymorons.
Did AP just cut and paste the press release from the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism?