President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows 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.
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. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.
Folks at the Center for Public Integrity must have coffee umbilicals stretching over to the Library of Congress.
They certainly have the stubbornness and smarts needed to work their way through the stonewalls of official Washington.
You mean to tell me that the american people didn’t see this propaganda and swallowed this whole. Oh come on!
Well,…. I guess they did. And re-elected him too.
Ah the sweet smell of 20/20 hindsight. If I say something I think now, and tomorrow facts come out that disprove me, was I lying? According to a liberal, I guess I was.
Don’t get me wrong, this idiot has spent us into a hole it’ll take years to dig out of, and our border is an open door under his policies. I’m just hoping and praying for January 2009 to come without incident, and that we get people in the White House, Senate, and Congress that know how to balance a budget.
Looks like most of the ‘lies’ were statements that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).
I guess this means that means that all the other politicians who came to the conclusion that he had WMDs, including Senator Clinton and most other Democrats; and most other world leaders were lying too.
Of course, perhaps they and the president were all just using flawed intelligence, plus the fact that Saddam HAD used WMD (poison gas) against his own people, and that he HAD kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors who were in Iraq searching for the WMDs that EVERYBODY thought the Iraqis had.
But hey, it’s an election year. This sort of mud is to be expected.
Angus, part of the point of primary source information is that it’s contemporary to the fact. In each of those instances, the truth was available – and deliberately ignored in favor of a lie.
Your hangup over liberal vs. liar has nothing to do with the reality. Traditional conservatives don’t have that problem, you know.
No one is calling these lies except the blog poster… they are called false statements. If they were known to be false at the time then they would be lies….. Thus it leaves it up to you to decide.
4,
Then Bush is an idiot or he thinks we are.
I have heard if the 95 thesis, but the 935 thesis?
Breaking News – – DU – – exposed in one lie in its continuing efforts to whip up its base.
#4–maddog is correct. See how easy it is for an advocate to overstate their case. NEVER trust any advocate/politician without checking the prime source. When something this easy to check is mischaracterized, what in the world will they do with ambiguous material?
Anyway, yes, I do think BushCo lied. And whether he lied or not, you don’t take a nation to war based on contested information when there is time to wait.
20/20 hindsight? No. Have to be careful there on exactly what one is talking about. WMD–at the time, maybe he had them, maybe not. Was BushCo going to invade?–oh yes. Was there an overriding need for the invasion==no. And this was all obvious at the time.
Somewhat relevant. What is this entire fiasco just an extension of==why its good ol’ Regan! The role model for this independent, war mongering, tax shifting, Imperial Presidency. Difference?–he was teflon and Bushieboy is dogshit.
And IMHO–Hillary is so much closer to BushCo than to what this country needs. We need a change in economic, business, and government relations==all very much as Edwards is advocating.
Impeachment is off the table because the entire system is corrupt. Impeach BushCo to keep the next President honest.
Silly, corrupt, failing and flailing GOUSA. Sad to see a great country taken down==and yes, brought to us with a bible and a flag. Wonderful.
“No one is calling these lies” – #4?
Try removing your head from that paper bag – or your…
Center for Public Integrity is funded by – wait for it – George Soros, the most anti-Bush, pro far left wing money guy in the world. Two days ago, CBS news and other outlets talked about this “study”, but failed to tell the source – George Soros. Can you imaging the media putting out a study by Rush Limbaugh – and not telling you that it was from a “right-wing” source. Of course not!
On top of all that, this study has concluded that if anything turns out to be factually incorrect – after the fact – that it is automatically a “lie”. Gee – I bet against the wrong team this Sunday – told my friends that they would win. Guess I was “lying”
Needless to say, I pay this no attention at all……
There is the notion that the people of a country collectively get what they/we deserve.
We got cowardly liars…what does that make us?
I’m just surprised that this number is so low.
Q. How can you tell when a member of the Bush Administration is lying?
A. It moves its lips!
#10–Al==I’ve heard it said that “most” people in the GOUSA think that politicians are basically average folks==not especially bright but with the best interests of America in mind.
GOUSA gets what it gets because in truth, politicians are just the opposite==smart people out for power.
Could not be done without a supine media. Look at the current coverage. The instant anything substantive is addressed it is reported as “the gloves are coming off.” Totally media driven garbage.
Reading that first link, I see several false statements made by the people allegedly exposing the Bush Admin. Indeed they contradict themselves. They say it is beyond dispute that Iraq did not have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda, but this is a lie, or maybe just a false statement if they are total idiots. In their own evidence, all they can muster is a DIA assessment that the relationship is unclear or a later assessment that there is no compelling evidence of a direct operational link. Talk about burden of proof!
No mention of an Iraqi delegation visiting Afghanistan, followed by Osama issuing a statement in support of Saddam Hussein. Yeah no links there. The chief counterterrorism official for the US nixes a plan to go after Osama because he was worried he might ‘boogie to Baghdad.’ Wonder where that Clinton official got that idea?
Then there is the issue with the getting uranium from Africa. They say Bush lied about it, even though the CIA had assessed it a hoax. Let me see if you guys can understand this, perhaps if I follow ECA’s lead and use all caps, THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STORIES. British learned that Iraq is attempting to seek uranium from Africa, versus fake documents alleging a uranium purchase. The Brits stand by their intelligence, and Joe Wilson’s trip to Africa provided evidence IN FAVOR of this. That’s right, Joe Wilson lied, Scooter fried!
It’s important to know how we got there, but it’s critical to figure out how to end things.
So, STFU about how we got there (for now) and spend that effort on getting us out. And no it’s not as simple as just throwing our guys on planes and leaving.
#13–Mike==so with your detailed knowledge of what transpired regardling claims of seeking uranium in Africa verses yellow cake from (whereever)===bottom line this for us===was invading Iraq a good idea BASED ON what was known at the time?
#14–same thing said of Vietnam. Then one day, all our troops jumped on airplanes and left. The war stopped. Tragedy followed in Cambodia and Vietnam. So, how many troops dead in Iraq before we jump on planes and tragedy follows?
I don’t know whether Iraq was a good idea. James Webb’s statements about empowering Iran happened at the time, and are important. This has to be balanced against Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda. I think a deal may have been possible that put Saddam back onto the US side, but would we be willing to sacrifice the Kurds to do it?
#16–Mike==what a murky world you live in.
1. You don’t know whether Iraq was a good idea? Unilateral invasion of another nation is a crime under UN law (yea, I know) but thats not enough?
2. Maybe its explained by your willingness to consider putting Saddam back on the team?
3. With 1 and 2 going for yourself, why the concern about the Kurds? Weren’t we protecting the Kurds at the time with our air cover?
Just too many simplier, cheaper, more effective alternatives at the time and with hindsight. To be undecided at this time is highly suspect. What kind of facts need to be present for you to recognize a mistake?
Way too murky.
Greetings and welcome to today’s random Bushbash.
Maybe you couldn’t understand my post(what’s new?) so let’s try it again. Yeah we were protecting the Kurds with our air cover, but I think any deal to get Saddam not allied with Al Qaeda and instead working against them would have required giving him back full control of all of Iraq. I would have been OK with dropping sanctions, but allowing the slaughter of the Kurds? It would have been easier if we were not already at war with Iraq for the previous decade. I wouldn’t support invading various African countries just to install democracy.
As for your claim that it is illegal under UN law, then I suppose Bill Clinton was at fault for invading Kosovo, the French for their activities in Angola and maybe even the Spanish against Morocco. Also, it would not be unilateral given the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Greetings Class,
Please be seated and listen up! The lectures will now commence…
Grasping the full scope of Cheney’s deceptions
The combination of the Center for Public Integrtity’s “Irag: The War Card” research, George Tenet’s book, At the Center of the Storm, Eisner & Royce’s The Italian Letter and the books and research of many others in recent years now provides enough of a foundation for everyone to finally discern that 9:11 was a “false flag” operation against both the American public and the Muslim world.
Likewise, the uncanny synchronicity of Al Qaeda’s videos and other activities, perfectly timed to reinforce and support the Bush/Cheney administration’s political needs, coupled with the actions of the Bush admin actually serving to strengthen Al Qaeda’s position, now makes perfect sense. The apparent mistakes and chaos that have characterized the Iraq war, the easily prevented resurgence of the Taliban, and permitting Bin Laden to escape Tora Bora to a safe haven in Pakistan all fit the same pattern.
It’s hard to maintain a state of continuous war if you allow your made-to-order enemies to be defeated too early. It is likewise hard to remain a “war president” if your wars end too soon!
Here is Wisdom…
#5 I agree….
#8 Out of a bag… I left the country I was so em brassed… I happily live in Prague now… Do I think Bush knew what he said every time was a lie…. No. Do I think others may have and manipulated him and all of us… yes… or they all just got a ton of bad advice…
19–Mike–so was invading Iraq and good idea AT THE TIME, or not? Unfortunately, you can only be lead to the water.
18–IGW–no, this is not random. It is directly related to the OP. Silly rabbit.
As was stated earlier, the whole pukebucket was funded by George Soros. I meant the entire post is today’s Random Bushbash (TM).
23,
If you are still supporting Bush after all of this it is pointless to try and change your mind. Let’s just say that this country has been managed far better in the past. Bush’s entire life has consisted of getting things given to him and then ruining it to the point it has to be taken from him.
Can you list three things Bush did that benefited America?
Unfortunately, whether the invasion was wrong or not– the point would have been moot if the Iraq “adventure” was an unqualified success.
Wars based on falsehoods have been fought before: a few examples are the Spanish-American War, Vietnam Conflict, not even counting wars fought before the Industrial Age. Iraq isn’t the first, and it won’t be the last.
The outcry and navel-gazing comes about only when the war becomes a fiasco. There is truly no substitute for victory to silence all critics.
Boy, what a lynch mob mentality.
Bush said the British had evidence Saddam was shopping for uranium. Bush never said Saddam actually bought uranium, but he somehow lied about Saddam buying uranium?
Showing the lynch mob is wrong about one thing means I’ve “bought all his lies”? No, it means that someone is lying about Bush in this one case. And that’s how claims are investigated, one at a time. I’m a “Bushbot” because I cannot refute all the lies told about Bush in a five word sound bite?
There’s a write up on this over in Pajamas Media, and it confirmed what I suspected when I first heard of it. Let me set the definitions, and I can prove anything, and it’s funded by Soros.
Oh, and can you imagine the fuss if the oil or tobacco industries funded studies supporting them? Oops, no need to. That’s already happened, and the fuss was deafening. How about the DuPont foundation funding a study regarding gun control? (Oops: “More Guns, Less Crime”.)
But Soros funding a political hatchet job to defeat Bush in 2008? Not a word from the left.
That ol’ knucklehead Thomas Jefferson said it so nicely:
“The people get the government they deserve.”
I always have to think of how to answer Chinese people when they ask me “What’s it like to vote for your leaders?”
I usually tell them you get leaders like Bush. 😉
Cheers
#2 20/20 hindsight???
This is not the case, the people that claimed WMD excuses were lies were legion BEFORE the war. No use naming them all, but one in particular that said it was wrong was the chief weapons inspector of the UN in Iraq! The man that resigned because the US govt would not listen to reason.
And the number of terrorism experts that said before the war started that the Iraqi regime was unfriendly to terrorists was large.
The public was lied to and had to choose which story to believe, and in an environment of fear it is understandable to show faith in your leaders. That leadership took advantage of that trust to build a false case for a war (Iraq) that has done nobody any good and many people a lot of bad. That leadership cannot claim that “hindsight is 20/20”. They had access to all the information and chose to put forward lies to justify what they wanted.
#24 – I didn’t say I’m supporting Bush. I’m commenting on random Bushbashing. Bush has made many mistakes. That being said , no matter what happens, I am forever grateful we have him over Kerry or Algore. America as a free country would no longer exist with either of those evil sacks in power.