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.
I was going to read this thread… but thought better of it.
We know thew Bushco and pals were looking for a way to get into a war with Iraq before the 2000 elections. We know they lied. We know they suppressed intelligence in favor of manufactured data that supported their busine… I mean, foreign policy goals. We know it now and we knew it then.
Why do you think the Administration is hellbent on destroying civil rights and committing every action they take to secrecy? It’s because you cannot conspire to commit acts of war, treason, fraud, etc., against the United States of America if you have to do it under the harsh light of public scrutiny in an open society. So, logically, they are turning out the light and closing the door.
We are in a race. They have one year to finish destroying our country. We have one year to stave them off. The clock is ticking.
Every candidate who has the talent and skill to fix this nation has been knocked out, but the remaining Democrats will make reasonable placeholders until the voters learn that US President and Student Council President are actually not the same goddamn job.
#20 is on the right track. Talk about ties to Al Qaeda, The US CREATED Al Qaeda! How’s this for conspiracy theory. The Bushes and the Bin Ladens and their unholy cabal created this whole mess to further consolidate the worlds wealth in a few hands. Once the nukes come out and fear is really the driving force globally we will see where this is all headed, but it will be to late. đ
The folks at the “Center for Public Integrity” are now exhaustively collating the rebuttals to all these “lies.” Or not.
RBG
Bobbo, in hindsight I think it’s a mistake, but given what was known at the time, no, I think it was the right move. In hindsight, I’d have ignored the people calling for a UN vote, and that includes Tony Blair, and I’d have ignored the UN afterwards. Putting in the European style Parliamentary government is part of the mess. You shouldn’t be voting for parties that divvy up the legislature, but rather for your own representative. Then all those election boycotts wouldn’t have mattered, since you would still have a representative for your district.
Looks like I’ve destroyed enough liberals around here to the point where even this kind of post can’t generate a decent thread.
Good.
#33–Mike==good. Some progress shown. Now, with enough hindsight under your belt, you’ll be able to move it up into foresight?
For instance–as a general premise, what do you think of invading Iran?
For instance–how many invasion scenario’s do you have to live thru before you figure out they ain’t such a good idea?
Normally thats why there is only one round of cannon fodder per generation, and yet still, Bush gets a second term. Things getting calcified.
The PNAC Thugs were spoiling for a fight, and Saddam was a convenient target !!! Let’s not forget that the CIA installed Sadam, Reagan supported him with in his war with Iran, Cheney did business with him when Cheney ran Halliburton !!!
Go to:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
for the PNAC Statement of “Principles” and look at the list of signatories ….
And look at their publication, “Rebuilding Americas Defenses” at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
And see how these MONEY-GRUBBING PROFITEERS NEED A WAR, – ANY WAR – TO LOOT THE AMERICAN TREASURY, EVEN AS THEY WERE GIVING THEIR CRONIES
THE BIGGEST TAX CUT IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND LEAVING THE NATIONAL DEBT AND BUDGET DEFICITS AS FAR AS THY EYE CAN SEE !!!
Also never forget that they conviently forgot their “Contract with(or on) America” which called for a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits Amendments while they controled the Congress and White House for SIX YEARS !!! All the while pushing hot-button flag and marriage amendments !!! REPUKES = LYING SACKS OF S**T !!!
Well I’ve posted it here before, that I am against invading Iran. That’s why I’m worried about Presidents Hillary, McCain, and to a lesser extent Giuliani. Hillary and McCain strike me as guaranteed wars in Africa and possibly Iran too.
That’s not to say I’m against a war with Iran if they are at war with us. I’m concerned about their statements that they will wipe Israel off the map, or that the world should fear if they take their nuclear program underground. Hopefully Ahmadenijad will be replaced by someone who isn’t praying for the return of the 12th imam.
Details? Details? Details? how about EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE?
I noticed there’s no quotes from the PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION who said the SAME THING.
If uranium from Africa has been debunked, then why are the British standing by their intelligence? They don’t consider it a false statement, therefore what the President said in the State of the Union is not a lie, and is not false. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” It was known that the British government had learned this, and they still think so today. Further, Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger helped confirm this in the CIA’s mind.
#39 – If uranium from Africa has been debunked, then why are the British standing by their intelligence?
Foolish pride?
Stiff upper lip what? –ahem–
#26, Philleep,
Bush said the British had evidence Saddam was shopping for uranium.
He did? Please list some evidence of that please. With links.
# 39 MikeN,
If uranium from Africa has been debunked, then why are the British standing by their intelligence?</i?
They aren’t. Haven’t you ever heard of the Downing Street Memos where this was all shown to be cooked up?
Further, Joe Wilsonâs trip to Niger helped confirm this in the CIAâs mind.
Confirm what? That Iraq bought uranium? If that is the case, then why would Iraq need to purify and refine the uranium? Would it be because Niger exports âyellowcakeâ, a semi refined form of pitchblend instead of uranium?
Not to take a side in this typical back and forth, but……they proved 935 lies by Bush and Co…….how many did Clinton and company make? He was aware of these things during his 8 years, but chose not to do anything, so how many lies(or false statements) did he and his menions make?
>Bush said the British had evidence Saddam was >shopping for uranium.
>
>He did? Please list some evidence of that please. >With links.
No links from me. I realize you’re Canadian, but if you’re going to argue such things you should stay informed. Take a look at the 2003 State of the Union speech. Or you could just save time and read my post above where I gave you the relevant quote.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report listed the CIA’s debriefing of Joe Wilson. He reported a Nigerian offical’s visit with an IRaqi trade delegation, that they were interested in buying uranium, not surprising as it is their main export. Again no links, but I imagine an internet expert like yourself can look up the Senate report.
As for the Downing Street Memo, I would have thought a Canadian would be better able to grasp British English, unlike John Dvorak. Intelligence being fixed doesn’t suggest anything sinister in Britain.
Could it be something so simple in that Iraq just wanted to make some money from Uranium? Buy from here, sell to there…
Occam’s razor đ
Cheers
So, statements which later prove to be false are lies? I hope everyone here remembers that when the next administration takes over. It means that we can take every campaign promise, every statement in the State of the Union, and every statement to the press and later determine if it came true and if not we can all agree they are liars, right? If that is the definition of lying, I challenge someone to find a President (or any politician for that matter) that has not lied.
While there is no question that the premise of invading Iraq was thin at best, it *has* proven effective in taking out terrorists and putting pressure on other countries in that region to do the same. Whether it was worth the cost can only be determined in time. Were the lives of two million Cambodians worth the pull out of Vietnam?
Well the previous narrative was that Vietnam was unwinnable, and that Iraq is just like Vietnam. Now we see the surge has been somewhat effective, which means that Rambo was right all along,”Will they let us win this time?”
What! MikeN, you must be KIDDING! (Said tongue in cheek…)
Sorry, but the only way to prove that BushCo was wrong is to ensure that we don’t win! Unfortunately for the US, is has become evident that Soros, MoveOn, and most Democrats want us to loose in Iraq because it will help the party. The war cannot be allowed to turn out well, that would be a disaster for the Dem’s.
That is why we hustled us out of Vietnam like we did, 2 million Cambodians be dammed if it helps my political future!
#45, Joshua,
… they proved 935 lies by Bush and CoâŚâŚ.how many did Clinton and company make?
What the eff does what Clinton did have to do with Bush? Clinton did not go before Congress telling us that a certain dictator that âtried to kill his daddyâ was stockpiling WMDs and liaising with al Quada.
If you have specific âliesâ that Clinton told, then feel free to mention it. Remember though, no body died because of a blowjob.
#46, Mental Midget MikeN,
if youâre going to argue such things you should stay informed. Take a look at the 2003 State of the Union speech. Or you could just save time and read my post above where I gave you the relevant quote.
So if Bush lied during the 2003 State of the Union Speech, I should just accept it as fact? In your previous post you made an accusation. Typical right wing nut philosophy is to just make up crap and repeat it enough times that at least the party faithful will believe it.
The Senate report is known to be false and was to justify Bush’s actions. Uranium is NOT Niger’s main export. They don’t even export it. They export yellowcake, which is a concentrated ore that needs further refinement and enhancement to become uranium.
#50, Oh Yea,
That is why we hustled us out of Vietnam like we did, 2 million Cambodians be dammed if it helps my political future!
So are you blaming the death of 2 million Cambodians on Americans? I missed that one. What did we do, drop a bomb on them?
FYI, it was the Republican President Nixon that extradited us from Viet Nam. It was a treaty negotiated by that esteemed diplomat (and Republican icon) Henry Kissinger that brought peace to the region. But you’re right, let’s blame John Kerry.
#46 – they proved 935 lies by Bush and CoâŚâŚ.how many did Clinton and company make?
One.
But it is in response to a question no one had any goddamn business asking in the first place.
#47 – I realize youâre Canadian, but if youâre going to argue such things you should stay informed.
Careful… Every Canadian I know are far better informed about the United States than most US citizens are.
#49 – So, statements which later prove to be false are lies?
No, but we aren’t talking about that. We are talking about statements that were known to be false before they were made. Bush knew he was lying. They all knew it. But the figured that citizens are dupes.
And they were right. Aside from the small group of us who have always known Bush lied, most don’t ever pay any attention anyway.
#57
I have yet to see any evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that Bush made a statement with full knowledge that it was false. For example, the majority of the article talks about Hussein’s nuclear program. Nuclear weapons are not the only weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion, we *did* find chemical weapons and thus a WMD. All of the major intelligence agencies agreed that Hussein had WMDs. Whether he had them was never the debate either in the UN or at home. The issue was always whether the threat was sufficiently imminent to warrant an invasion.
#47, Mike,
Intelligence being fixed doesnât suggest anything sinister
Riiight. đ
So have you received your share of that money from the Princess Awalla of Nigeria? Did you help her get her money out of the country before the mean nasty corrupt ole Treasury Department got their hands on it?
#58–Hey Thomas==if BushCo is a proven liar in A, B, C, D, and E and F proves out not to be true, who has the burden of proof to say==ok, this time, in the case of F, I was just incompetent and misinformed and a dupe?
The very thin edge of lack of formal proof is a piss poor foundation for an American President. Especially one that has built his administration on expanding secrecy and like minding surrogates who indeed act on their “concerted” own?
BushCo typical forthcomingness: Whoever in my administration leaked the CIA status of Valerie Plame will be dealt with. Then he alllows the waste of time and money seeing what the opposition can prove (opposition being the American People) rather than simply ask those around him, and then he commutes the sentence of Libby.
Bush is SO bad, mere words don’t really capture it. Nixon, Reagan, Bush==how had can the repugs get? And it is a process, the self satisfied money grubbers are getting “better” at defrauding the American Public all the time.
I understand the Repugs, don’t understand why shills like you stand up for them. What makes you feel you are part of this team?
#58 – I have yet to see any evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that Bush made a statement with full knowledge that it was false.
Then try reading.
Books and news stories have been published both then and since then citing CIA agents, FBI officials, and White House staffers saying that key administration officials selectively picked and chose what intelligence to “believe”, often over the objections of members of the intelligence community who knew the data to be faulty and said so, because said data backed up the conclusions the White House wanted to reach.
And never mind that these guys were planning a war on Iraq even before they got their puppet selected to the Oval.
These statements have come from many levels, not the least of which would be Colin Powell and Wesley Clark.
And the number 935 hardly scratches the sum total of lies and deception that have come from this White House when you start to look beyond the issue of Iraq and into domestic issues.