PDA

View Full Version : Bush’s effective Iraq campaign of deception


ecopal
02-05-2008, 12:28 PM
Below is the non biased and nonpartisan report of Bush’s very effective campaign of deception that “led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses”.

I have to apologize in advance to many of you for the fact that reading this will not be not as much fun as watching Fox News. Be warned that it may expose you to uncomfortable harsh realities outside of the neo conservative propaganda bubble.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945

False Pretenses

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
excerpts:

“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....

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "


... * On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."
But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

* On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."
As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

Andy A.
02-05-2008, 01:04 PM
You should tell all readers they should "be warned" that the websites from which you draw your information are well known left wing anti war sites. So much for "fair and balanced".

ecopal
02-05-2008, 02:10 PM
You should tell all readers they should "be warned" that the websites from which you draw your information are well known left wing anti war sites. So much for "fair and balanced".

Sorry , but I did warn you that the truth may evoke an emotional irrational response.

Once again your neo-con brainwashing has misinformed you.

The Center for Public Integrity is recognized as a very credible and non biased source.

It smacks of prodigious hypocrisy for anyone who watches the widely discredited Fox News or Rush etc. to criticize any other news source as being biased.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Public_Integrity

"The Center for Public Integrity is a U.S.-based non-profit investigative journalism group."

“The CPI now excludes funding from corporations or unions and is largely funded by philanthropic foundations.”

Center for Public Integrity
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

The Center for Public Integrity is a U.S.-based non-profit investigative journalism group.

“The CPI now excludes funding from corporations or unions and is laregly funded by philanthropic foundations.”

When the CPI was established in May 1990, advertising and government grants were ruled out. Aside from foundations, the CPI gained $US500,000 in its first five years from a smattering of corporations - Intel, W. R. Grace & Co, DuPont and Milliken & Co, and a public service employees union.

Corporate and union funding inevitably attracted criticism about potential conflicts of interest that echoed charges the CPI levelled at others. The CPI now excludes funding from corporations or unions and is laregly funded by philanthropic foundations.

Charles Lewis, a former producer at CBS and ABC television networks, founded CPI and served as its executive director until 2004.

Major Institutional Funders

* Annenberg Foundation
* Arca Foundation
* Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
* Carnegie Corporation of New York
* Nathan Cummings Foundation
* Educational Foundation of America
* Everett Philanthropic Fund at the New York Community Trust
* Ford Foundation
* Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
* Haas Charitable Trusts
* William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
* JEHT Foundation
* John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
* John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
* John & Florence Newman Foundation
* Park Foundation, Inc.
* Popplestone Foundation
* Rockefeller Brothers Fund
* The Schumann Center for Media and Democracy
* The Joan Shorenstein Center at Harvard University
* Wallace Global Fund


Directors

* Bill Buzenberg
* Hodding Carter III
* Bruce A. Finzen
* Bill Kovach
* Susan Loewenberg
* Bevis Longstreth (Ex Officio)
* Paula Madison
* John E. Newman, Jr.
* Geneva Overholser
* Charles Piller
* Allen Pusey
* Ben Sherwood
* Sree Sreenivasan
* Marianne Szegedy-Maszak

Source
[edit]
Advisory Board

* James Macgregor Burns
* Joel Chaseman
* Alan J. Dworsky
* Edith Everett
* Gustavo Godoy
* Josie Goytisolo
* Herbert Hafif
* Rev. Theodore Hesburgh
* Kathleen Hall Jamieson
* Sonia R. Jarvis
* Charles Ogletree
* Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
* Harold M. Williams
* William Julius Wilson

Source
[edit]
Contact details

910 17th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 466-1300
Web: http://www.publicintegrity.org
[edit]
The CPI now excludes funding from corporations or unions and is laregly funded by philanthropic foundations.

Andy A.
02-05-2008, 02:22 PM
I am not going to argue with you about your "sources". It is very simple. You don't like Bush. You'll do anything to discredit him. I don't agree with everthing Bush has done. He is my president. He is sometimes wrong. ALL presidents are sometimes wrong. Get over it. I have purposely used short sentences. This is to help you understand. It is left wing, IMO. Have a great day!

scooterbug44
02-05-2008, 02:28 PM
This is actually a rather widely reported story/study. It's not just limited to propaganda/fringe sources.

I heard about it a while ago from several reliable sources including CNN.

Bob
02-05-2008, 02:32 PM
how much will the deficit be this year? does this include Iraq war funding?

ecopal
02-05-2008, 02:44 PM
I am not going to argue with you about your "sources". It is very simple. You don't like Bush. You'll do anything to discredit him. I don't agree with everthing Bush has done. He is my president. He is sometimes wrong. ALL presidents are sometimes wrong. Get over it. I have purposely used short sentences. This is to help you understand. It is left wing, IMO. Have a great day!Don't confuse me with your "facts", my mind is already made up.

I guess your slogan "Don't confuse me with your "facts", my mind is already made up." kind of sums it up. I respect the honesty about your closed mind.

BTW, neither I or the country or much of the world will get over the incredible damage and unnecessary carnage that has taken place under the Bush administration anytime soon.

Tootsie
02-05-2008, 06:57 PM
I guess your slogan "Don't confuse me with your "facts", my mind is already made up." kind of sums it up. I respect the honesty about your closed mind.

BTW, neither I or the country or much of the world will get over the incredible damage and unnecessary carnage that has taken place under the Bush administration anytime soon.

healing is already underway. even with the current administration still in office, people are looking to the future right now. and the elections force us to pay attention and be alert. let us choose wisely.:wave:

hnooe
02-05-2008, 08:43 PM
And this all comes as a surprise to whom exactly?

hnooe
02-05-2008, 10:08 PM
Free Valerie Plame/Convict Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzoles....

chrisv
02-05-2008, 11:51 PM
The Center for Public Integrity is recognized as a very credible and non biased source.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Public_Integrity


I'm not going to argue the report, much of which I believe is accurate (no, I didn't read all 935 instances) but for you to make this claim is just a bit over the top. A quick visit to their site (http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx) gives the viewer two Dan Rather links- we know how objective he is. It is also interesting how your link to sourcewatch conveniently leaves out funding from the Heinz Endowments and Open Society. CPI may provide edgy exposes', but to claim that they are a non-biased source is misleading.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant
02-06-2008, 01:29 PM
I guess your slogan "Don't confuse me with your "facts", my mind is already made up." kind of sums it up. I respect the honesty about your closed mind.


Ecopal, for you to say anyone has a closed mind is like the pot calling the kettle black.
.
.
.

livingiSoWal
02-06-2008, 04:29 PM
the ACLU is not a far-left liberal organization either... Non-biased, your killing me.

scooterbug44
02-06-2008, 04:33 PM
And this all comes as a surprise to whom exactly?

Probably the same folks who think that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that our involvement in the Middle East has nothing to do w/ oil. :roll:

ecopal
02-06-2008, 05:37 PM
the ACLU is not a far-left liberal organization either... Non-biased, your killing me.

That is correct, the ACLU protects the rights of all Americans.

Are you implying that you are opposed to the ACLU?

FYI: The ACLU defended the conservative propagandist Rush Limblahblah's rights.

"ACLU Asks Court to Protect Confidentiality of Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records (1/12/2004)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PALM BEACH, FL - In a motion filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida said state law enforcement officers violated Rush Limbaugh's privacy rights by seizing the conservative radio talk show host's medical records as part of a criminal investigation involving alleged ""doctor-shopping.""

""While this case involves the right of Rush Limbaugh to maintain the privacy of his medical records, the precedent set in this case will impact the security of medical records and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship of every person in Florida,"" said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida.

The ACLU's request to submit a ""friend-of-the-court"" brief on behalf of Limbaugh was filed today with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The ACLU said in its motion that the state infringed on Florida's constitutional right to privacy when it failed to follow well-established protocol, mandated by law, when confiscating Limbaugh's medical files. The organization stated that its interest in the case was ""to vindicate every Floridian's fundamental right to privacy by ensuring that the state be required to comply"" with the law.

Because of heightened concerns about medical privacy, the Florida Legislature mandated a process - outlined in Sections 456.057(5)(a) and 395.3025(4)(d) of the Florida Statutes - that requires law enforcement officers to notify the person whose medical records they seek to obtain and give that person the opportunity to object before the subpoena is issued and before the records are seized.

""The legislature has enacted procedures that carefully balance the interests of law enforcement against the right of every citizen to maintain the privacy of their communications with their physician,"" said Ft. Lauderdale attorney Jon May, who is serving as counsel for the ACLU. ""In this case the State Attorney has circumvented this carefully crafted scheme. If the state can do this to Rush Limbaugh, then the privacy rights of every citizen in Florida are in jeopardy.""

In October, Limbaugh checked himself into a rehabilitation clinic after telling listeners on his radio program that he is addicted to painkillers. The ACLU has long recognized the need for a viable public health approach for drug control. Criminal prosecutions are the government's primary weapons to stamp out illicit drugs in the ""War on Drugs."" However, the ACLU has maintained that the so-called ""War on Drugs"" has led to a dramatic increase in the nation's prison population, while doing little to curb the drug trade. The organization believes there are better ways, other than criminal prosecution and incarceration, to address drug abuse that will ultimately lead to a healthier, freer and less crime-ridden society.

""Limbaugh's case demonstrates that the 'War on Drugs' is not working,"" said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. ""This case provides a stark example of how the government chooses to prosecute non-violent drug offenses, rather than provide treatment for drug users.""

The ACLU of Florida's Simon added: ""For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view.""

""We have defended the rights of every group on the political spectrum from anti-war protesters and Oliver North to church-state separation activists and Jerry Falwell,"" Simon noted.

The case is Rush Limbaugh v. State of Florida, Case No. 4D03-4973. In addition to May, Randall Marshall, ACLU of Florida's Legal Director, is counsel of record.
To read the ACLU's motion to file an amicus on behalf of Limbaugh, visit: http://www.aclufl.org/limbaughmotiontofile.html



© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQshttp://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/14969prs20040112.html

jdarg
02-06-2008, 07:14 PM
I bet it just about killed Rush to have the ACLU come to his defense.:lol:

chrisv
02-06-2008, 09:15 PM
I bet it just about killed Rush to have the ACLU come to his defense.:lol:

I'll bet you're right:rolling:


But seriously, when the ACLU decides to be consistent and start defending all of the bill of rights I will start to take them seriously. They lose all credibility when they assert that 9 of the first 10 amendments protect individual rights but that the 2nd is a collective right. Yeah, I'm sure that is what the framers meant.

hnooe
02-07-2008, 10:08 AM
the ACLU is not a far-left liberal organization either... Non-biased, your killing me.

So why are they trying to defend Larry Craig (with his blessing), the closeted, do-as-I-say not-as-I-do conservative, Republican senator who finds bathroom stalls in MSP Airport a bit too small for him?

livingiSoWal
02-07-2008, 10:10 AM
haha, I wish I could tell you. But 9 out 0f 10 times the are more concerned with anti-discrimination laws then they are with supporting civil liberties.