Study: False Statements Preceded War

Little-Acorn said:
It isn't.


You don't, to no one's surprise.

Of course, the leftists carefully omit explaining why they believe Bush knew the info was false when it was presented. He didn't, in fact - he went with the strong recommendations of his advisers on both sides of the aisle, the vast majority of whome supported the conclusions at the time, for good reason.

There were literally hundreds of reports saying that Saddam had WMDs, was collaborating with Al Qaeda, etc., and a half dozen saying maybe he didn't. Now the Bush-bashers are screaming that he "knew" the hundreds were wrong and the few were right... again, carefully omitting any explanation of how he could have known.

This has been pointed out to the leftist hysterics many times, of course. Looks like enough time has passed since the BUSH LIED crowd was last smacked down and sent packing, that they think people will have forgotten, and they can bring up all their old, discredited accusations again and pretend they have a legitimate argument. The result is the standard circle jerk we're seeing here, with leftists earnestly telling each other how right they are, and few bothering to re-debunk them for the nth time.

Standard tactic of the left. No wonder they hate the "new media", including the internet... it won't forget what they want it to forget.
Click to expand...

I'm nowhere near the left, except on social issues.

I'm actually pretty far right on foreign policy issues.

Would you consider Pat Buchanan to be a part of this nebulous "left" you describe?

Anyhow, its pretty clear to anyone who can take their mouth off of W's ass long enough to see for themselves, that this war was sold on pure bullshit.

FYI, worshipping a failed republican does not a "Conservative" make.

Remember that.
 
By the way, Southern Man, by addressing Desh to point out how utterly retarded she is only makes her feel as though she expressed a valid opinion that we are going crazy trying to disprove...better to just have some fun with her (insults, of course) and then continue debating the real adults.
 
gonzojournals said:
By the way, Southern Man, by addressing Desh to point out how utterly retarded she is only makes her feel as though she expressed a valid opinion that we are going crazy trying to disprove...better to just have some fun with her (insults, of course) and then continue debating the real adults.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of another poster on another board. Her name was TruthMatters. And the truth didn't matter a hill of beans to her.

Thanks for the heads up. :clink:
 
uscitizen said:
Study: False Statements Preceded War


Jan 22, 9:17 PM (ET)

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 said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.

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.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA8Q80.html
Click to expand...

All you have to do to understnad why we get into any war since WW2 is watch a great documentry (that makes Gores and Moors look like a liberial child did those) called "Why We Fight--by Egene jarlecki.

The name "why We Fight" was knocked off from a war propagand film used to get soldiers "in the mood" here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight

Ugenes version is quite different here.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8484

Here is a paragraph from the second link explaining the military indsutrial congreesional complex

Lookie whos name is in there!!! McCain!!!!

"This quantum leap – either backward or forward, according to your ideological predilections – into a new doctrine of preemption, which claims the "right" to attack any nation, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason. It is enthusiastically endorsed by McCain, Kristol, and Perle, and symbolically celebrated – or, rather, dramatized – by a duo of Air Force pilots who personally participated in the first bombing strike of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and breathlessly relate how great it was and how privileged they felt to be participants in this historic event, "the liberation of a people," as one of them solemnly intones. We are then jerked abruptly back to reality by the sardonic Professor Johnson, who reminds us that the Bush Doctrine is not really new: it is, instead, "an extreme statement of what has been in the works for a long time" – really, he says, since World War II. "
 
Last edited:
theMAJORITY said:
All you have to do to understnad why we get into any war since WW2 is watch a great documentry (that makes Gores and Moors look like a liberial child did those) called "Why We Fight--by Egene jarlecki.

The name "why We Fight" was knocked off from a war propagand film used to get soldiers "in the mood" here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight

Ugenes version is quite different here.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8484

Here is a paragraph from the second link explaining the military indsutrial congreesional complex

Lookie whos name is in there!!! McCain!!!!

"This quantum leap – either backward or forward, according to your ideological predilections – into a new doctrine of preemption, which claims the "right" to attack any nation, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason. It is enthusiastically endorsed by McCain, Kristol, and Perle, and symbolically celebrated – or, rather, dramatized – by a duo of Air Force pilots who personally participated in the first bombing strike of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and breathlessly relate how great it was and how privileged they felt to be participants in this historic event, "the liberation of a people," as one of them solemnly intones. We are then jerked abruptly back to reality by the sardonic Professor Johnson, who reminds us that the Bush Doctrine is not really new: it is, instead, "an extreme statement of what has been in the works for a long time" – really, he says, since World War II. "
Click to expand...

Wow to attempt to compare Iraq to ww2 is light years off base.
 
Beefy said:
If this isn't impeachable, I don't know what is.

If stuffing cigars into fat chicks and then lying about it is impeachable, then for this there should be prison time with bubba and his snake.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. You have to PROVE that Bush and Co KNEW Saddam did not have WMDs. Not that they turned out to be wrong. The reason the Dems wouldn't impeach is because they have no evidence to support their case. Nor do they have any justification to back why THEY voted to authorize force. They received (via the Senate and House intel commitees) the same damn intel that Bush was using. The same info. So the tired old excuse of "bush tricked us" is not going to fly.

Add in the fact that the Clinton admin was making the same kind of statements about Iraq and Saddam having WMDs and you know why they don't want to bring this up..... given a certain person with the same last name is very likely going to be their nominee.... and oh yeah, she voted to authorize force in Iraq and again in Iran and has not once said she was wrong in doing so.

Clinton was not impeached for a blow job.

The above was kindly repeated for those whose reading comprehension abilities are impaired.
 
Superfreak said:
The reason the Dems wouldn't impeach is because they have no evidence to support their case. Nor do they have any justification to back why THEY voted to authorize force. ...

she voted to authorize force in Iraq and again in Iran and has not once said she was wrong in doing so.

Clinton was not impeached for a blow job.

The above was kindly repeated for those whose reading comprehension abilities are impaired.
Click to expand...

This is why they don't impeach. I agree.

And I qualified my statement about Clinton by saying "and lying about it".


The above was kindly repeated for those whose reading comprehension abilities are impaired.

50308620.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top