So a non profit journalism organization is accusing the Bush administration of false statements leading to the Iraqi War.
Although they don’t acknowledge that a large number of the statements were repeated assertions which were universally accepted by most of the world’s intelligence services at the time; as well as a good majority of world leaders. For instance, assertions of Saddam harboring WMD’s and using them against his own people; which he incidently was tried and hung for.
I’m just wondering how a fund for Independence in journalism, an extension of the Center for Public Integity which just happens to be heavily funded by George Soros, a well known Bush critic, can claim any integrity in their reporting.
That`s not true.
Heck, not even the CIA accepted some of the Bush administration claims.
The statements by the US that were used as a basis for the invasion where that Saddam had a active WMD programmes biological chemical and nuclear, vast stockpiles of them, was poised to use them and had the capability and intent of striking his enemies either directly or by proxy by handling them to al Qaeda. Mushroom clouds, 40 minutes to doom, etc… that kind of stuff.
Only he US and Britain peddled that, with illustrated presentations at the UN of alleged bio/chem mobile labs (turned out false), and documents that have been proved to be forgeries or with no factual evidence to support them.
The majority of the world demanded proof of the statements, thus the inspections where resumed, the US stopped them with the invasion before they could finish their job when all evidence was pointing to no WMDs stockpiles or programmes.
That Saddam in the past possessed and used chemical weapons before the first Gulf War is undisputed, and you`re mudding the waters by mixing that common knowledge with the allegations of present (at the time of the invasion) weapons programes, stockpiles, capabilities and intentions.
If the report was stating the Bush Admin’s claims against Saddam were based on truth and fact, and the report originated from Townhall.com, this would be irrelevant to you?
When you say “we know X,” when in fact you mean “many people believe on thin evidence that X,” it doesn’t matter whether or not X is true. Either way, you are a liar.
Seeing the center’s study this morning made me wonder if there was anyone around still who believes that Bush and friends didn’t lie/mislead us into war with Iraq.
Thanks for answering that for me JohnnieEnigma.
It’s nice that a journalistic organization has finally noticed the lies that entrapped us in Iraq. Real Johnny-on-the-spot those guys. Where were they 6 years ago when we were sliding towards war? I’ll tell you where they were, they were greasing the skids. They repeated the assertions of the Bush administration as if they were fact, because they were too lazy to check, and now they want to wash their hands of the matter.
Incidentally. Also, he was hung for:
“Hussein was convicted on November 5 of crimes against humanity in connection with the killings of 148 people in the town of Dujail after an attempt on his life.”
So you’re uninformed and angry. Maybe you should read a little before you start foaming at the mouth. You’re upset because you don’t fully understand the situation, perhaps?
I’m just wondering why you don’t educate yourself on the actual facts before starting threads about them.
I for one am shocked that this study found 935 instances of Bush administration lies about Iraq between Sept. 2001 and the beginning of the war in 2003. I would’ve bet that the number was a lot higher than that.
You’re the one attacking the reporters instead of the report.
Therefore, it’s about you. When you come up with something about the report itself, it’ll be about the report.
now that’s a strange perception - no foaming at the mouth here; and I’m not in the least bit upset.
Back on topic:
are you suggesting that Saddam was never accused of using chemical weapons on his own people? or are you also deflecting?
here. here’s a cite for you. You can discredit it if you want. Although I’m sure I can find dozens more stating the same thing:
“During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, Iranian civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians. The al-Anfal Campaign was a genocidal campaign against Kurds led by Saddam Hussein and Ali Hasan al-Majid, between 1986 and 1989. The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, concentration camps, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of “Chemical Ali”.”
There could be some truth in it… but I would need a more fair-minded objective source to determine this. Not a soros funded hack sight hell-bent on discrediting this administration.
Bush never said that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11… so it was never a 9/11 connection. And I was always floored when someone would accuse him of this.
… although there were terror camps in Iraq. This is true. This report (linked in my first post) denies “an Iraqi link to al qaeda”. Well, sorry, there was a link… through the terror camps. I recall reading about this many times through the past few years…
Don’t you recall ever reading this? I mean, we’re in the same country, on the same planet, watching the same networks… you must have seen or read about this.
I followed the link provided by the OP. I then clicked on the link on the web site in question, entitled Key False Statements. Below is the first one, repeated in its entirety:
I believe if you take the time and contact the various sources listed you will find:
A video tape from the NBC Meet The Press interview of the Vice President.
A video tape from the CNN Late Edition interview of the then National Security Advisor.
A FOIA request, if not already public, of the 2001 Energy Department report.
A FOIA request, it not already public, of the September 2002 National Intelligence Estimate
A FOIA request, if not already public, of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s postwar findings.
No bias. No hidden agenda. Just the empirical evidence indicating the Bush Administration lied that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes designed to enrich uranium.
Does it really matter who funded the research if the empirical evidence is made available to everyone?
