[EuRa]

Study: False statements preceded war - Yahoo! News

Wow.

[inthebox]

Center for Public Integrity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So much for truth in advertising

[inthebox]

YouTube - Democrat Hypocrisy on Iraq

[speechlesstx]

I wonder if they've done an investigation on how many times the media have lied about it since those two years? In fact, with a banner like "ORCHESTRATED DECEPTION ON THE PATH TO WAR" (emphasis theirs) one has to question the integrity of The Center For Public Integrity.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that in the intro to their study they cite "the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group" to support their claims but fail to cite how many times the UN "resolved" to hold Saddam accountable for his WMD's and related programs? Can anyone tell me yet if they've been accounted for?????? No? I didn't think so. In fact, even Duelfer himself reports "A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria." What was it?

One of CPI's first "lies" they cite is this from Condoleeza Rice:

We worry about Saddam Hussein. We worry about his weapons of mass destruction that he's trying to achieve. There's a reason he doesn't want U.N. inspectors—it's because he intends to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Yet, in Duelfer's "Key Findings" he states:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

So who is lying?

[George_1950]

Left wing lunnies; any Soros money swirling around here?

[tomder55]

From the outset they are lying . I know it is popular to now say that no WMD was found ;but that in itself is a lie. Plenty of shells loaded with wmd were found ;perhaps not in the stockpile that they expected .but nonetheless weapons were found.

or was trying to produce or obtain them

This was confirmed from the documents recovered from government buildings after the invasion ;documents that have yet not been fully translated . What we do know is that Saddam retained the means and the desire to reconstitute his WMD program after the sanction regime petered out (and that was going to be sooner rather than later... subsequent revelations about the Oil for Food Scandal revealed how uncontained Saddam really was ) .

or had links to al-Qaida

Again much of the connection was revealed in the documents . For more information about the link see this articles by Stephen Hayes .

The Connection

Saddam's al Qaeda Connection

Q&A: Stephen F. Hayes on The Connection: Al Qaeda & Iraq on NRO

[Dark_crow]

I saw all sorts of names, but never the names of those who conducted the survey. I think that is very pertinent to the truth of falsity of the study.

[Choux]

There are no doubts that Americans were manipulated into favoring going to war on Iraq by the lies and propaganda of the Bush Administration. Most egregious was the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which scared the average, ignorant folk.

The public emotional upset and subsequent patriotism after 911 was exploited by the neo-cons/fascists of the Bush Administration to dare to invade the Middle East at Iraq to get a foothold in the country with the second highest oil reserves in the world. Bush finally admitted the Iraq War was about oil last year in an interview I saw on television. It was his third reason given for the war...

Bush will go down as the worst President in the history of the US. All the opining he did for 8 years was a pack of lies!!

Heck of a job, Brownie!! Er Georgie!

[magprob]

Let's meet half way. He only lied 467.5 times. Nixon is rolling over in his grave.

[George_1950]

O'Reilly took this report up on his show on 01/24/08. He pointed out that the organization that performed the study is a recipient of Soros' money. The liberal guest allowed as how conservative's sponsor similar studies. I guess we just pick the truth?

[NeedKarma]

Hehe, O'Reilly... one of the most laughed at televison personalities.

[tomder55]

Hehe, O'Reilly... one of the most laughed at televison personalities.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :D :D :D

Edit : actually this would be more appropriate "
argumentum ad hominem

[NeedKarma]

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :D :D :D

edit : actually this would be more appropriate "
argumentum ad hominem

Didn't George do the ad hominem thing first? How come you didn't comment on his post? Oh that's right, because he's a fellow neo-con of yours.

[excon]

Hello:

The amazing thing about this report is that it times the increases in the lies to the dates when the administration was bludgeoning congress into doing something it wanted – like pass the Patriot Act, or make pre-emptive war.

I'm glad somebody funded it. I don't care that the money came from a loon (assuming he is - and I don't make that assumption). But, if you are suggesting that the report isn't to be believed simply because it was paid for by the left, then you should pay more attention.

Because this isn't a study. It isn't a poll. It isn't anyone's opinion. It's a Boolean curve search that matches up words and dates. Simple stuff, really. When that was done, the conclusions are inescapable – truly.

Course, they ARE escapable by you guys, cause you guys are still looking for the WMD's. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Because this isn't a study. It isn’t a poll. It isn't anyone's opinion. It's a Boolean curve search that matches up words and dates. Simple stuff, really. When that was done, the conclusions are inescapable – truly.

Ex, as I pointed out, when one of the first "lies" is a lie based on their own sources, what kind of conclusion should we draw? To refresh everyone's memory:

One of CPI's first "lies" they cite is this from Condoleeza Rice:

We worry about Saddam Hussein. We worry about his weapons of mass destruction that he's trying to achieve. There's a reason he doesn't want U.N. inspectors—it's because he intends to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Yet, in Duelfer's "Key Findings" he states:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

It seems to me the two are in perfect agreement. No?

[George_1950]

The fact is Saddam refused inspectors, disregarding the UN and reasonable world opinion, and subjected all of us to the consequences. It amazes me the hate for President Bush in bringing justice to a mass murderer. Especially uninformed Americans who are swayed by the liberal press and Demorcrat politicians.

[excon]

Hello again, George:

Like most Bush lovers, right about now you want to change the conversation. I don't blame you. However, THIS uninformed American ain't going to let you.

In fact, when one examines history, it's ME who appears to be informed, and it's you who are having lapses in your memory. Going to war was NEVER about bringing justice to a mass murderer. If that's what Bush said, and ALL that he said, then we wouldn't have gone to war, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But he DID say more, and those are the things we're talking about.

excon

[Dark_crow]

There were primarily three causes for the war: One to expand Democracy in the mid-east, another to bring stability to that area and the most important to maintain economic and military power. But of course the American public and world at large would not accept that…even though I do. Some of you people would let America become a third world country before you would go to war. You fail to realize that we are still, by in large, vicious animals that have made great progress technologically but little progress morally and socially.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again ex, it seems to me the question right now is about credibility. After the dozens of times I've either raised the question or someone else has, I can't recall anyone actually answering to the fact that virtually the entire world believed Saddam had WMD's and wanted more, which WAS supported by their own sources. The UN certainly believed he had proscribed weapons, for 12 years.

These are the first two "lies" the project cites:

Bush: "We know he's been developing weapons of mass destruction." (Followed by "And I think it's in his advantage to allow inspectors back in his country to make sure that he's conforming to the agreement he made."

Powell: "They're still fiddling with weapons of mass destruction."

Is it only a lie when someone from the Bush administration says it? Or did the UN lie for over a decade as well?

The third "lie" they cite is the one by Rice I mentioned twice now, and their own source verifies Rice's comment as true. You're a reasonable guy, how can I give any credibility to a report when their first few "lies" are suspect? The report is not a simple "Boolean curve search," it is "orchestrated deception" intended to embarrass the administration. I guess the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group "Duelfer Report" wasn't enough for them.

Steve

[magprob]

Soros is the new Demon? What about Bin Laden? How many Demons we going to blame for these conspiracy theorys. Bush is a liar. Cheney is a liar. Get over it. That's no theory.