Reported Bush Lied ‘Study’ Not Revealed as Funded By George Soros
With Video posted at end of story…
Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a “study” that claims that “Bush lied” in the run up to the actions in Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by the extreme leftist George Soros who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate!
This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined “Study: False statements preceded war,” the AP reveals how, “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.”
What AP forgets to mention is that the “two nonprofit journalism organizations” can hardly be imagined to be impartial. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is funded by well-known leftist, George Soros, as well as the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation — all of which are exclusively left in political philosophy. Even more ridiculously, the second of these “non-profit journalism organizations” shares most of its board members with the first. So, the Fund for Independence in Journalism can hardly be considered a separate entity from the CPI.
The AP merely spews the claims from this study as if they are real news, but much of the APs’ story is disingenuous as is the “study.”
“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.”
Two things here. First, few people now think Saddam had WMDs, of course. But nearly everyone thought he had them before we went into Iraq — including the leadership of every nation on the planet as well as Saddam’s own generals. So, it was not a “lie” if it was commonly thought to be true by nearly every head of state in the world. That saddam had WMDs may have been a mistaken notion, but it was not a lie before it was known for sure!
Secondly, it is interesting that this “study” claims that Bush “lied” about links with al-Qaida. Yet even they have to massage that claim of a lie into “meaningful ties to al-Qaida.” This means that even they are admitting that there are ties with al-Qaida but that they aren’t “meaningful.”
Does that mean the “lie” is not that the ties exist but how “meaningful” they are? Instead of a lie we are squabbling over semantics. In essence, Bush DIDN’T lie about ties to al-Qaida, there is just a debate on how “meaningful” those ties are.
In these very first two instances, Bush’s “lies” turn out not to be lies at all.
The New York Times also regurgitated this “study” without bothering to disclose that it was funded by some very left agenda pushing folks, but the Times does have one interesting line…
There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously.
So, the question remains, why is this such big news, then? Why did the AP and the NYT rush to report a story that has “no startling new information” in it?
Was it just a new chance to say “Bush lied, people died”? It must be because there isn’t any real news here.
Finally, it is also interesting to note that the database of “Bush lies” does not notate the context of those “lies.” How many of them were widely believed by Democrats and Republicans alike at the time, but were proven later to be less than true? A statement given that is thought to be true (even if it turns out untrue later) is not a lie. It is just mistaken!
Regardless, that neither the AP nor the NYT revealed the leftwardly, partisan financial backers of the so-called “non-profit journalism organizations” behind this “study” is unforgivable.
Now let’s take a look at a video showing that Democrats, including Clinton Secretary of State Albright and presidential contenders Sens. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) expressed their belief before we went into Iraq that Saddam had WMDs and could use them:
So, where are the many stories that Clinton lied?
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on January 23, 2008 11:47 am
» Filed Under Liberal Media/Bias, News, Socialism, Video, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
- Bill's Bites: 2008.01.23 Politics and National Defense Roundup ...
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: Study: 2 Years Of Lies Led To Iraq War...
- Brutally Honest: "Bush lied, people died" continued...
Comments
22 Responses to “Reported Bush Lied ‘Study’ Not Revealed as Funded By George Soros”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
So, where are the many stories that Clinton lied?
You mean by lies, the statements she made based on the faulty intelligence provided by the Bush administration which now appears to be nothing but lies?
Just sayin…
What ties to Al Queda? Seems to me that the only people still claiming those ties existed are those still biased in favor of the far far right party line.
“You mean by lies, the statements she made based on the faulty intelligence provided by the Bush administration which now appears to be nothing but lies?”
Shorter BobS: I’m making this up
Those pesky democrats….always making up partisan issues. We are so going to find the WMDs any day now, honest…because our president wasn’t lying to us….oh wait, we are spreading democracy because our president loves freedom for all…
Notice not one of the nitwit leftists who posted here so far, will so much as admit that clinton, kerry, gore et al ALL CLAIMED THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs, was a threat to the world And the US, MUST be disarmed…. based on the exact same intelligence.
The study never used the word “lied”. Lying involves intent. The study focused exclusively on documented facts.
If you consider yourself an honest person, restate your argument without the strawman.
You mean by lies, the statements she made based on the faulty intelligence provided by the Bush administration which now appears to be nothing but lies?
Do you think the Clinton administration’s faulty intelligence was any better?
“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
“His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm
“America is threatened by an “unholy axis”:
“We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.
We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information… And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.
Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
“Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:
BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:
And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:
I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.
SCHIEFFER:
Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?
GEPHARDT:
I don’t. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who’d served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we’re worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.
Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News “Face the Nation”
November 2, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml
“No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.”
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
“Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
“Dear Mr. President: … We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Sincerely,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D’Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
http://loboslinks.blogspot.com/2006/09/quotes-and-facts-on-iraq.html
Just sayin…
‘”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.’
That’s incorrect. In fact, the Iraqis DID have some weapons of mass destruction (like mustard gas found by U.N. inspection teams shortly before the invasion of March 2003), as well as other banned materials (like missiles that violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement). What’s beyond dispute is that anyone who’s looked into the maytter and is still claiming that Iraq had NO WMD is simply lying.
A possible Iraqi-Al Qaida connection is irrelevant since that has NEVER been a reason given for military action against the Baathist government of Iraq. We have official reasons for what we did in Iraq (try reading the congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq sometime) and “the government of Iraq is helping Al Qaida” is NOT one of those reasons.
‘”In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war…”‘
Another bald-faced lie. The United States had been bombing Iraq for YEARS before George Bush became president. That’s war by definition, whether or not anyone cares to acknowledge it. The Bush administration didn’t lead the nation to war, they escalated an already existing war that the previous administration had waged (without much success) for the preceding eight years.
Any “study” that can’t even get basic premises right is valueless. This is leftist propaganda, not a valid study.
Like this site, btw.
The ACLU sucks.
I’m a stickler for concise language, but they were just using the generally accepted terminology. Changing “led us to war” to “led us to a drastic escalation of the war” does not change the substance of their point.
Yawn. I supported the escalation, to use your terminology, because I believed the administration’s claims about nuclear weapons. Never in a million years would I support starting a ground war over the items you cite. I think I’m in the majority on that point.
Nonsense. No one was ever significantly worried about Iraq launching nuclear weapons from its own soil. Mutually Assured Destruction works just as well now as it did against the Soviets. The claim was always that they would develop the weapons and hand them off to terrorists.
The fact that they never seriously engaged with terrorists is very relevant.
“Nonsense.”
No, it isn’t nonsense. We have a long list of reasons why we’re fighting in Iraq (listed in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq), and Iraq is helping Al Qaida isn’t one of them…and never was.
It’s a total strawman put out by a pack of lefty liars who can’t tell the truth about anything (they claim the Bush administration led us to war…after we’d been bombing Iraq for years…spare me).
What I’m saying is 100% true. What they’re saying is 100% hogwash.
“The fact that they never seriously engaged with terrorists is very relevant.”
It would be if it was true, only it isn’t. Like these lefty propagandists, you have trouble getting you’re facts straight. The Baathist government was a long time supporters of all kinds of terrorist groups, including at least three groups that had murdered American nationals in cold blood, the FRC, the PLF, and the MEK (Iraqi support for terrorist groups WAS one of our official reasons for fighting against the Hussein regime…a reason studiously avoided by people like the authors of this “study”)
It doesn’t matter to me what you support or don’t support as long as the government rains death down on terrorists and the states that support them, which the Bush adminstration has done a pretty good job of doing.
Good on them, and shame on the leftys who try to paint a totally false picture in order to pursue their own utterly partisan ends.
I’ve read it numerous times. You are correct that it doesn’t mention Al Qaida specifically.
You know what else doesn’t specifically mention al Qaida? The AUMF for Afghanistan. Both resolutions use the broader term “terrorists” for obvious legal reasons. The frequent references to September 11, 2001 in both bills should make it pretty obvious that they weren’t talking about the IRA.
Again, you’re factually correct on this point, but you’re splitting hairs on terminology that both sides use. If we rewrote every speech and every article that both sides wrote, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference to the substantive disagreements.
Are you seriously suggesting that those organizations were the ones being referred to in the Authorization? Can you offer any examples of key individuals citing the actions of those organizations prior to the escalation?
“I’ve read it numerous times. You are correct that it doesn’t mention Al Qaida specifically.”
You’re wrong. You need to read it again.
1. It specifically DOES mention Al Qaida
2. I never said it didn’t.
What I said was that “the Iraqi government was in league with Al Qaida” was NEVER an official reason given by the government for using military force against the Baathists (although it’s certainly a reason to use military force against the Al Qaida members in Iraq).
“Are you seriously suggesting that those organizations were the ones being referred to in the Authorization?”
Since that’s exactly what the authorization says, of course that’s what I’m suggesting…
“Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;”
“Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;”
Is what the authorization says right? Damn straight it’s right. Al Qaida members were in Iraq and that’s a totally valid reason to use force against Al Qaida in Iraq (whether they’re in cahoots with the Baathists or not). In addition, the Baathists were supporting and harboring other terrorist groups that had ALREADY killed Americans, and that’s a totally valid reason to use force against the Baathists whether they’re in cahoots with Al Qaida or not.
Hell, we should have gone to war with the Baathists even before they invaded Kuwait for that reason alone.
I fully support the war against the Baathists (and their terrorist proxies) and I would even if the government was wrong about everything else (which they weren’t).
And that “study” is absolute crap.
And, if people like you are going to try and argue about it, you need to get you’re facts straight.
otter–So, now you’re criticizing the Democrats for actually believing what Bush told them?
lobo–And you’re reacting as if we’re not the first willing to criticize Pres. Clinton for being just as wrong about the severity of Saddam’s threat as Bush was/is. It’s just that Clinton never advocated a ground war that has cost thousands of American lives and has nearly bankrupted the country.
This odd defense of the President is precisely the reason why the Democratic Party will soon run the executive branch of the government. I believe I am in the majority when I say that the lead up to war was dishonest at best and an impeachable offense at worst. The majority and I will see on November 4th.
So, Bobby you are saying you are just as uninformed as the “majority,” then? In other words, you haven’t a clue what an ‘impeachable offense” even is? Another find example of our failed school system, unfortunately.
Another FIND example? Your sentence structure and grammar is a better example of our failed education system than my comment. However, here is a great article on what an impeachable offense is. As with most things in life, it is not a simple black and white issue:
What are Impeachable Offenses?
Summary: According to the Constitution: “…Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Treason and Bribery are clear. The definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was left intentionally vague by the founders but is generally considered to refer to misconduct or a violation of the public trust that is injurious to society. They are not limited to statutory violations (breaking regular laws).
A President often does things that people disagree with. But those actions are not normally something that can lead to impeachment. This leads us to an important question: for what specific actions can a President or Officer be impeached?
The basis for impeachment comes from the US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4 states that:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The crimes of Treason and Bribery are fairly straightforward. But what are “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”? The framers of the Constitution deliberately borrowed this phrase from English parliamentary law. It was first used in 1386 to impeach the King’s Chancellor. Michael de le Pole, Earl of Suffolk. He broke a promise to parliament regarding improvements in the King’s Estate and also failed to pay ransom money for the town of Ghent.
In the midst of Watergate, the Judiciary wrote a report on impeachment.[1] They stated:
‘Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” First the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament¹s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.’
The subject of impeachment was debated by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional conventions. The Federalist Papers give rationale for many parts of the Constitution and are often used to interpret the intent of the framers.
In Federalist No. 65 [2], Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:
“those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself”
James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional convention, argued that the President:
“Must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,”
The general message from interpreters of the Constitution is that impeachable offenses are not limited to specific violation of criminal statutes. The contitution was intentionally vague on this point to allow flexibility in prosecuting a President. Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833:
“Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law.”
A more recent writing reinforces the vague definition of an impeachable offense. In a House Judiciary sub-committee panel discussion on the Clinton impeachment, Rep. Charles Canaday, (R) Florida wrote [3]:
“The House has never in any impeachment inquiry or proceeding adopted either a comprehensive definition of high crimes and misdemeanors or a catalogue of offenses that are impeachable. Instead, the House has dealt with the misconduct of federal officials on a case by case basis…”
Back in 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” That is probably a reasonable definition, consistent with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Ha, ha. Yes, my typing skills sometimes fail me!
Still, your cut and paste job aside, it’s amusing that you didn’t get the point. Not a single action by Bush is an example of an impeachable offense.
Of course, an impeachment of Bush over legitimate actions taken as president would certainly make the office of the president a neutered, useless one for the rest of our history it is true.
Now, if that is your goal, I can see why you’d want to use Bush to accomplish your goals. After all, you don’t want to wait around for any REAL reasons to get your destructive ideas implemented. You’ll be happy to demagogue this situation to facilitate your ends I’m sure.
I do understand. Like all zealots, any excuse will do. truth is a useless human failing to such as you.
Respectfully, I guess we disagree on the issue of “legitamite actions”.
I supposed we’ll have to!
Thanks
You’re right. I’m sorry I missed that.
How do you define “official reason”? Is it limited solely to the resolution?
I bet I can find documentation of numerous officials speaking in their official capacity about such a collaboration.
No, the resolution mentioned none of the organizations that you cited. It used the nonspecific term “terrorists”.
I don’t know for sure that it was correct, but I’m more than willing to concede that al Qaida members were in Iraq, just as they are in most other countries.
That’s all fine and dandy that you were and are willing to go to war over such things. I’m telling you here and now that I wasn’t and won’t. I don’t think many other Americans were either.
I wasn’t blogging much back then, but I discussed it at length with my friends and family. I believed that Iraq was working to acquire nuclear weapons and were a significant risk to pass such technology to al Qaida.
I’ve never lost any sleep over mustard gas, Kurds, or Palestine. I’m not about to spend future generations into debt in some vain attempt to create world peace.
All I cared about was a game-changing weapon and a group that perpetrated a very successful attack on our mainland.
You have yet to cite a single false statement in the study. Have you read it?
“That’s all fine and dandy that you were and are willing to go to war over such things. I’m telling you here and now that I wasn’t…”
Too bad for you. Tou’ve been overruled.
“You have yet to cite a single false statement in the study.”
Yes I did. You must have “missed” it.
No, I advocated the war. I trusted the president when he spoke unequivocally. Silly me, I thought that meant he knew his assertions were true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I’m less naive now.
Must have. Would you mind pointing out the comment number and paragraph?