O/U: how many times

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pdrift1

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL – Jan 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"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," the study concluded.

"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," it said

They had bad information. This Administration is not the only one who had bad information. Let me quote Speaker of the House Pelosi back in 1998. This was when Clinton was President. In 1998 Pelosi said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Let me quote Bill Clinton in 1998. In 1998 President Clinton said, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Here is a letter from John Kerry to President Clinton back in 1998. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

There are a ton of other quotes like this from both Democrats and Republicans dating back to the 1990s. I don't think they were intentionally lying. I think they really believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think they had bad information.

Anyway, that's my final two cents in this thread.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They had bad information. This Administration is not the only one who had bad information. Let me quote Speaker of the House Pelosi back in 1998. This was when Clinton was President. In 1998 Pelosi said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Let me quote Bill Clinton in 1998. In 1998 President Clinton said, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Here is a letter from John Kerry to President Clinton back in 1998. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

There are a ton of other quotes like this from both Democrats and Republicans dating back to the 1990s. I don't think they were intentionally lying. I think they really believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think they had bad information.

Anyway, that's my final two cents in this thread.

i think you're right. altho i don't care for bush, and am anxious for him to be gone, i think it's a shame that so many point fingers at bush while completely forgetting those on the other side of the aisle who said the same things-that saddam had wmds, that he was a danger, that we should and ought to go back to iraq and finish the job.
but the dems (aided by the republican controlled press?!?! what a hoot!) continue to make the attempt to make the reps the bad guy, while whitewashing their reputations. i wonder why tho? the war has made a turn in our favor for sure.
hell, saddam himself made the claims repeatedly to any and everyone that he had them. he'd had them in the past, he'd used them...it would be like ignoring a convicted bank robber, who shows up at a bank, and claims he's going to rob it...but then the cops show up, and he says no, i really wasn't. what, the cops are at fault for thinking he was going to repeat himself??

and scavs is correct, our govt is the one who ultimately decides to vote for war. not just the president (remember, the congress voted as well) can send us there. we elected those people to lead. they must do so. and they should have every thing they need at their disposal to make an informed decision, and once made, we should back them...altho all the finger pointing and second guessing from some in govt won't help to get full support.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are a ton of other quotes like this from both Democrats and Republicans dating back to the 1990s. I don't think they were intentionally lying. I think they really believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think they had bad information.

Common sense ought to always trump everything else.

I don't care what the "facts" said one way or another - or if the information was bad or not.

Common sense suggests that even if Suddam didn't have these weapons - he needed to posture as though he did for the security of his own Government.

There is no way in hell Suddam, or anyone in his Govt really could have believed we would invade him.

Put yourself in his head - Suddam and his Baath party stand for mostly everything bin Laden hates - bin Laden attacks America - how would that enemy on enemy attack logically trigger America to invade Iraq? It doesn't make sense to him.

Obviously, Hussein thought America was just using 9/11 as an excuse to further crack down on him....but that they obviously wouldn't invade.

If he thinks that - he has to state publicly that he doesn't have anything and know that no one trusts his words. However, it is important that he must posture with his actions to suggest he does have something.

You can't expect a guy in his position, who doesn't believe his country will be invaded by us, to want it proven that he has nothing in the way of force to defend himself against other threats in the region.

Once again - everyone gets all caught up in things like facts, expert knowledge, past occurrences etc. - when you simply need only read up on the person and his situation, put yourself in his shoes, and use common sense.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Common sense ought to always trump everything else.

I don't care what the "facts" said one way or another - or if the information was bad or not.

Common sense suggests that even if Suddam didn't have these weapons - he needed to posture as though he did for the security of his own Government.
There is no way in hell Suddam, or anyone in his Govt really could have believed we would invade him.
Put yourself in his head - Suddam and his Baath party stand for mostly everything bin Laden hates - bin Laden attacks America - how would that enemy on enemy attack logically trigger America to invade Iraq? It doesn't make sense to him.

Obviously, Hussein thought America was just using 9/11 as an excuse to further crack down on him....but that they obviously wouldn't invade.

If he thinks that - he has to state publicly that he doesn't have anything and know that no one trusts his words. However, it is important that he must posture with his actions to suggest he does have something.

You can't expect a guy in his position, who doesn't believe his country will be invaded by us, to want it proven that he has nothing in the way of force to defend himself against other threats in the region.

Once again - everyone gets all caught up in things like facts, expert knowledge, past occurrences etc. - when you simply need only read up on the person and his situation, put yourself in his shoes, and use common sense.

OK this post takes the prize.

COMMON SENSE. Saddam used common sense...

There is no way Saddam thought we would invade.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?

WTF happened in 1990?
He did not think we would invade...
ANd he uses common sense...

You can put yourself in the shoes
of this man honestly (besides the fact
he is dead as well as brain dead)?
You think he thought
like you?
Saddam throughout his reign was
extraordinarily bad at making rational
decisions. Do you remember him invading
Iran, possibly the biggest blunder of all time
for his country except that we bailed him out.
The only thing this man understood was to
annhilate all opposition from within. He was
very good at this. The rest....SWEET JESUS!

Putting yourself in someone else's head
using your reasoning is a very dangerous
practice and flat out stupid.

omg......

Does anyone remember the History of
this man? Please help me.

If you were just kidding I apologize profusely.
In fact I apologize anyway for coming on strong
but honestly...

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Putting yourself in someone else's head
using your reasoning is a very dangerous
practice and flat out stupid.

So you (and everyone else) say.....

But, if you look at the scoreboard at the end of the day........

I like how Morty calls him a psycho! All of these 3rd world dictators are corrupt, sh!t eating scum who will do what they have to do to benefit them most.

I think it isn't as hard as you think to think like them.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

So you (and everyone else) say.....

But, if you look at the scoreboard at the end of the day........

I like how Morty calls him a psycho! All of these 3rd world dictators are corrupt, sh!t eating scum who will do what they have to do to benefit them most.

I think it isn't as hard as you think to think like them.

Maybe within their own country.
He was very good at terrorizing
everyone around him and the entire
population.

But the man had not a clue as to
how other countries would react to
his little ventures outside Iraq.

He surrounded himself with YES men
and then in his own bizarre way got
his country into so many problems
before the annhilation. So many times
he made huge errors in judgement concerning
foreign affairs.

Sorry for the overreaction.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by pgardn

But the man had not a clue as to
how other countries would react to
his little ventures outside Iraq.

He surrounded himself with YES men
and then in his own bizarre way got
his country into so many problems
before the annhilation. So many times
he made huge errors in judgement concerning
foreign affairs.

Duh!!!!

Which is why he would mis-calculate about us invading Iraq.

You are doing a better job of supporting my position (which I told Indian Charlie about before the war - and has since proven true) than you are dispelling it.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Duh!!!!

Which is why he would mis-calculate about us invading Iraq.

You are doing a better job of supporting my position (which I told Indian Charlie about before the war - and has since proven true) than you are dispelling it.

You posted put yourself in his shoes and use
common sense. I dont see how one can do that.
We had no idea what he thought.

If you think that is making your point...