The Lies Have It
Douglass K. Daniel writes for the AP that a study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that the Bush administration issued 935 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."...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.
"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.
And now we, as a nation, will have to watch our backs ever more vigilantly, because we are surely going to be held accountable for all this bullshit, when the next administration gets in. And if it's led by her Bitchness Hillary, we are going to be in a world of shit (as if we aren't already). YMMV
Flynne at January 23, 2008 7:21 AM
Here I go, jumping into it... The nonprofit journalism organizations involved are funded by George Soros, whose anti-Bush sentiments are no secret. Also, the timespan selected for this study ignores 8 years of the Clinton administration saying the same things about Saddam that the Bush administration did. I'm no fan of the village idiot, but neither am I a fan of dishonest reporting.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/23/ap-runs-soros-funded-anti-war-study-as-hard-news/
Scottybill at January 23, 2008 8:48 AM
It just proves that you cannot believe anything in the MSM!!!
austin at January 23, 2008 9:45 AM
Politicians lie. And FYI, in case you're thinking I'm on the Democrats' side, there's not a candidate running that I want to vote for. Newt Gingrich is my non-running favorite.
Regarding this entry, we are not talking about Hillary right now, we're talking about the current occupant of The White House.
Because Soros funded this doesn't mean the reports are wrong. Find evidence they actually are, then dispute them. Otherwise, cut the dull snarling about the MSM. Sure, there's lazy reporting, but whenever I see those initials, it suggests the commenter is of a certain sort of ditto-headed ilk.
Amy Alkon at January 23, 2008 9:51 AM
The problem I have believing anything that politicians say is that I can't always find a foolproof method of verifying/debunking their claims. When you can read two different journalists online who offer as "facts" diametrically opposed data, how am I supposed to ferret out the truth? I try to rely on the widest possible scanning of news and online data along with my gut feeling. I never really believed that Saddam was a threat to us regardless what GW said but I'll admit I was in favor of getting rid of him. Hindsight shows the folly of that idea. But then isn't hindsight always 20/20?
Rodger at January 23, 2008 10:06 AM
Here I go again, kicking the beehive.
No, this isn't about Hillary. And no, the mere fact that Soros funded this doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, Bush and company went way out of their way making a case that Saddam was a threat, and that he needed to be removed from office. While I bought some of that at the time, it's obvious now that most of it was wrong. It's now indisputable, Saddam didn't have WMD's.
But that isn't the whole story. Most of the world's intelligence services believed in the WMD's, just the same as Bush. The Clinton administration believed it, and most of the major news services too. To single out the Bush administration for being so terribly wrong leaves that important contextual element out of the story, and that's dishonest journalism. To not disclose that the funder of the study has an axe to grind is dishonest journalism. To not remind us that Hillary herself initially supported the war and believed the intelligence is dishonest journalism. The link I attached up there is to an avowed right-wing source, but at least they're honest enough to declare their biases openly.
If Soros uncovers rock-solid proof that Bush and company KNEW there were no WMD's, and DELIBERATELY LIED to start an unnecessary war, then sign me up to serve on the bastards' firing squad.
Scottybill at January 23, 2008 10:54 AM
What was that about cults, Amy?
There is enough logical fallacy in that report to choke a horse. It makes the same tired assumption that started the whole "Bush Lied!" movement - that believing intelligence that turned out to be either old or stale constitutes a willful perpetuation of a known falsehood.
If all the information I have points to the Packers winning the AFC, were they all lies when the Giants win? No. they were merely wrong.
Oh, and for the record, I picked the Giants to win the AFC.
brian at January 23, 2008 12:35 PM
> two nonprofit journalism
> organizations
Doesn't that mean "two squads of underachieving Friday-night drinking buddies who are over their heads on any issue requiring more than three hours of concentration"?
Crid at January 23, 2008 12:35 PM
My broken record goes like this: "Isn't it nice that Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war, performing one of its many roles in the combination of checks and balances found in our government?"
And as for finding out what your Congressperson is actually doing: go to thomas.loc.gov, fer cryin' out loud! Read, there, the actual language they use, in the Record and in their bills. You can spin a newspaper article, but bills are legal documents, in which you may discover actual requirements.
Radwaste at January 23, 2008 3:29 PM
scottybill your a hoot, Soros funded orginazations need to be ignored but not a word about a multimillion dollar media emprie owned by Murdock with a documented history of arguing in court that there is nothing illegal about lying to the public?
And as for the whole world beliving saddam had weapons - ever hear of Hand Blix? In an interview on the BBC in February of 04, Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war in Iraq.
Search the words curveball and german intellegince
lujlp at January 23, 2008 5:05 PM
Amy, I'm curious: If Rush Limbaugh funded a study of liberal bias in the media, would you assume it to be accurate, report its findings uncritically, and require naysayers to prove the report was wrong? If not, please explain the difference.
Thanks!
Splashman at January 23, 2008 7:29 PM
Soros isnt a drug addict? Is that good enough?
How about limbaugh is a hatful loudmouth whore of a shill who would call for his own mother to be beaten to death in the streets if it furthered his career?
Then there is the fact that limbuagh has routinly been caught in lies, backing away from his hard line position on prescription drug abusers when it was his ass on the line. He misquotes people regularly, often seconds after they have hung up or their interview is over.
But if the fat ass ever did given money away to a third party to do with as they pleased I would take the time to look at it before dissmissing it. But given the odds of the greedy bastard ever doing do are astronomical I doubt we'll ever have to.
Also google these two quotes just for fun
"George Soros is a liar
"Rush Limbaugh is a liar
lujlp at January 23, 2008 8:48 PM
Lujlp, my bee-buzzing friend, I didn't say the study should be ignored. I do question the value of a study whose conclusions are so narrowly tailored to further the ends of the guy writing the checks, though. I doubt we'd think much of a study of the Clintons funded by the Coors Foundation, or by Ave Maria law school. I also have trouble putting much faith in news organizations that run such tripe uncritically. Like Rodger above, I'm more and more frustrated getting to the truth of anything because flat-out lies are propagated in the media. How in the hell can we make good decisions as voters and citizens if we can't trust ANYTHING in the news? Why would they clean up their acts as long as people eagerly buy - and defend - their lies?
By the way, I remember Limbaugh recently donating an assload of money to a scholarship fund for the children of veterans, and to a cancer fund.
He is still loud and fat, though. If that makes you feel better, good on you.
Scottybill at January 23, 2008 9:15 PM
Really? I remeber he did the fund thing after the public outcry of his insulting soilders
lujlp at January 24, 2008 9:41 AM
Gee, Forrest, I guess it is funny what you recollect... time to go look that up.
Radwaste at January 24, 2008 2:55 PM
Lujlp - Please go somewhere that your infantile and uninformed ranting is desired.
Limbaugh did not insult soldiers. He was speaking specifically about "soldiers" like Jesse MacBeth, who NEVER FUCKING SERVED IN THE MILITARY, but claimed they were in Iraq, and were held up by the anti-war movement as "heroes" for speaking out about the horrors being committed in "Bush's War".
Harry Reid took it upon himself to demand that Rush's syndication partner (Clear Channel) punish him and force him to apologize. Rush auctioned off the letter that Reid and 41 other Democrats signed (including Hillary! by the way), and said he would match the winning bid, with all proceeds to be donated to the MCLEF. Reid then had the temerity to claim that it was HIS IDEA THAT THIS MONEY BE GIVEN TO CHARITY. See also: Anatomy of a Smear
Sorry, Lujlp. I can only tolerate the rewriting of history that I witnessed with my own two ears for so long before I respond.
brian at January 24, 2008 4:09 PM
Re: the CPI/FIJ study, here's a thorough debunking. Would it be too much to ask that Amy attribute at least as much credibility to its source as to the Soros-funded BDS petri dishes known as the CPI/FIJ?
Splashman at January 24, 2008 4:45 PM
Leave a comment