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 was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration’s position that the world community viewed Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.”
The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.
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.”**
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.
(*which happen to share a single donor list; **also, “Global warming is settled science. Quitsies”) At the website for The Fund for Independence in Journalism, we find this Mission Statement:
Abraham Lincoln once said, “I’m a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
Today, many media corporations are reducing their commitment to journalism. That plus litigation against unwanted scrutiny and historic challenges to openness, freedom of information, and government oversight all stand in the way of bringing the public the “real facts.”
The Fund for Independence in Journalism, a 509 (a)(3) nonprofit, tax exempt organization, was created in 2003 to foster independent, high quality public service journalism in the United States and around the world.
The Fund’s primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups. This core mission and our related activities illuminate the fundamental role of the press, the public’s right to know, and accountability in a democratic society.
With this further, more illuminating illumination in the sidebar:
Iraq – The War Card
The Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism unveil the first comprehensive analysis of pre-war rhetoric that chronologically tracks top Bush administration officials Iraq-related public pronouncements.
To view the report go to the Center for Public Integrity.
The Reporters Without Borders 2006 Worldwide Press Freedom Index ranked the United States 53rd out of 168 countries surveyed, with the U.S. falling another nine places from its 2005 rankings. Botswana, Croatia and Tonga are tied with the U.S. in the 53rd position.31
Tied for 16th is Canada, where journalists are subject to extralegal tribunals. Here are some of the contributing organizations and clusterfuck foundations:
Annenberg Foundation
Around Foundation
Attias Family Foundation
The Brodie Price Fund of the Jewish Community Foundation
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Compton Foundation, Inc.
Deer Creek Foundation
Domitila Barrios de Chungara Fund at Peninsula Community Foundation
Dudley Foundation
Educational Foundation of America
Everett Philanthropic Fund at the New York Community Trust
Ford Foundation
David B. Gold Foundation
Daniel J. Goldman Foundation
Gunzenhauser-Chapin Fund
Haas Charitable Trusts
Hafif Family Foundation
The Heinz Endowments
Honeybee Foundation
The Inge Foundation
JEHT Foundation
The Lawrence Foundation
Liberty Hill Foundation
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Maloney Family Fund
The Robert & Bethany Millard Charitable Foundation
Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust
Nell Williams Family Foundation
New York Community Trust
John & Florence Newman Foundation
Park Foundation, Inc.
Karen & Christopher Payne Foundation
Popplestone Foundation
Lynn R. & Karl E. Prickett Fund
Princeton University Class of 1969
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Shelley and Donald Rubin Foundation
Scherman Foundation, Inc.
The Joan Shorenstein Center
Streisand Foundation
John & Donna Sussman Foundation
The Fund for Independence in Journalism
Town Creek Foundation, Inc.
Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
The Elmaleh Fund at the New York Community Trust
Wallace Global Fund
A veritable anti-Zionist Conspiracy List. Which of these are Soros fronts, I’m not sure; it’s not really my area of expertise. Appended to the piece is a list of sources, many of them from the MSM, and others from prior papers and articles issued by the Orgs themselves. The fact is, the blawgs have done and will continue to do a better job of policing journalism than journalists do, and adducing the truth or falsity of statements made by pols, in part because some bloggers actually demonstrate greater acuity, integrity and intelligence than their professional counterparts, but also because bloggers are more willing to aggregate their knowledge and have numerous volunteer fact-checkers commenting in their threads.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, some of these funds represent Wall Street entities that are about to come under intense and unwelcome scrutiny.
Snooper has comments, too.
Also, not to brag, but I never buggered goats.
UPDATE: Cappy Ed weighs in (no ton impended).
UFB! This is insanity personified!
I was born to be rhetorically evil. Texas did it to me. Wicked are my
wordslies.Sounds fulfilling, though, thor.
Fulfilling as a three-meat burrito.
I think your last link is dead, btw.
Thanks.
May I just say that it is asinine that they have not posted the study online. The Fund website says “To view the report go to the Center for Public Integrity.” And if you go to the Center of Public Integrity, it’s nowhere to be found. I had to do a couple of searches, finally found it with a search for “pretenses”. Unfortunately it says “The article you’ve requested is either unavailable or does not belong in this project.” Here’s the link in case it starts working later.
Yes, you may.
The article states that it was posted yesterday. Perhaps they want to add that to their “lies told by the media.”
Dan, your Snooper link goes to his trackback page, rather than to the post.
Oh, bejaysus.
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,â€Â
Isn’t this the same tact that they use with global warming, declaring it settled science, and no opposition will be tolerated?
Charles Lewis (writer for Fund for Independence in Journalism) used to be the Director of the Center for Public Integrity. Funny – they seem a bit dependent on each other, don’t they?
Any word o how they went back in time and got the Clinton administration to say the same things? Or how they got Kerry, Gore, Hillary, Edwards, Kennedy, Biden et al on board. ‘Cuz those are some wicked good tricks right there.
Ha, JD. I already mocked that before you could. Anticipatory mockery.
Dan – Great minds, and all that jazz. Or something like that.
Pablo – Don’t you dare question their worldview. The Chimperor, the dummerest President evah, lied to them, and they were all caught up in the jingoistic post 9-11 rhetoric to notice.
Ok, I finally got the stupid thing to load. Color me unimpressed. It reads like a fancy moonbat-pamphlet, and takes FOREVER to load. I imagine every BDS-impaired liberal on the web is drooling over it inch-by-inch.
“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.â€Â
Then that would be ONE false statement repeated 532 times. How many independant false statements did Bush make in the two year period?
“Abraham Lincoln once said, “I’m a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.â€Â
Today, many media corporations are reducing their commitment to journalism. That plus litigation against unwanted scrutiny and historic challenges to openness, freedom of information, and government oversight all stand in the way of bringing the public the “real facts.â€Â
An important goal, so how about a study of how many independent falsehoods the media reported during that same two year period?
I would also like to point out that a false statement isn’t a lie unless the speaker knows it is false.
Is there any evidence of the ‘orchestrated campaign’ claim, as opposed to it being all of those quoted believing and saying similar things? Or is that an assumption made w/o evidence?
No more findings for funding! No more findings for Funding!
sez mois with latte and picket sign in hand.
I am willing to stipulate that some, or even many instances cited are the result of incurious ignorance and/or, mistakes.
Are any here going on the record as saying NONE were lies? (and I don’t mean little white lies).
I’ll go on the record saying that you don’t call someone a liar unless you know they’re lying. What say you?
Well they are lies the Germn BND, the British Mi-6, Russian SVR, Egyptian
Mukhrabat, French DGSE, Jordanian Mukharabat, Argentine SIDE, Saudi General Intelligence, Belgian Securete de Estat,
all propagated. Besides, is there any actual proof of the WMD’s destruction; receipts, photographs, rain checks. I know the
aluminum tubes will probably be but in this category; the truth is Saddam wasn’t supposed to be be buildings rockets or reactor parts. Those mobile chemical labs that
Adnan Adwan (Curveball) pointed out; where stripped and buried in the
desert. Salman Pak was never a terrorist training camp?
It would be nice for someone to make a list of statements by Saddam Hussein about Iraq’s WMD or WMD Programs or ties to Al Quaeda over the same time period. I wonder who has the better percentage of truthful statements?
( note: I’ve always thought that Saddam Husssein to be a bad guy. Really bad. Ultra mega bad. Even when Don Rumsfeld thought different.)
“#
Comment by Semanticleo on 1/23 @ 9:47 am #
I am willing to stipulate that some, or even many instances cited are the result of incurious ignorance and/or, mistakes.
Are any here going on the record as saying NONE were lies? (and I don’t mean little white lies).”
Prove they were lies.
“Even when Don Rumsfeld thought different.”
When would that be?
Realpolitik for me, but not for thee.
[…] in Journalism about the Bush Administration’s pre-invasion statements about Iraq. Indeed, Dan Collins has covered it her at PW. At HotAir, Bryan Preston writes that the AP story should have been […]
Cleo – Prove they were lies.
Sashal – idiot. No response needed to such idiocy.
Dammit, don’t question TEH NARRATIVE! Or the meme, or the nuance, either!
If you need a secret decoder ring for the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy, here’s a site that can help you out with that.
Presidents lie, and sometimes they also make mistakes that others call lies for political reasons. The problem with the assertion that Bush knowingly lied about WMD and terrorist ties, is that it does not mesh with the fact that almost everyone else with any information on Iraq was telling the same “lies”. When that happens, its a good bet that it was a mistake rather than a lie.
N. O’Brain wrote:
Sashal hasn’t figured out that diplomacy doesn’t happen exclusively between people who like each other.
Or is hoping other people haven’t figured it out.
[…] Protein Wisdom: Phenomenon discovered in study by foundations predicated on phenomenon discovery. […]
I might. These guys are so secure in their scholarship, however, that they have not posted the actual study. Just blurbs on their “findings.”
Funny, but I don’t give a flaming shit about “false statements”.
I care about statements known to be false at the time they were said, aka “lies”. Lies, being a word that they don’t seem to be willing to use. Can’t imagine why.
“Bush was wrong about the WMDS, just like everyone else! He made false statements when he said Iraq had them!!!” tells me nothing at all, other than that the President was misinformed by the CIA, and the beliefs of the previous administration and, well, every security organisation in the world.
Those saying “lies!” in the comments are welcome to provide evidence that the President had knowledge to the contrary. (I do not demand “proof”, since proving that is an impossible standard to meet. Justified reason in the form of evidence, however, are not an unreasonable standard, no? Because if you don’t have evidence, you have no basis for your claim.)
And, no, having opinion columns and press releases and “everybody knows” saying “he lied! he totally lied!” is not evidence.
(For that matter, the CIA using ambiguous language in its reports is not evidence, either. If it was, then no statement about any matter of intelligence would ever NOT be a lie, apart from a useless “maybe” – even a “probably” would be recast as a lie if any report ever used a less-strong word, regardless of the preponderance of opinion.
Christ, it’s just like the stupidity over the “17 words” – I still have people trying to tell me “Bush lied!” when even the Annenberg Foundation admits that he was telling a literal truth about what the British sources said, and that the underlying claim about Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium are still not contradicted by anything. And that’s not even mentioning Joe “lying liar” Wilson’s report to the CIA.
Welcome to real life!)
RTO Trainer wrote:
…and no links to the transcripts of the speech, press conference, interview, etc. where Bush or a member of his Administration said a particular thing. How strange. Almost as if they were afraid someone would read the transcripts and find the quotes were taken out of context or something.
Then there’s this happy horesh*t:
“Indirect false statements. Statements were classified as “indirect” if they did not specifically link Iraq to Al Qaeda but alleged, for example, that Iraq supported or sponsored terrorism or terrorist organizations, or if they referred to Iraq’s former possession of weapons of mass destruction or used such general phrases, for example, as “dangerous weapons.” These indirect false statements are not included in the total count of 935.”
Yeah, except that those statements would be demonstrably true, not indirect and false.
I guess what they’re trying to say is that their entire study is a pile of shit and no one should pay any attention to it.
Guys,
Its (like someone here or on one of the other conservative blogs said) Soro’s Saigon Embassy moment. They have lost substantially on the Iraq argument and this is some misdirection as they head to the roof to catch the helicopter out. They hoped that the war would still provide bad news into the election cycle, it hasn’t. They hoped the surge would fail, it hasn’t. In fact Clinton’s bizarre claim to suspend disbelief before she suspended belief was laughed out of town immediately.
They’ve been floggin the economy casue its all they have right now, tripping over each other to stand on street corners and hand out $100 bills to poor citizenry – heck Bush has pulled a slick Willy on them by proposing the idea himself. That ain’t gonna work either. The fed just derailed that train (note to anyone paying attention, I posted y’day to buy stocks – NO Recession and with the Dow up 238 pts at 14.52 CST today, I reiterate. This is the best buying opportunity we have seen in a while.) and the recession argument fails with two statistic – unemployment and jobless claims.
So what do they have? For now, each other to devour.
So what do they have? For now, each other to devour.
Stand back, once “Bush Lied” chants cease to gratify the Monkey Brain, it goes bananas.
“It would be nice for someone to make a list of statements by Saddam Hussein about Iraq’s WMD or WMD Programs or ties to Al Quaeda over the same time period.”
So what are you waiting on?
“Are any here going on the record as saying NONE were lies? (and I don’t mean little white lies).â€Â
“Prove they were lies.”
That’s about what I thought.
Cut to “Classic Liberal” identity politics.
Please respond to my #23, ‘cleo. Identity politics has exactly nothing to do with this question, though I realize that you might have a problem imagining such a scenario.
That may be what you felt, I’m not sure I’d be willing to credit you with the ability to recognize a thought.
There is no way to sufficiently refute the “findings” in this study as the study itself is not transparent. It’s a databse to which I may make queries, but I can’t study the database itself. Which means that I also cannot judge their methodology.
As far as an example of “journalism” or “scholarship” goes, it’s chickensh*t. And so your advocacy of it is really quite predictable.
I’ve always thought that Saddam Husssein to be a bad guy. Really bad. Ultra mega bad.
LOL! Well, that settles it then; sashal reeeeally hates the Romans- er, Saddam.
“Are any here going on the record as saying NONE were lies? (and I don’t mean little white lies).â€Â
Of course, if the authors were lying about some, many, most, or even all of the so-called “false statements” (aka lies), that should have no effect on their credibility. Oh, no: Bush lied, millions died. QED.
[…] we were ridiculing yesterday becomes a little clearer.Cuz, y’know, everybody likes a little conspiracy. […]
“Comment by Semanticleo on 1/23 @ 5:18 pm #
“Are any here going on the record as saying NONE were lies? (and I don’t mean little white lies).â€Â
“Prove they were lies.â€Â
That’s about what I thought.
Cut to “Classic Liberal†identity politics.”
So you got nothing..
Why am I not surprised?
Rather, it appears to be a kind of interface or connective tissue among partly preexisting recursive systems, mapping among them in an evolutionarily novel manner. ,