TREASON: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion

[Kommienezuspadt]

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4798edef$0$7178$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:iabhp391ldaepfaltr585r06ollfudeg0m@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:31:39 -0600, C3@nospam.nul wrote:
>>
>>>Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion
>>>
>>
>> A leftwing think tank funded by George Soros says so, so it MUST be
>> true!
>
> You can't refute what they say so you lay out an idiotic accusation - must
> suck to be you!
>

I gave them the link to the funders of the group -- 2 to 1 they did not open
it.

 

[Grendel]

On Jan 24, 3:49

 

[Grendel]

On Jan 24, 3:50

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <ru7hp31geb9i3jt2uhkdnbj8eaq8bguhuo@4ax.com>, C3@nospam.nul
wrote:

> Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion
>
> By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, The Center for Public
> Integrity. Posted January 24, 2008.
>
> President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top
> officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security
> Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made
> at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11,
> 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
> Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive
> examination of the record shows 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.
>
> On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings,
> interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key
> officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense
> Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari
> Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had
> weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them),
> links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning
> of the Bush administration's case for war.
>
> It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass
> destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the
> conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including
> those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006),
> the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose
> "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's
> nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
>
> 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. Not
> surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make
> speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public
> debate also made the most false statements, according to this
> first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
>
> President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons
> of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about
> Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the
> second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements
> about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to
> Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements,
> followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and
> McClellan (with 14).
>
> The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what
> President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public
> consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a
> day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public
> statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official
> transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations)
> over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces
> relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books,
> articles, speeches, and interviews.
>
> Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the
> run-up to war:
>
>
> On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the
> Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there
> is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
> There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends,
> against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director
> George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his
> agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to
> the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was,
> 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
> In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast
> approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush
> told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime
> possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the
> facilities to make more and, according to the British government,
> could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45
> minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a
> nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a
> year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a
> much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass
> destruction -- an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the
> intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House
> hadn't requested it.
> In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked
> whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In
> fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence
> Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an
> absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation
> between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier
> DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with
> Al Qaeda is unclear."
> On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush
> declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found
> biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in
> State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to
> examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field
> report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final
> report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had
> probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
> On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush
> asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
> recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our
> intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
> high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
> Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of
> Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the
> intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase
> agreement "probably is a hoax."
> On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security
> Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions
> based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are
> from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human
> sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One
> was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American
> intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even
> spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi,
> who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who
> later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in
> January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information
> interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being
> handed over to [a foreign government]."
>
> Bush and his top officials waged a campaign of misinformation about
> the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
>
> The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with
> congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated
> through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January
> 2003 to the eve of the invasion.
>
>
> It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president
> delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his
> memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including
> when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project;
> the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.
>
> In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these
> seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two
> years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass
> destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups,
> joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also
> routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.
>
> The cumulative effect of these false statements -- amplified by
> thousands of news stories and broadcasts -- was massive, with the
> media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several
> critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists -- indeed, even
> some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their
> coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and
> uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall
> media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the
> Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.
>
> The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the
> president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on
> NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons
> of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005,
> with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a
> Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam
> Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass
> destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those
> programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true
> that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass
> destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As
> your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet
> it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
>
> Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment;
> instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity
> between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth"
> regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's
> Who of domestic agencies.
>
> On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of
> former government officials, have publicly -- and in some cases
> vociferously -- accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring
> or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics
> say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public
> pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this
> nation's allies on their way to 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. There has been no congressional
> investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the
> Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused
> almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war
> intelligence -- not the judgment, public statements, or public
> accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of
> the officials -- Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz -- have
> testified before Congress about Iraq.
>
> Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable
> framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass.
> Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush
> administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad
> intelligence.
>
> Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here
> finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to
> Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know
> it?
>
> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74715/?page=1

I've read all the same transcripts from announcements and from
interviews of administration officials during the lead up to Op: IF.

My total is "0" false statements.

I'm sure the problem is, I don't care that this is an election year, and
I'm better informed on the events in question than any of the authors at
The Center for Public Integrity.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

 

[Kommienezuspadt]

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-839C91.19151224012008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <ru7hp31geb9i3jt2uhkdnbj8eaq8bguhuo@4ax.com>, C3@nospam.nul
> wrote:
>
>> Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion
>>
>> By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, The Center for Public
>> Integrity. Posted January 24, 2008.
>>
>> President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top
>> officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security
>> Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made
>> at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11,
>> 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
>> Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive
>> examination of the record shows 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.
>>
>> On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings,
>> interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key
>> officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense
>> Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari
>> Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had
>> weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them),
>> links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning
>> of the Bush administration's case for war.
>>
>> It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass
>> destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the
>> conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including
>> those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006),
>> the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose
>> "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's
>> nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
>>
>> 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. Not
>> surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make
>> speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public
>> debate also made the most false statements, according to this
>> first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
>>
>> President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons
>> of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about
>> Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the
>> second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements
>> about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to
>> Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements,
>> followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and
>> McClellan (with 14).
>>
>> The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what
>> President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public
>> consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a
>> day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public
>> statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official
>> transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations)
>> over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces
>> relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books,
>> articles, speeches, and interviews.
>>
>> Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the
>> run-up to war:
>>
>>
>> On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the
>> Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there
>> is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
>> There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends,
>> against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director
>> George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his
>> agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to
>> the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was,
>> 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
>> In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast
>> approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush
>> told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime
>> possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the
>> facilities to make more and, according to the British government,
>> could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45
>> minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a
>> nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a
>> year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a
>> much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass
>> destruction -- an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the
>> intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House
>> hadn't requested it.
>> In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked
>> whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In
>> fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence
>> Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an
>> absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation
>> between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier
>> DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with
>> Al Qaeda is unclear."
>> On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush
>> declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found
>> biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in
>> State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to
>> examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field
>> report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final
>> report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had
>> probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
>> On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush
>> asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
>> recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our
>> intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
>> high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
>> Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of
>> Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the
>> intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase
>> agreement "probably is a hoax."
>> On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security
>> Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions
>> based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are
>> from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human
>> sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One
>> was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American
>> intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even
>> spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi,
>> who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who
>> later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in
>> January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information
>> interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being
>> handed over to [a foreign government]."
>>
>> Bush and his top officials waged a campaign of misinformation about
>> the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
>>
>> The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with
>> congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated
>> through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January
>> 2003 to the eve of the invasion.
>>
>>
>> It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president
>> delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his
>> memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including
>> when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project;
>> the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.
>>
>> In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these
>> seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two
>> years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass
>> destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups,
>> joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also
>> routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.
>>
>> The cumulative effect of these false statements -- amplified by
>> thousands of news stories and broadcasts -- was massive, with the
>> media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several
>> critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists -- indeed, even
>> some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their
>> coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and
>> uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall
>> media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the
>> Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.
>>
>> The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the
>> president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on
>> NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons
>> of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005,
>> with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a
>> Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam
>> Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass
>> destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those
>> programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true
>> that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass
>> destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As
>> your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet
>> it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
>>
>> Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment;
>> instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity
>> between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth"
>> regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's
>> Who of domestic agencies.
>>
>> On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of
>> former government officials, have publicly -- and in some cases
>> vociferously -- accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring
>> or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics
>> say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public
>> pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this
>> nation's allies on their way to 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. There has been no congressional
>> investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the
>> Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused
>> almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war
>> intelligence -- not the judgment, public statements, or public
>> accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of
>> the officials -- Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz -- have
>> testified before Congress about Iraq.
>>
>> Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable
>> framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass.
>> Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush
>> administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad
>> intelligence.
>>
>> Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here
>> finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to
>> Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know
>> it?
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74715/?page=1
>
> I've read all the same transcripts from announcements and from
> interviews of administration officials during the lead up to Op: IF.
>
> My total is "0" false statements.
>
> I'm sure the problem is, I don't care that this is an election year, and
> I'm better informed on the events in question than any of the authors at
> The Center for Public Integrity.
>


That's a great tinfoil hat you are wearing.

> --
> NeoLibertarian
>
> http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

 

[orionca@earthlink.net]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:54:39 -0500, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
><orionca@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:iabhp391ldaepfaltr585r06ollfudeg0m@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:31:39 -0600, C3@nospam.nul wrote:
>>
>>>Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion
>>>
>>
>> A leftwing think tank funded by George Soros says so, so it MUST be
>> true!
>
>You can't refute what they say so you lay out an idiotic accusation

Simply pointing out the obvioius agenda. As for "refuting",

- The report claims the 2003 SOTU statement on Iraqi attempts to
procure uranium in Africa a "lie". A bipartisan Congressional
investigation, an independent British peer review, and Joe Wilson's
own report to his CIA handlers says it wasn't.

- When asked by President Bush if the case for WMDs in Iraq was really
as good as it appeared, CIA Director George Tenet (originally
appoiinted by Bill Clinton, remember), declared it a "slam dunk".

>- must suck to be you!

Saddam Hussein is dead and buried, Iraq is no longer a threat to
regional peace, The Kurds no longer live in terror in the north, the
Marshes of Iraq have been restored and the Marsh Arabs are no longer
persecuted...I really couldn't be happier. Sorry, charlie.
--
"The enormously expensive Kyoto recommendations would
save 0.06 polar bears per year at most. But 49 bears
from the same population are getting shot every year,
and this we can easily do something about."
- Bjorn Lomborg

 

[Al]

In article
<cognac756-839C91.19151224012008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <ru7hp31geb9i3jt2uhkdnbj8eaq8bguhuo@4ax.com>, C3@nospam.nul
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here
> > finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to
> > Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know
> > it?
> >
> > http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74715/?page=1
>
> I've read all the same transcripts from announcements and from
> interviews of administration officials during the lead up to Op: IF.
>
> My total is "0" false statements.
>
> I'm sure the problem is, I don't care that this is an election year, and
> I'm better informed on the events in question than any of the authors at
> The Center for Public Integrity.

How seriously can you take a Sorosnista organization that claims the "16
words" in the SoTU were a lie?

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article
<albert.finney000-C3A43D.20423524012008@news-server.tx.rr.com>,
Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> wrote:

> In article
> <cognac756-839C91.19151224012008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <ru7hp31geb9i3jt2uhkdnbj8eaq8bguhuo@4ax.com>, C3@nospam.nul
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here
> > > finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to
> > > Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know
> > > it?
> > >
> > > http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74715/?page=1
> >
> > I've read all the same transcripts from announcements and from
> > interviews of administration officials during the lead up to Op: IF.
> >
> > My total is "0" false statements.
> >
> > I'm sure the problem is, I don't care that this is an election year, and
> > I'm better informed on the events in question than any of the authors at
> > The Center for Public Integrity.
>
> How seriously can you take a Sorosnista organization that claims the "16
> words" in the SoTU were a lie?

We can show that the data does not come from a disinterested source; and
that the source may be prejudiced.

However, this does not constitute a refutation of the data. Certainly
not in and of itself.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <47994466$0$32623$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoSpam@NoThanks.net> wrote:

> >>
> >> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74715/?page=1
> >
> > I've read all the same transcripts from announcements and from
> > interviews of administration officials during the lead up to Op: IF.
> >
> > My total is "0" false statements.
> >
> > I'm sure the problem is, I don't care that this is an election year, and
> > I'm better informed on the events in question than any of the authors at
> > The Center for Public Integrity.
>
> That's a great tinfoil hat you are wearing.
>
I don't wear a hat.

Even so, I can prove that my conclusion is correct. "0" false statements
by this administration during the lead up to Op: IF. The Center for
Public Integrity's premises are flawed, and the data is therefore flawed.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

 

[Kommienezuspadt]

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-B5641C.21580024012008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <47994466$0$32623$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> "Kommienezuspadt" <NoSpam@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74715/?page=1
>> >
>> > I've read all the same transcripts from announcements and from
>> > interviews of administration officials during the lead up to Op: IF.
>> >
>> > My total is "0" false statements.
>> >
>> > I'm sure the problem is, I don't care that this is an election year,
>> > and
>> > I'm better informed on the events in question than any of the authors
>> > at
>> > The Center for Public Integrity.
>>
>> That's a great tinfoil hat you are wearing.
>>
> I don't wear a hat.
>
> Even so, I can prove that my conclusion is correct. "0" false statements
> by this administration during the lead up to Op: IF. The Center for
> Public Integrity's premises are flawed, and the data is therefore flawed.
>



Question: Who in their right mind wears the same hat every day?

Answer: You. -- still a great tinfoil hat you're wearing.

> --
> NeoLibertarian
>
> http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

 

[Lyle Andrew]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:23:24 -0800, orionca@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:31:39 -0600, C3@nospam.nul wrote:
>
>>Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion
>>
>
>A leftwing think tank funded by George Soros says so, so it MUST be
>true!
>
Once they lie, they cannot stop. A good reason not to lie in the
first place. Sooner or later people will realize that the left is
really right and the right is really left in the ashes. You can't
just tell people you are a conservative republican, you demonstrate it
and insensitivity, indifference toward others, is not an attribute.
There is such a thing as compassionate conservatism though some people
will use anything they can to forward their agenda. They tell lies.

A picture of neocon politics:
".........In the sky there is no difference between
east and west; people create those
distinctions out of their own minds and then
believe them to be true...."

 

[Lyle Andrew]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:27:45 GMT, "ben" <b@b.b> wrote:

>
><C3@nospam.nul> wrote in message
>news:ru7hp31geb9i3jt2uhkdnbj8eaq8bguhuo@4ax.com...
>> Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion
>>
>> By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, The Center for Public
>> Integrity. Posted January 24, 2008.
>>
>> President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top
>> officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security
>> Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made
>> at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11,
>> 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
>> Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive
>> examination of the record shows 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.
>>
>> On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings,
>> interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key
>> officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense
>> Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari
>> Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had
>> weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them),
>> links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning
>> of the Bush administration's case for war.
>>
>> It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass
>> destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the
>> conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including
>> those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006),
>> the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose
>> "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's
>> nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
>>
>> 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. Not
>> surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make
>> speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public
>> debate also made the most false statements, according to this
>> first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
>>
>> President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons
>> of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about
>> Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the
>> second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements
>> about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to
>> Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements,
>> followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and
>> McClellan (with 14).
>>
>> The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what
>> President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public
>> consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a
>> day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public
>> statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official
>> transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations)
>> over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces
>> relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books,
>> articles, speeches, and interviews.
>>
>> Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the
>> run-up to war:
>>
>>
>> On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the
>> Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there
>> is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
>> There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends,
>> against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director
>> George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his
>> agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to
>> the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was,
>> 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
>> In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast
>> approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush
>> told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime
>> possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the
>> facilities to make more and, according to the British government,
>> could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45
>> minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a
>> nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a
>> year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a
>> much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass
>> destruction -- an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the
>> intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House
>> hadn't requested it.
>> In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked
>> whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In
>> fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence
>> Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an
>> absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation
>> between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier
>> DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with
>> Al Qaeda is unclear."
>> On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush
>> declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found
>> biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in
>> State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to
>> examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field
>> report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final
>> report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had
>> probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
>> On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush
>> asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
>> recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our
>> intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
>> high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
>> Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of
>> Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the
>> intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase
>> agreement "probably is a hoax."
>> On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security
>> Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions
>> based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are
>> from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human
>> sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One
>> was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American
>> intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even
>> spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi,
>> who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who
>> later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in
>> January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information
>> interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being
>> handed over to [a foreign government]."
>>
>> Bush and his top officials waged a campaign of misinformation about
>> the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
>>
>> The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with
>> congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated
>> through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January
>> 2003 to the eve of the invasion.
>>
>>
>> It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president
>> delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his
>> memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including
>> when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project;
>> the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.
>>
>> In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these
>> seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two
>> years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass
>> destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups,
>> joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also
>> routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.
>>
>> The cumulative effect of these false statements -- amplified by
>> thousands of news stories and broadcasts -- was massive, with the
>> media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several
>> critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists -- indeed, even
>> some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their
>> coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and
>> uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall
>> media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the
>> Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.
>>
>> The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the
>> president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on
>> NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons
>> of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005,
>> with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a
>> Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam
>> Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass
>> destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those
>> programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true
>> that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass
>> destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As
>> your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet
>> it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
>>
>> Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment;
>> instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity
>> between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth"
>> regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's
>> Who of domestic agencies.
>>
>> On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of
>> former government officials, have publicly -- and in some cases
>> vociferously -- accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring
>> or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics
>> say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public
>> pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this
>> nation's allies on their way to 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. There has been no congressional
>> investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the
>> Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused
>> almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war
>> intelligence -- not the judgment, public statements, or public
>> accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of
>> the officials -- Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz -- have
>> testified before Congress about Iraq.
>>
>> Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable
>> framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass.
>> Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush
>> administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad
>> intelligence.
>>
>> Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here
>> finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to
>> Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know
>> it?
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74715/?page=1
>
>http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
>
Interesting, thanks. I wonder how if anyone maintains this page?
It would be more interesting if the quips were more recent than 2003.
A lot more happened in over 4 years and has. I appreciated the
so-called Iraqi man in the radio in Washington who hated Hussein. I
wonder what he would say today now that over 70% of the Iraqis want us
out of their country? Give this country an inch and it will take a
mile.

 

[Igor]

On Jan 24, 4:32

 

[Lyle Andrew]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:32:06 -0600, "Seasoned Citizen"
<hrreeves@swbell.net> wrote:

><C3@nospam.nul> wrote in message
>news:ru7hp31geb9i3jt2uhkdnbj8eaq8bguhuo@4ax.com...
>> Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion
>>
>Not mentioned:
>???
>
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
>
Here's a better link:

http://blip.tv:80/file/520347

 

[Al]

In article
<cognac756-543F61.21544924012008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <albert.finney000-C3A43D.20423524012008@news-server.tx.rr.com>,
> Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <cognac756-839C91.19151224012008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ru7hp31geb9i3jt2uhkdnbj8eaq8bguhuo@4ax.com>, C3@nospam.nul
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here
> > > > finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to
> > > > Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know
> > > > it?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74715/?page=1
> > >
> > > I've read all the same transcripts from announcements and from
> > > interviews of administration officials during the lead up to Op: IF.
> > >
> > > My total is "0" false statements.
> > >
> > > I'm sure the problem is, I don't care that this is an election year, and
> > > I'm better informed on the events in question than any of the authors at
> > > The Center for Public Integrity.
> >
> > How seriously can you take a Sorosnista organization that claims the "16
> > words" in the SoTU were a lie?
>
> We can show that the data does not come from a disinterested source; and
> that the source may be prejudiced.
>
> However, this does not constitute a refutation of the data. Certainly
> not in and of itself.

The "data" has been argued ad nauseum for years, this is a "document
dump".