NationStates Jolt Archive

Can't believe there's no thread about this.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.
... conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations.

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.
...
The overview of the study also calls the media to task, saying most media outlets didn't do enough to investigate the claims.

"Some journalists -- indeed, even some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," the report reads. "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."

These should be considered in light of "the right thing" and "liberal media", and should also be considered next time someone who obviously isn't familiar with the facts regarding this particular issue needs to be reminded.
What do y'all think? Too liberal a media? If so, feel free to elaborate.

Tsk tsk. Then again, one is hard-pressed to find wars that people haven't been lied into. War, after all, is the health of the state.

(And do they elaborate on the definition of 'false'? I know they mean factually inaccurate, but do they also mean a lie?)

(And do they elaborate on the definition of 'false'? I know they mean factually inaccurate, but do they also mean a lie?)
I think, considering, they meant factually inaccurate. It was quite obvious to many people at the time, and those people i'm PRETTY SURE knew those espoused factual inaccuracies as not only "lie"s but boldfaced, arrogant lies.

As per the article, 'tis only one. There might be another somewhere that elucidates.

Tsk tsk. Then again, one is hard-pressed to find wars that people haven't been lied into. War, after all, is the health of the state.

(And do they elaborate on the definition of 'false'? I know they mean factually inaccurate, but do they also mean a lie?)

When your the head of state and government of the most influential nation in the world, and are talking about such issues of world gravity, you would expect that such leaders have a responsibility to the public to get their facts straight, that's of course if they aren't deliberately lying, in which case they would be evil and not incompetent.

that's of course if they aren't deliberately lying, in which case they would be evil and not incompetent.There's just NO winners with the current administration.
More, even at the same time ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012302179.html

When your the head of state and government of the most influential nation in the world, and are talking about such issues of world gravity, you would expect that such leaders have a responsibility to the public to get their facts straight, that's of course if they aren't deliberately lying, in which case they would be evil and not incompetent.

Actually, I think there's a strong case that the current US administration is both.

Actually, I think there's a strong case that the current US administration is both.
Yeah but that just ends up looking comic, you have to be good at looking evil.

Yeah but that just ends up looking comic, you have to be good at looking evil.

Unfortunately it's too serious to be comic.

Unfortunately it's too serious to be comic.

1) He's not an American so he doesn't care.
2) He regularly defends Stalin and Mao. He probably views American attempts to wipe out rights as rather hilariously feeble.

1) He's not an American so he doesn't care.
2) He regularly defends Stalin and Mao. He probably views American attempts to wipe out rights as rather hilariously feeble.
You obviously have know very little of my views if you truly think that, and for posterity I don't defend Mao, I repudiate in fact most of his thought at anti-Marxist and reactionary.

It needs to be pointed out, as i'd remarked in the original post, that if it *were* SUCH a "libruhl" media this story would be all over the fucking place.
When was the last time ANYONE brought it up?
:mad:
Goddammit, what does this stupid country need to wake up to criminal proceedings of these fuckers?

It needs to be pointed out, as i'd remarked in the original post, that if it *were* SUCH a "libruhl" media this story would be all over the fucking place.
When was the last time ANYONE brought it up?
:mad:
Goddammit, what does this stupid country need to wake up to criminal proceedings of these fuckers?

My personal opinion: Something would have to occur to throw their lives out of whack for such things to be fully exposed.

Can't believe there's no thread about this.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

These should be considered in light of "the right thing" and "liberal media", and should also be considered next time someone who obviously isn't familiar with the facts regarding this particular issue needs to be reminded.
What do y'all think? Too liberal a media? If so, feel free to elaborate.
Good find there Straughn!! ;)

http://www.topplebush.com/humor/holl_eveybodysaysImpeachW.jpg

Can't believe there's no thread about this.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

These should be considered in light of "the right thing" and "liberal media", and should also be considered next time someone who obviously isn't familiar with the facts regarding this particular issue needs to be reminded.
What do y'all think? Too liberal a media? If so, feel free to elaborate.


But clinton did something bad too!


/republican auto answer

;)

*sighs*
*wishes Al Gore had won in 2000 and that Bush's bro wasn't gov of FLA, and that the electoral college would be abolished*
*prays for good president in 2009*
*waits for elections*

*sighs*
*wishes Al Gore had won in 2000 and that Bush's bro wasn't gov of FLA, and that the electoral college would be abolished*
*prays for good president in 2009*
*waits for elections*


*Lies on news about Hilary and Obama just before election night*
*Red states once again win the election and vote in either Romney or Huckabee in 2009*
*war in Iraq continues on*
*Racial and cultural intolerance continues to grow in the US, those who are not christian are discriminated further*
*Republican president further loosens up the gun laws*
*highschool and work shootings continue to rise*
*The US economy rises abit at the beginning of the new elected republican president but then continues to dive*
*war with Iran is declared*
*war with Iran unsuccessful, troops over stretched*
*further division in US*
*Allegations about Clinton prior to election night prove to be false, major news networks such as fox apologises and is pardoned by the current presidential administration*
*Presidents approval rating continues to decrease*
*After seven years of the Iraq war troops are called in, the war is declared a success by republicans yet the nation had not improved since the invasion, civil war beings in Iraq, UN sends in diplomats, Iraq split into four regions*
*Iraq drops from the second largest oil reserves to the 5th*
*In 2011 Republican president warns Iran to end WMD development, Iran denys all charges, weapons inspectors find nothing. Russia and China declares support for Iran. Current administration looses credibility and against US public wishes continue with the plan to invade Iraq.*
*Democrats urge the republicans not to declare war*
*Democrats called unpatriotic and the reason to why the Iraq war took so long to "end"*
*2012 April, The US declares war on Iran.*
*2012 US presidential elections cancelled for the first time in history due to the international hostilities between the US and certain other nations.*
*Liberals,moderates and afew conservatives wake up to the reality of things and demand change in government, yet ignored by the current republican administration.*
U.S begins to mass troops into Iran, Britains prime minister, Gordon Brown, refuses to send British troops. Sarkozy declares support for Bush and sends in 33,000 French troops into Iran along with 210,000 U.S troops into Iran (110,000 U.S troops from Iraq occupation)
*Russia and China declares war on the US in 2012.*

War, after all, is the health of the state.


Bullshit, in th 18th century, sure, but not anymore.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.
... conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.


You have to ask questions about this. Like 935 out of how many? 935 from 935 is different to 935 out of 40,000. Without that sort of context, the statement means nothing, even before you start to ask questions about how the data was collated, who did the collation and what are the agendas of those sponsoring the survey.

I'm all for holding Bush to account, but this is worthless.

It needs to be pointed out, as i'd remarked in the original post, that if it *were* SUCH a "libruhl" media this story would be all over the fucking place.
When was the last time ANYONE brought it up?
:mad:
Goddammit, what does this stupid country need to wake up to criminal proceedings of these fuckers?


The body politic would have to decide it was unacceptable and go after them en masse. Theres SFA chance of that happening. Sad, but thats the way of it.

Can't believe there's no thread about this.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

These should be considered in light of "the right thing" and "liberal media", and should also be considered next time someone who obviously isn't familiar with the facts regarding this particular issue needs to be reminded.
What do y'all think? Too liberal a media? If so, feel free to elaborate.

The media as an investigative medium? Nah. Not gonna happen.

Good find there Straughn!! ;)

http://www.topplebush.com/humor/holl_eveybodysaysImpeachW.jpg

*bows*
Thank you. I can honestly say, there wasn't much of a media establishment to help get me here today. :(

My personal opinion: Something would have to occur to throw their lives out of whack for such things to be fully exposed.It's kinda boggling for me to guess at what that might be. :confused:

*Lies on news about Hilary and Obama just before election night*
*Red states once again win the election and vote in either Romney or Huckabee in 2009*
*war in Iraq continues on*
*Racial and cultural intolerance continues to grow in the US, those who are not christian are discriminated further*
*Republican president further loosens up the gun laws*
*highschool and work shootings continue to rise*
*The US economy rises abit at the beginning of the new elected republican president but then continues to dive*
*war with Iran is declared*
*war with Iran unsuccessful, troops over stretched*
*further division in US*
*Allegations about Clinton prior to election night prove to be false, major news networks such as fox apologises and is pardoned by the current presidential administration*
*Presidents approval rating continues to decrease*
*After seven years of the Iraq war troops are called in, the war is declared a success by republicans yet the nation had not improved since the invasion, civil war beings in Iraq, UN sends in diplomats, Iraq split into four regions*
*Iraq drops from the second largest oil reserves to the 5th*
*In 2011 Republican president warns Iran to end WMD development, Iran denys all charges, weapons inspectors find nothing. Russia and China declares support for Iran. Current administration looses credibility and against US public wishes continue with the plan to invade Iraq.*
*Democrats urge the republicans not to declare war*
*Democrats called unpatriotic and the reason to why the Iraq war took so long to "end"*
*2012 April, The US declares war on Iran.*
*2012 US presidential elections cancelled for the first time in history due to the international hostilities between the US and certain other nations.*
*Liberals,moderates and afew conservatives wake up to the reality of things and demand change in government, yet ignored by the current republican administration.*
U.S begins to mass troops into Iran, Britains prime minister, Gordon Brown, refuses to send British troops. Sarkozy declares support for Bush and sends in 33,000 French troops into Iran along with 210,000 U.S troops into Iran (110,000 U.S troops from Iraq occupation)
*Russia and China declares war on the US in 2012.*

:eek:
...but, alas, i too am becoming jaded enough to see that happen. :(

You have to ask questions about this. Like 935 out of how many? 935 from 935 is different to 935 out of 40,000. Without that sort of context, the statement means nothing, even before you start to ask questions about how the data was collated, who did the collation and what are the agendas of those sponsoring the survey.
Actually, that's already in there. Cross reference if you like - in fact, i encourage it.
935 out of two years, public statements.
Context was press statements and various other deliberately public venues for public discernment.
It says who did the collating. It says where. It also says what the so-called "agenda" is of a nonpartisan organisation doing the work.
Again, it's all there. Read harder.

The body politic would have to decide it was unacceptable and go after them en masse. Theres SFA chance of that happening. Sad, but thats the way of it.
Even worse when there's so little "libruhl" media coverage of it. :mad:

The media as an investigative medium? Nah. Not gonna happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100655.html

A few, anyway, a precious few.

*Lies on news about Hilary and Obama just before election night*
*Red states once again win the election and vote in either Romney or Huckabee in 2009*
*war in Iraq continues on*
*Racial and cultural intolerance continues to grow in the US, those who are not christian are discriminated further*
*Republican president further loosens up the gun laws*
*highschool and work shootings continue to rise*
*The US economy rises abit at the beginning of the new elected republican president but then continues to dive*
*war with Iran is declared*
*war with Iran unsuccessful, troops over stretched*
*further division in US*
*Allegations about Clinton prior to election night prove to be false, major news networks such as fox apologises and is pardoned by the current presidential administration*
*Presidents approval rating continues to decrease*
*After seven years of the Iraq war troops are called in, the war is declared a success by republicans yet the nation had not improved since the invasion, civil war beings in Iraq, UN sends in diplomats, Iraq split into four regions*
*Iraq drops from the second largest oil reserves to the 5th*
*In 2011 Republican president warns Iran to end WMD development, Iran denys all charges, weapons inspectors find nothing. Russia and China declares support for Iran. Current administration looses credibility and against US public wishes continue with the plan to invade Iraq.*
*Democrats urge the republicans not to declare war*
*Democrats called unpatriotic and the reason to why the Iraq war took so long to "end"*
*2012 April, The US declares war on Iran.*
*2012 US presidential elections cancelled for the first time in history due to the international hostilities between the US and certain other nations.*
*Liberals,moderates and afew conservatives wake up to the reality of things and demand change in government, yet ignored by the current republican administration.*
U.S begins to mass troops into Iran, Britains prime minister, Gordon Brown, refuses to send British troops. Sarkozy declares support for Bush and sends in 33,000 French troops into Iran along with 210,000 U.S troops into Iran (110,000 U.S troops from Iraq occupation)
*Russia and China declares war on the US in 2012.*

Uh...no.

France would grind to a halt and the guillotine would resurface.

Interesting little work of fiction, though.

I don't really see the point of this story. Everyone already knows Bush and Co. made false statements. Plus, the story is misleading some in the number. Its basically saying Bush stuck to the same reason and repeated it over and over. To me, repeating something is very different than 935 different false statements, which is what I first thought this article was about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100655.html

A few, anyway, a precious few.

Deep Throat, definitely. But who else has the cojones?

Can’t believe there’s no thread about this.
Are you really surprised that Bush & Co. have been making false statements about Iraq?

:upyours:

:upyours:
How informative...

How informative...

its how i feel

must

get to

YAY!

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:daT-Q-BXZqoMGM:http://files.teamofx.us/public/1000%2520posts.jpg

Are you really surprised that Bush & Co. have been making false statements about Iraq?

This isn't a thread about surprise.
This is a thread that points out just how many times the effort was put forth to mislead the public, intentionally (not the only thread i've ever made in said regard, either)
But the thread further qualifies something that i've heard misrepresented for a long, long time now, the idea that there's an overarching "libruhl media" that runs peoples' interests against their better judgment and somehow, in some fucked up universe, the conservatives are the only true and noble representers of truth and sincerity to the public.

YAY!

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:daT-Q-BXZqoMGM:http://files.teamofx.us/public/1000%2520posts.jpg

So you flip us off to get your postcount up?
*shakes head*

Can't believe there's no thread about this.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

These should be considered in light of "the right thing" and "liberal media", and should also be considered next time someone who obviously isn't familiar with the facts regarding this particular issue needs to be reminded.
What do y'all think? Too liberal a media? If so, feel free to elaborate.

The groups behind this are funded by George Soros, a man who said that he would spend the vast majority of his fortune to defeat Bush. So I don't trust the study at all.

This isn’t a thread about surprise.
This is a thread that points out just how many times the effort was put forth to mislead the public, intentionally (not the only thread i’ve ever made in said regard, either)
But the thread further qualifies something that i’ve heard misrepresented for a long, long time now, the idea that there’s an overarching “libruhl media” that runs peoples’ interests against their better judgment and somehow, in some fucked up universe, the conservatives are the only true and noble representers of truth and sincerity to the public.
Fair nuff, chuck.

Preachin’ to the converted here, though.

Fair nuff, chuck.

Preachin’ to the converted here, though.

Understandable. :)
My problem is that people are still fucking dying over this, AND spending peoples' futures over this ... and it seems like rage has been replaced by complacence.
:(

The groups behind this are funded by George Soros, a man who said that he would spend the vast majority of his fortune to defeat Bush. So I don't trust the study at all.
Oh really?
study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups
Why don't you show me how the groups are funded by Soros? Specifically and thoroughly to front the personal interest of Soros?
Further, show how they were never said. Then cross reference them with the results and the understanding of the situation, with facts, and then tuck away that bullshit about not trusting the words because of who you assign to paying the bills.
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/jan/1225.html

WASHINGTON, January 23, 2008 — Leading up to the five-year anniversary of the Iraq war, the Center for Public Integrity has released the first analysis of its kind, "Iraq – The War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War." This comprehensive examination of top Bush administration officials' statements over a two-year period shows how top officials galvanized public opinion in the run-up to the March 18, 2003 invasion of Iraq. The project's chronology provides a framework for examining how the administration's false statements led the country into the war in Iraq. The results of this analysis question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were merely the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Center founder Charles Lewis and researchers helping him write a forthcoming, new book, were instrumental in identifying 935 false statements by eight top administration officials that mentioned Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al Qaeda, on at least 532 separate occasions.
+
"Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq," said Lewis, now president of the Fund for Independence in Journalism and a professor at the American University School of Communications in Washington. "There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period, and now millions of White House emails from 2001 to October 2003 apparently may have been destroyed."
Further, i'll call bullshit on your assement since i've heard many of these things stated. Myself. Personally. I don't need the report to do that for me. Are you saying these things were never said?

In a 2007 essay, the Center's founder Charles Lewis offered this about the Center's fundraising habits:
The issue of perceived financial “purity” and exactly from whom the Center should seek and accept money from has been an introspective feature of nearly every board meeting since 1989. Eventually, beginning in 1995, for example, we stopped raising funds from companies and labor unions because of their direct economic interests in influencing public policy; the nonpartisan Center has never accepted money from government, advocacy organizations, paid advertising or anonymous donors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Public_Integrity

Can't believe there's no thread about this.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

These should be considered in light of "the right thing" and "liberal media", and should also be considered next time someone who obviously isn't familiar with the facts regarding this particular issue needs to be reminded.
What do y'all think? Too liberal a media? If so, feel free to elaborate.
They must be liberal, since they're publishing this about GWB lies.

They must be liberal, since they're publishing this about GWB lies.
That sounds almost like a conundrum of sorts. :p

Then cross reference them with the results and the understanding of the situation, with facts, and then tuck away that bullshit about not trusting the words because of who you assign to paying the bills.


Why are you so angry that I stated my opinon? I am not forcing you to agree with me. I merely stated my opinon that since noted Bush Derangment Syndrom sufferer George Soros funded this report, I chose to not believe that it was fair report. I am sorry if I raised your blood pressure. I have to agree with you, though. And you can rest assured that it was the profanity that really got your point across.

:)

Why are you so angry that I stated my opinon? I am not forcing you to agree with me. I merely stated my opinon that since noted Bush Derangment Syndrom sufferer George Soros funded this report. I am sorry if I raised your blood pressure. I have to agree with you, though. And you can rest assured that it was the profanity that really got your point across.

:)I like the last lines.
I can't say that Soros has some kind of "Derangement Syndrome" about Bush. Bush is a clear and present danger to many people on the planet, and i would hazard to say that the lack of recognition of that particular fact is dangerous, and even, as you put it, deranged.

I like the last lines.
I can't say that Soros has some kind of "Derangement Syndrome" about Bush. Bush is a clear and present danger to many people on the planet, and i would hazard to say that the lack of recognition of that particular fact is dangerous, and even, as you put it, deranged.

WE generally capitalize I when refering to yourself.

Gramma! It not just be for dinna

WE generally capitalize I when refering to yourself.Generally speaking, yes.
But you're either a n00b here or a puppet posing as such, so i'll happily remind you to review my post history before any summations of behaviour i'm "supposed" to indulge.
Take note of posting idiosyncrasies.
:cool:

Awww, do we have a new puppet? It's been ever so long. Can we keep it?

WE generally capitalize I when refering to yourself.

If WE want to be technical, the proper way to phrase that sentence is "we generally capitalize I when refering to ourselves"

Awww, do we have a new puppet? It's been ever so long. Can we keep it?

It gives all appearances as such ... even on other threads. :)

Regardless of your cutesy little off topic discussion of my N00bism, this whole thread is based on a shaky foundation. This "study" was funded by a Crazed Bush hater.

:fluffle: Luv ya guys

Regardless of your cutesy little off topic discussion of my N00bism, this whole thread is based on a shaky foundation. No it isn't. As i'd said, i've personally witnessed many of the instances they quote. That would make, in my experience, your assertion shaky, and even willfully ignorant.
This "study" was funded by a Crazed Bush hater.Try reading what was posted. Not just a link, but actual text.

:fluffle: Luv ya guysHow MUCH?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/491.gif