Study: False statements preceded war - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study)

Wow.

Center for Public Integrity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Public_Integrity#Funding)

So much for truth in advertising

YouTube - Democrat Hypocrisy on Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE)

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?

Left wing lunnies; any Soros money swirling around here?

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 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp)

Saddam's al Qaeda Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp)

Q&A: Stephen F. Hayes on The Connection: Al Qaeda & Iraq on NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/hayes200406020847.asp)

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.

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!

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

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?

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

Hehe, O'Reilly... one of the most laughed at televison personalities.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) :D :D :D

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

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) :D :D :D

edit : actually this would be more appropriate "
argumentum ad hominemDidn'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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

magprob: "Soros is the new Demon?" Perhaps to you; he's been around: In the United States, he is known for having donated large sums of money in a failed effort to defeat President George W. Bush's bid for re-election in 2004. On BookTV, November 12, 2007, he said that he supports Barack Obama for the Democratic candidate in the 2008 election, but says that John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden are all fine candidates, as well." Wikipedia.

Is Bin Laden a Soros stooge: check this: "Lancet Study Author Helped Saddam Undermine UN Sanctions
Source: The Foundry (Blog) » Blog Archive » Lancet Study Author Helped Saddam Undermine U.N. Sanctions (http://blog.heritage.org/2008/01/14/lancet-study-a)...
Displaying mentions in this article, for full text please visit source.

"The George Soros funded Lancet study that put Iraqi deaths at numbers ten times higher than any human rights group estimated, was co-authored by Riyadh Lafta, an official for Saddam Hussein's government who used similar data analysis techniques to undermine U.N. sanctions against the brutal Iraqi dictator.

"According to National Journal, while a child-health official in Hussein's ministry of health, Lafta authored at least two articles contending that U.N. sanctions were the cause of starvation deaths among Iraqi children. Despite not citing any data, Lafta wrote in the Iraqi Journal of Community Medicine, “We can conclude from results that the most important and widespread underlying cause of the deterioration of child-health standards in Iraq is the long-term impact of the nonhumanized economic sanctions imposed through the Unites Nations resolutions.�

"Lafta's talking points were so effective that Osama bin Laden used them to help make his case against the United States in October 2001. Referring to the sanctions bin Laden told the world, “A million innocent children are dying at this time as we speak, killed in Iraq without any guilt.� Good to see Soros and bin Laden both make use of the same 'scientist' for their propaganda purposes."
At Lancet Study Author Helped Saddam Undermine UN Sanctions (://URLFAN) (http://www.urlfan.com/local/lancet_study_author_helped_saddam_undermine_un_san ctions/62666676.html)

I detest anyone that goes around shorting the currency market the way he does. He has ruined countries economies. People that do nakid, uncovered shorts on stocks destroy businesses for profit. The SEC pretty much turns their heads to it though. Even with his kind of money "whirling around", I don't think it changes the fact that Bush really has lied to us and is taking more and more liberty and freedom away daily. If Soros can use his dirty money to bring that fact out into the open, well, so be it. Bush has lied to us and he has an agenda that I completely disagree with. Perpetual war for perpetual peace. Makes no sense. It bankrupts the middle class and makes the war machine corporations richer and richer. Look at our economy to see that. The federal reserve is controlling the stock market so it won't crash completely. To what extent do they control it on a daily basis? We can't find out. Bush and Mcain won't let us. All their meetings with the fed are secret. We have a secret government that is lying to us daily.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/T/K/bush_bombardier.jpg

I just had a cold chill run down my spine.

A cheap shot curtesy of ?

a cheap shot curtesy of ?
Naw, here’s a cheap shot.:D

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/h/4/bush_serving_beer.jpg

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5940&stc=1&d=1201309166

Jim Cramer for Ron Paul! Do you know what kind of a following he has? Now they all know the fed is controlling the collapse of the American economy!
YouTube - Ron Paul on Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer 12-14-07 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE)

Speaking of chills...

http://www.hillaryclintonrevealed.net/HillaryRedistribution.jpg

Everyone see's her too soft on the war, but here's the real thing.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Y/c/hillary_rambabe.jpg

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5947&stc=1&d=1201373067

That one is cute LOLOLOLOL

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Honstly, we're screwed either way. Obama has no experience, Hillary is a Clinton, Romney is a flip flopper, Huckabee lets his religion lead him, and McCain is stubborn and wants more war. We are totally screwed.

On top of that, nobody knows Ron Paul. The latest survey that I've seen among people who know Ron Paul and what he stands for, he actually garnered over 20% support, almost as much as first place Clinton who had 24%. It's too bad more people didn't know Ron Paul.

EuRa writes: "It's too bad more people didn't know Ron Paul." There is something I would like to know: I understand he is a medical doctor; did he use any government money getting his education?

Who doesn't?

He claims to be a libertarian; I thought their blood was redder.

I think his news letter publications from the 1990s offers a big insight into the true nature of Ron Paul.

I think his news letter publications from the 1990s offers a big insight into the true nature of Ron Paul.

Oh tom, stop beating a dead horse! He didn't write those and that has been proven. What's wrong, you missing your ole buddy Fred? Fred needed a nap and a snack tom. But don't worry tom, Law and Order will keep going on and on and on and on and on.;)

The news letters were penned under his name. Are you trying to tell me he did not know the content of the publication ? I don't buy it.

When Ron Paul is elected President of these United States, we going to get some real LAW AND ORDER BABY!

Ron Paul is a sweet heart of a guy, and I don't mean that in a Rudy kind of way.

Did you know that Henry Kissinger is backing McCain? Oh my lord, dear Henry, you know, the sorry Zionist that calls the American people the, "UNWASHED MASSES!"

Romney, by the way... BWA HA HA HA HA HA!
Mit is funding himself because there ain't enough cold hard cash in Salt Lake City to buy him the presidency!

The news letters were penned under his name. Are you trying to tell me he did not know the content of the publication ? I don't buy it.

We don't need you to buy it, the rest of us already have.

We don't need you to buy it, the rest of us already have.

Whether he actually penned it or not it was printed in his name... for a long time. It took him plenty of time to express any regret ([URL="http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html) for what was going out in his name.

Bill anally is so much into the republican party that it clouds his judgement on everything.

Bill anally is so much into the republican party that it clouds his judgement on everything.

I honestly wonder if even 10 percent of his critics have ever watched his show or listened to his radio program.

Bill is so anal retentive I wonder if even he listens to his shows

speechlesstx writes : " I honestly wonder if even 10 percent of his critics have ever watched his show or listened to his radio program." I agree; I suppose you could argue that he has weak guests who can't debate as well as he does; but he appears to present a position and give the other side an opportunity to refute. I've never seen Chris Matthews do this without Matthews going ballistic.

Bill O is the type of guy that if you don't agree with him,he just goes to commercial or cuts off your mic.Its his way or no way

Bill O is the type of guy that if you dont agree with him,he just goes to commercial or cuts off your mic.Its his way or no way
I have never seen this on TV; I've never heard his radio show. He gives the impression he enjoys a lively debate. I believe some folks just are annoyed at someone as cocky as O'Reilly.

George I have seen it plenty of time with people that don't see things from his point of view,his counterpart on msnbc Keith Olbermann on the other hand is the free thinker always open minded and never pointing out his way of thinking as Bill O does

Hello wolf:

I don't know how this turned into a Bill O'Reilly thing, but I love jumping on his case.

However, before tom comes along to say this, I will. Keith is a lefty. Nobody disagrees with him on his show because ALL the people he invites on, AGREE with him.

O'Reilly, to his credit, invites adversaries on to debate. Then, of course, O'Reilly's debates go into the toilet because he really is a dufus.

But, he DOES articulate a valuable opinion, however, because there's a bunch of Republicans out there who love and agree with him. Some of 'em are right here. Same thing with Keith. Some of them are here too. I wonder how he'd do in a heated debate, though.

excon

They won't ever get into a debate even though Keith has asked to do it,Bill O won't do it

Bill O is the type of guy that if you dont agree with him,he just goes to commercial or cuts off your mic.Its his way or no way

I don't watch very often but I have never seen this at all. Like everyone he does have to cut people off for hard breaks - they ALL do that. But I have seen him usually provide guests for both sides of a debate AND often give the last word to the one he disagrees with. I've seen Al Sharpton on his show numerous times and heard O'Reilly call him "a stand up guy" more than once. He also maintains he is staunchly independent, not Republican. Disagreeing with or disliking the man is fine, but the truth still matters to some of us.

Guess opinions vary on the subject of Bill O

I have never seen this on TV; I've never heard his radio show. He gives the impression he enjoys a lively debate. I believe some folks just are annoyed at someone as cocky as O'Reilly.Here you go:
YouTube - Outfoxed: Fox News technique: cut their mic! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTkFU4MtubU)

Hello Steve:

He does lose it now and again. Did you see him with Al Franken?? You should. He tells him to SHADDAP! I'll bet you can u-tube it.

excon

Ty karma for proving my point

Bill O thinks that its his way of thinking not anyone else's way,no matter who he has as a guest.

I don't watch very often but I have never seen this at all. You can watch a few of these: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=o%27reilly&search=Search)

O'Reilly, to his credit, invites adversaries on to debate. Then, of course, O'Reilly's debates go into the toilet because he really is a dufus.

But, he DOES articulate a valuable opinion, however, because there's a bunch of Republicans out there who love and agree with him. Some of ‘em are right here. Same thing with Keith. Some of them are here too. I wonder how he'd do in a heated debate, though.

Actually ex, I'm not sure I could name one Republican here that loves him. He certainly makes me cringe at times but your point is right, it is to his credit that he regularly invites adversaries to debate. Love him or hate him, call him a dufus, I don't care - there's just no need for folks to smear him when they apparently have no clue as to what they're talking about.

Hello Steve:

He does lose it now and again. Did you see him with Al Franken??? You should. He tells him to SHADDAP! I'll bet you can u-tube it.

No, I really don't watch very often but I have seen him come unhinged and it ain't pretty. I said a minute ago he does make me cringe at times, so does Hannity, so do others including Bush. But I do wonder what it takes for the left to cringe at their own unhinged personalities.

They won't ever get into a debate even though Keith has asked to do it,Bill O won't do it

We will never know since Keith Olberman never has a counter-point guest on his program... there I said it .

Please provide a link where Olberman challenged Bill O to a debate . That is laughable to think he did .

Anyway excon is right .this thred has gone way off topic now .

Shaddap! All of you shaddap!

You can watch a few of these: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=o%27reilly&search=Search)

NK, first of all I said I have never seen it and I also said he does cut people off for hard breaks... saying thank you for being on. The incident I watched from your link when he cut off Colonel Ann Wright's mike he tried to let her know the discussion was over and she wouldn't shut up. That's what I see far more than these charges about O'Reilly, liberal guests that won't shut up. It's what the fanatics do, shout people down, they aren't interested in discussion. Think Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink, who had this as part of an “Action Alert” on their website, "The only way to stomach the prez without pepto-dismal [sic.] is among lots of hot pink sistahs shouting ‘bull ****’ simultaneously as he sputters!” At least O'Reilly does invite them on and does let them them talk.

To a point then he gets anal retentive

Anyway excon is right .this thred has gone way off topic now .

What was the subject? Oh yeah, lies... :D

Lies... everybody tells them but nobody fesses up to them