Study: False statements preceded war

[channonc 466]

Study: False statements preceded war

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press WriterWed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET

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.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

LINK

[AURaptor 1,126]

First of all, you really need to let this go.

Iraq WAS in violation of UN sanctions, and DID REFUSE to comply to terms it had previously agreed to.

It is NOT beyond dispute that Iraq didn't have WMDs, as we've already uncovered WMD material which it had not reported, as it was obligated to do.

I love how this 'report' assigns meaning to what Bush didn't know and automatically assumes that he 'SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, but because he didn't, that means he and the entire Gov't lied so we could go into war. Complete and total B.S.

The 'false statements' only are half false, or are a result of poor intel, which goes all the way back to the 90's. Clinton and his administration said everything Bush said, but did so years before. If any statements are found to be 'false', then it's by no means an indictment on the Bush administration. Being 'wrong' doesn't mean there was any attempt at deception, as this report tries in vain to suggest.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I'm still waiting on their report of all the false things said about Bush in all media outlets. Seems it's OK to lie about the president in the media, but it's not OK to have to rely on an intelligence community decimated by cutbacks.

Like I said before, "If you don't believe they found WMDs, then let them open one of those non-WMD containers in your neighborhood". Sure it may not kill thousands, but what number is the minimum for "mass" destruction?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Is being proven wrong “lying”?

Maybe this AP story should have been labeled a press release. That’s what it amounts to isn't it?

This late in the war, I’m not even sure why anyone would bother trotting out the “Bush LIED, people DIED” line. If you haven’t bought it by now, you’re not likely to, and if you already buy it, you already buy it. I suppose seeing it in print one more time could be your Daily Affirmation that we’re living in Bushreich’s Amerikkka.

Whatever the motivation, it’s clear that the reporter, Douglas K. Daniel, paid no attention to the man behind the curtain. The Center for Public Integrity is one of many George Soros fronts. Soros pays the bills and his minions, whether they happen to work at the CPI or the Center for American Progress or Media Matters or wherever, dance to his tune. And Soros has made it his life’s work to bring down the Bush administration. He says it’s the “central focus of my life.” Do you think people paid to “research” by a man with that stated mission are likely to deliver unbiased findings?

It's funny how for years the dims ranted, raved and railed about Karl Rove's behind the scenes manipulations. But they hold up George Soros funded "studies" as absolute truth, unbiased studies and great journalism.

The real story is, once again, who’s behind the organizations publishing the report in the first place and what is their motivation. The two organizations are the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

The Center for Public Integrity is funded by The Open Society Institute… yes, the same Open Society Institute founded by George Soros.

And the Fund for Independence in Journalism’s self-described 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.”

Another day, another Soros-funded, anti-Bush study being touted by the water-carrying MSM.

[RunInRed 16,492]

So did he lie or was he just too stupid and hell bent to know any better? I'm going with the latter.

[Auburn85 432]

ok, we're in Iraq. now what? does this reprot magically get us out of Iraq?

This isn't the first report about this and it most certainly won't be the last. What makes this report stand out compared to the many reports we've seen in recent weeks, months, years?

Alot of people have it in their mind that he lied, mislead the public. so does this advance the story or does it fan the flames?

[AFTiger 282]

So did he lie or was he just too stupid and hell bent to know any better? I'm going with the latter.

OK Red, the intelligence carried over from the previous administration so I guess it falls into your two categories. Which one belongs to Clinton?

Another view of the report, more Soros BS

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)

NYT: 'Remarkable' New Left-Wing Database Shows Bush Lied Us Into War

By Clay Waters

Created 2008-01-23 14:14

The left-wing Center for Public Integrity has put together a database allegedly proving the Bush administration lied about WMDs in Iraq, and the New York Times joined the rest of the media in celebrating it with left-wing talking points that sound like they came straight off a press release.

The humdrum headline over John Cushman Jr.'s Wednesday story ("Web Site [1]Assembles U.S. Prewar Claims [2]") hid some deep bias.

For one, the Times failed to pin an ideological label on the organization and made no mention of CPI's ties to the left-wing billionaire George Soros, which funds the organization through his Open Society Institute.

For the rest, well, simply read the encouraging prose and references to Watergate.

"Students of how the Bush administration led the nation into the Iraq war can now go online to browse a comprehensive database of top officials' statements before the invasion, connecting the dots between hundreds of claims, mostly discredited since then, linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or warning that he possessed forbidden weapons.

"The Center for Public Integrity, a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy, designed the new Web site to allow simple searches for specific phrases, such as 'mushroom cloud' or 'yellowcake uranium,' in transcripts and documents totaling some 380,000 words, including remarks by President Bush and most of his top advisers in the two years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Warnings about the need to confront Iraq, by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and two White House press secretaries, among others, can be combed line by line, and reviewed alongside detailed critiques published after the fact by official panels, historians, journalists and independent experts.

"There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope, and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard M. Nixon used to dismissively call 'wallowing in Watergate.'

"The database is online at http://www.publicintegrity.org/ [3].

"Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the research center say their work has documented 'at least 935 false statements' on hundreds of occasions, particularly that Iraq had unconventional weapons, links to Al Qaeda, or both.

"The database shows how even after the invasion, when a consensus emerged that the prewar intelligence assessments were flawed, administration officials occasionally suggested that the weapons might still be found.

"The officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time -- although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.

"President Bush said in 2005 that 'much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong' but that 'it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.'"

Red State marshaled some facts [4]outside the left-wing talking points repeated by Cushman, reminding us that at the time

"Everyone was convinced that Saddam had WMDs. It remains a fact Saddam used WMDs against Iran and his own people. The intelligence and common wisdom that Iraq still possessed such weapons at the time we liberated Iraq proved to be wrong, but that doesn't equate to a lie."

Red State also noted three separate investigations concluded the U.S. was not lied into war with Iraq.

This Commentary [5]Magazine blog [6] post by Gabriel Schoenfeld has more of what the Times left out of its one-sided story.

"Toward the end of its story, the Times notes that 'officials have defended many of their prewar statements as having been based on the intelligence that was available at the time -- although there is now evidence that some statements contradicted even the sketchy intelligence of the time.'

"But that is an absurd way of putting it, minimizing and obscuring some central facts. Would it not have been more honest for the newspaper of record to recall that however 'sketchy' the intelligence, it was not presented by the CIA to the administration as sketchy at all? Rather, it was presented as an iron-clad case, most memorably by CIA director George Tenet as 'a slam-dunk.' And would it not have been more honest to point out that the post-war studies of Iraq's WMD program, like the Duelfer Report, had the benefit not merely of hindsight but the ability of investigators to roam freely through Iraqi archives and facilities? Back in 2002 and early 2003, when the U.S. was gearing up for war, things looked very differently than they did afterward.

"This brings us back to the question which we began. What is a false statement? Did the Bush administration lie when it relied on the CIA's estimates of Iraq's WMD program, or is it the Center for Public Integrity that is now doing some lying, with the New York Times brazenly helping them along?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2...ush-lied-us-war

Links:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washingt...man+jr.&st=

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washingt...man+jr.&st=

[3] http://www.publicintegrity.org/

[4] http://www.crosstabs.org/stories/war/lies_...mist_propaganda

[5] http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...schoenfeld/2017

[6] http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...schoenfeld/2017

[AFTiger 282]

More

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)

AP Reports 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros

By Warner Todd Huston

Created 2008-01-23 10:57

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" [1] in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by 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 reporter 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 the 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 leftist 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 form 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-Qaeda. 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-Qaeda 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, the 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" [2] 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.

Update/Video (Ken Shepherd | 11:20 EST): Below is a video [3] 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 belief prior to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam has and could use weapons of mass destruction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-h...ed-george-soros

Links:

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_...formation_study

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washingt...l?_r=1&oref

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B25jjXgzx78...mist_propaganda

[RunInRed 16,492]

You will not find me defending Clinton.

But I will say Bush was in office over 2 years before we went into Iraq. This is kind of like the "this coach won with the ex coaches player" argument. At some point, some one has to take responsibility.

[jw 4 au 526]

You will not find me defending Clinton.

But I will say Bush was in office over 2 years before we went into Iraq. This is kind of like the "this coach won with the ex coaches player" argument. At some point, some one has to take responsibility.

I don't think he was meaning responsibility, but rather hypocrisy (i.e. blaming Bush, but not recognizing Clintons involvement).

The way I look at it, we are better off than we would have been with Gore or especially Kerry at the helm. I am not saying Bush has been a great president, but certainly better than those alternatives.

[LegalEagle 22]

I think it is clear that Bush was (and still is) too inept to determine fact from fiction or right from wrong.

He believed that crap. Those Republicans have CIA Kool-aid that not even a Bammer has tasted the likes of. From the vat, they drink religiously.

Bush had the weapons inspectors in Iraq leave so he could start a war. If violating the UN mandate was such a big deal, why didn't he let the inspectors do their work?

I thought the Repubs didn't believe in anything the UN did. Now they are justifying a war to protect the UN's honor?

Mmmm.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I think it is clear that Bush was (and still is) too inept to determine fact from fiction or right from wrong.

He believed that crap. Those Republicans have CIA Kool-aid that not even a Bammer has tasted the likes of. From the vat, they drink religiously.

Bush had the weapons inspectors in Iraq leave so he could start a war. If violating the UN mandate was such a big deal, why didn't he let the inspectors do their work?

I thought the Repubs didn't believe in anything the UN did. Now they are justifying a war to protect the UN's honor?

Mmmm.

You're such a *bleeeping* half witted *bleeping bleep*!! How can you say that crap about Bush, but give the entire Democratic party a pass for saying " THE EXACT SAME THINGS AND MORE " ??? Why no comment about kool-aid drinkin', bammer types when the shoe is on the other foot ?

This is such a non issue, it makes me think the Dems want to divide the country more.

[LegalEagle 22]

I think it is clear that Bush was (and still is) too inept to determine fact from fiction or right from wrong.

He believed that crap. Those Republicans have CIA Kool-aid that not even a Bammer has tasted the likes of. From the vat, they drink religiously.

Bush had the weapons inspectors in Iraq leave so he could start a war. If violating the UN mandate was such a big deal, why didn't he let the inspectors do their work?

I thought the Repubs didn't believe in anything the UN did. Now they are justifying a war to protect the UN's honor?

Mmmm.

You're such a *bleeeping* half witted *bleeping bleep*!! How can you say that crap about Bush, but give the entire Democratic party a pass for saying " THE EXACT SAME THINGS AND MORE " ??? Why no comment about kool-aid drinkin', bammer types when the shoe is on the other foot ?

This is such a non issue, it makes me think the Dems want to divide the country more.

Did I strike a nerve?

[AFTiger 282]

I think it is clear that Bush was (and still is) too inept to determine fact from fiction or right from wrong.

He believed that crap. Those Republicans have CIA Kool-aid that not even a Bammer has tasted the likes of. From the vat, they drink religiously.

Bush had the weapons inspectors in Iraq leave so he could start a war. If violating the UN mandate was such a big deal, why didn't he let the inspectors do their work?

I thought the Repubs didn't believe in anything the UN did. Now they are justifying a war to protect the UN's honor?

Mmmm.

You're such a *bleeeping* half witted *bleeping bleep*!! How can you say that crap about Bush, but give the entire Democratic party a pass for saying " THE EXACT SAME THINGS AND MORE " ??? Why no comment about kool-aid drinkin', bammer types when the shoe is on the other foot ?

This is such a non issue, it makes me think the Dems want to divide the country more.

Did I strike a nerve?

Don't think you struck a nerve so much as you showed something.

[LegalEagle 22]

Sorry, I don't recall giving the Dems a pass about anything.

What are you talking about when you say the Dems say the same things?

Now you've gotten me confused - Is there a light in the room?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sorry, I don't recall giving the Dems a pass about anything.

What are you talking about when you say the Dems say the same things?

You're kidding, right ?

Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) 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 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of 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. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

How are these not counted as 'lies' , just as what Bush's administration was saying exactly what was being said 5,6, even 11 yrs ago ???

[AURaptor 1,126]

Did I strike a nerve?

Hell yeah you struck a nerve. You and every damn Liberal who lies about perpetuating this myth that Bush and only Bush 'lied us into war'. It's complete bunk, and you KNOW it's bunk, because I can show you dozens and dozens of quotes by Democrats who said the EXACT SAME THINGS, before the war, even before Bush was in office ! There's no logical explanation you can give which vilifies Bush and not virtually every Democrat unless you simply ignore what the Dems were saying , all the way back from the mid 90's to the eve of the 2nd Iraq war. These quotes and positions are well known, and yet you and every Lib act as if you have no idea what I'm talking about. You WANT to ignore the issue, because you can't deal w/ the facts.

Sorry, the facts aren't going away.