Study: 935 ‘Orchestrated' Lies Led Up to Iraqi War | Jackson Free Press | Jackson, MS

Study: 935 ‘Orchestrated' Lies Led Up to Iraqi War

The Associated Press is reporting on a new study that finds that the Bush administration lied repeatedly about the threats in Iraq leading up to the war:

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 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."

Previous Comments

ID
116534
Comment

Interesting. I'm reading Blowback by Chalmers Johnson right now. While written before 9-11, it brings to light many of the deceptions our government has used to justify its covert actions across the globe. The current administration is guilty of an alarming number of deceptions, but it is by no means the furst to have done so. All in all, our record internationally is one of unmitigated intervention.

Author
tombarnes
Date
2008-01-22T22:29:13-06:00
ID
116535
Comment

Saw the article about the lies on Yahoo. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Author
LatashaWillis
Date
2008-01-22T23:17:55-06:00
ID
116536
Comment

Nor surprised at all. I knew the war was a lie from the get-go.

Author
golden eagle
Date
2008-01-22T23:37:30-06:00
ID
116537
Comment

Yeah, me, too. Wish more people had realized it; a lot of people might be alive today, including my cousin. :-(

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2008-01-22T23:48:56-06:00
ID
116538
Comment

Sometimes, I wonder if the government wanted 9/11 to happen in order for Mideast imperialism to proceed. Maybe not so much as to plan it, but they definitely did nothing to stop it.

Author
golden eagle
Date
2008-01-23T00:10:45-06:00
ID
116539
Comment

Like anyone can trust anything funded by George Soros. Find me some real news there, sport.

Author
Ironghost
Date
2008-01-23T10:26:29-06:00
ID
116540
Comment

That's a predictable response, sport. But one would have to be deaf, dumb and stupid at this point not to know the Bush administration lied about the WMD evidence and threat to the U.S. to get the public into that war. The best you could say about Bush himself is that he is too simple-minded to question what Dick et al. were telling him, and believed that it *must* be true. The problem is, the evidence then didn't support it, and that was clear to anyone who dared to look at it straight on. In other words, they *wished* and *hoped* to find WMD so they wouldn't be proved to be the liars that they were. Now, of course, everyone but the most stubborn apologists know it. The only really news in the study above is the number of lies and how purposefully they were presented. BTW, regardless of what you personally think of the funding source (and Soros has funded some very needed research), the Center for Public Integrity is an outstanding and reputable organization. You can't so easily dismiss that work, with any credibility, that is.

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2008-01-23T10:41:09-06:00
ID
116541
Comment

A two-year old could figure this one out. Why so long for the study about the war? The whole notion of destroying Iraq and trying to connect it to 9/11 was a joke. Everyone knew that Sadam hated Al-Quida. The idea of America toppling a King to spread "Demogracy" just baffles me. I'm not saying that Sadam wasn't a dictator and that a lot of people were killed who didn't march to his drum beat: Thousands of our young American young men and women have died and continue to die with the lies told by the Bush Adm. What is so strange is our letting them get away with changing from "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to a "War on Terrorist." These are war crimes and someone(s) will eventually have to pay the piper.

Author
justjess
Date
2008-01-23T12:00:58-06:00
ID
116542
Comment

Bob Woodward’s books on the Bush presidency should be required reading for anyone still uninformed enough to believe that Bush was sincere and accurate about the threat from Saddam. His books gave a pretty balanced but damning account of the obsession the White House neo-cons had about attacking Iraq even before 9-11. The sad part is those true believers would probably dismiss Woodward as just another Bush hating left-wing media hack. I remember hearing that Bush was on a radio show prior to the Iraq War explaining the merits of removing Saddam Hussein from power. He had made several good points about his desire to remove Saddam, but near the end of his speech he said something along the lines of "plus this guy tried to kill my daddy", revealing that for him getting Saddam has always been personal, perhaps even an obsession. This seemed to be completely missed by most of the MSM, but thankfully Tavis Smiley mentioned it almost every week leading up to the invasion and for months afterwards on his radio show and I never forgot. For him it was more about getting revenge than about fighting terror, and he surrounded himself with useful idiots who were just as devoted to taking out Saddam on the flimsiest of evidence.

Author
Jeff Lucas
Date
2008-01-23T13:33:10-06:00
ID
116543
Comment

He had made several good points about his desire to remove Saddam, but near the end of his speech he said something along the lines of "plus this guy tried to kill my daddy", revealing that for him getting Saddam has always been personal, perhaps even an obsession. I heard about that, and I also believe that's the reason he went over there. I knew something didn't smell right when he defied the UN.

Author
LatashaWillis
Date
2008-01-23T13:48:54-06:00
ID
116544
Comment

Why couldn't Bush wait until the weapons inspectors were done with their work before rushing to war? Methinks that Hans Blix was going to deliver a report Bush wouldn't like.

Author
golden eagle
Date
2008-01-23T14:48:35-06:00
ID
116545
Comment

Of course he was, golden. That's why Bush had to hurry up and beat him to the punch. Have you noticed that he never wants to fully admit to anything or compromise? He has a stubborn streak.

Author
LatashaWillis
Date
2008-01-23T14:54:54-06:00
ID
116546
Comment

This is why I don't trust or believe in repugnants. "They come to steal, kill and destroy." Ironghost, realism and reality are beautiful things. I'm hopeful that you will try them some day.

Author
Ray Carter
Date
2008-01-23T16:29:25-06:00
ID
116547
Comment

Bush is a liar...always has been. The question now is whether we make some fundemental changes in November to try to prevent more of the same. It seems to me, in light of the last few weeks, that electing another republican, or Hillary Clinton, will lead to even more lies to the American people.

Author
blkjazz
Date
2008-01-25T00:30:45-06:00

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

comments powered by Disqus