Lies, Misrepresentations and More Left-Wing Extremist Propaganda

By California Yankee Posted in | | | | Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

To paraphrase President Reagan, there they go again.

Associated Press writer, Douglas Daniel has written an article promoting more lies, misrepresentations, and left-wing extremist propaganda trying to revive the loony left's thoroughly debunked fiction that we were "misled" into war in Iraq by "false statements" and "lies."

On Yahoo the Douglas article is titled "Study: False statements preceded war." But CBS News, the ever accurate former employer of Dan Rather, originally carried the article under the headline "Study: 2 Years Of Lies Led To Iraq War. That was too much even for the President Bush hating propagandists at CBS, who toned it down to "Study: 'False Pretenses' Led U.S. To War."

I am so very tired of this propaganda. Mr. Douglas does not acquit himself well as a reporter here. Perhaps that is why he is identified as a writer. He does little, other than regurgitating the misleading talking points put forth in the press release posted on the Web site of the cleverly named Center for Public Integrity. According to wikipedia, despite its claims to be a nonpartisan news organization "the Center has been accused of bias toward left-wing political causes because it has accepted money from organizations and individuals that favor liberal policies and/or actively oppose right-wing political causes."

Read on.

At the New York Times, John Cushman Jr., doesn't do much better, but the headline is more restrained.

Even though Douglas and Cushman put forth the press release talking points claiming that President Bush and other administration officials made hundreds of "false statements" leading us to war in Iraq, they both fails to do any fact checking. Oh they note that journalists and news organizations have issued mea culpas, saying their pre-war coverage was "too deferential and uncritical." But they fail to mention that no less than three exhaustive studies have concluded that there is no justification for the false allegation that the administration lied about the WMDs.

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.

So lets go over the facts again. The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the report states:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

Besides that report, two other independent investigations came to the same conclusion.

The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction likewise found "no evidence of political pressure." At pages 50-51 the Robb-Silberman report states:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction similarly "found no evidence of deliberate distortion." At page 110 the British Butler report states:

Treatment of intelligence material

449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.

The effect of departmental policy agendas

450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.

The consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction formed in the Clinton administration. The consensus was more than evident in 1998, when President Clinton was threatening to attack Iraq.

President Clinton::

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright:

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."


Is it so much to ask that news service "writers" and reporters do a little fact checking?

« DisconnectComments (1) | Three years later, the NYT realizes that there are independent journalists in IraqComments (3) »
Lies, Misrepresentations and More Left-Wing Extremist Propaganda 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Who created "moveon.org".
What a hoot. They are stuck like bad computer programs in an infinite loop of gigo.

So it's a load of crap. And many, many, dozens, perhaps hundreds of bloggers (okay, hundreds may be an exaggertation) know that it a political hitjob. Per Captain Ed, it was funded by Soros and forcefed to the US.

For too many Americans, that means it's true. Sure, Bill O'Reilly will attack Soros, but Bill ain't been that strong on supporting the mission. The troops, yes, the mission, maybe not as much.

Solution to the problem? It ain't the blogs. The blogs find a lie, expose it, and mea culpa's, if they follow, follow on page umpty2, in small print, and only read by the bloggers looking for the retraction. It never gets to the news. The lie lives in the hearts and minds.

Any meaningful solution means an alternative press, either actually non-partisan, or perhaps even conservative. It doesn't exist in America, Sean Hannity on Fox notwithstanding. The American people are more conservative than the Democrats, more conservative than the media, and much more conservative than the organizations that drive the defeatist, socialist organizations that drive the news.

Sorry, the study stands. People will accept, or at least not defend, the idea that Eeevil Bush/Cheney took us to war by lying.

last sentence should read,

People will accept, or at least not oppose, the idea that Eeevil Bush/Cheney took us to war by lying.

1. The Senate Select Intel. Com. Report is a construction of half-truths, and hangs together with general misdirection. Then-Chairman Roberts whored-out his office by working in concert with the White House to obstruct and misdirect the investigation he was supposedly in charge of leading objectively. A careful examination of all the information the report ignores shows his report to be a clumsy, patchwork of political cover.

2. Do you remember this regarding the Robb-Silberman report?:

"[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information."

Pretty amazing, huh? They "were not authorized" to examine potential political manipulation or 'distortion' of intelligence, only mistakes within the IC itself! In other words: judgments as to how the facts were used is not permitted.

3. The Butler Report is political analogue to the Senate Intel. Report, it's purpose was to exonerate Blair's government for their false claims.

A good report that details much of the above reports and much info. left out of the above report is The Carnegie Endowment For International Peace's Report: WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435

So really this study is nothing particularly new.

Anyway, Republicans and Iraq hawks of all stripes should brace themselves for this kind of research as we are on the porch of an election and there will be more of it coming.

...over two years ago (cite). They did the Phase II work the Senate Intelligence Committee intended to do.

1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani

...is for them to contemplate how they've raped to death their principles for the sake of seeking political advantage. So, I agree: expect more projection of their sins upon the shoulders of others.

Won't work, though.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Of "false" statements in any one-month review of TV weather men. Calling for snow when it turned out rain, or vice versa, or stayed clear altogether. One looks for the Florida guy who called for snow on July 4 to distinguish between lies and good-faith statements that turn out to be inaccurate.

You hold our President and his Cabinet to the same standards of truth regarding possible invasion of a soverign country that you do to the TV weatherman?

Holy hell. What an astoundingly ridiculous thing to say.

...that the antiwar movement is grimly determined to equate good-faith, yet incorrect statements with deliberate lying. I'll add that that I'd assume such behavior by said movement is usually indicative of a guilty collective conscience, except I'm given to understand that the antiwar movement shot theirs several years ago and left it in a ditch.

Grok?

Moe

PS: Mind your language.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Really? Saying that there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq/Saddam -multiple times by multiple cabinet members- that was patently false...were made in good faith?

Honest to crap, man. That's just incredible.

"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...

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."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

Emphasis mine.

Oh, btw sparky, I've got a TON of these.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I don’t think quoting Hillary Clinton’s errors is anything to crow about.

Let me be clear, I don’t hang with the crowd that thinks Bush lied to get us into Iraq, but I was against the war from the very beginning (though am not in favor of leaving right now) because I was suspicious of the way in which it was “sold” to us. I don’t remember hearing “This is going to be a hard, long, bloody, costly conflict but we need to do it because of X,Y, and Z”.

Instead we were told this would be the first war in our history that would not require a tax increase to pay for it; a challenge that could be met without substantial new enlistments in the armed forces. The average American was told “This won’t hurt a bit”, go on with your life, go shopping, it’ll be a “cakewalk”, it’ll pay for itself, we’ll be greeted as liberators in a conflict that might last 6 months.

I don’t believe Bush lied, but I do believe Bush, his advisers, and the US Congress, were incredibly, even willfully naïve, and overly optimistic about what was going to happen once we got there. It's not the same as lieing, but it's nothing to be proud of either.

...you'll forgive us for pointing out the bipartisan nature of this issue. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You assume too much my friend.

We get so few Greens who can spell here. Or was it Reform?

:snapping fingers: Of course. Libertarian.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

A cop out? Maybe. But I've always found the worst of both parties too repulsive to associate myself with.

We're like furries that way.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Even for me, that would be going a bit far.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Winky emoticon.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Probably the most obscure reference I've ever made on Red State.

HTML Help for Red Staters

What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2012
==== 13 ====

but I was responding specifically to this:

Really? Saying that there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq/Saddam -multiple times by multiple cabinet members- that was patently false...were made in good faith?

(emphasis mine of course)

As far as I know, Hillary Clinton was not a Bush Cabinet member, hence the refutation of his (her?) argument.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

How does the Hillary quote "refute" his argument that cabinet members claims were made in bad faith? It shows that people on both sides of the aisle were saying the same thing, nothing more. Dems and Republicans have gotten together to lie plenty of times.

Now if this knucklehead comes in singing Hillary's "We were tricked" song, then maybe you can use that quote to "refute" him.

that they didn't hear anyone say "This is going to be a hard, long, bloody, costly conflict"?

You mind if I don't buy your lie.

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq." President Bush - May 1, 2003.

"It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," Don Rumsfeld - Oct 22, 2003

"The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous."

"America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women, it demands the steadfastness of our allies, and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens, because we know what is at stake."

"After September the 11th, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult, and that we would prevail." President Bush (all 3) - June 28, 2005

"The situation in Iraq will be long, it will be expensive and it will be difficult." Sen Bob Bennett - Oct 18, 2004

"The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq," Mitt Romney - Jan 10, 2007

So in my limited search I was easily able to find these quotes.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

read the original post, that's where you will find the refutation of the "bad faith" argument already. I didn't think it was necessary to quote those again, I assumed people read and understood the blog.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

do a little more research and you might even find a quote from before we invaded when the case for war was being made.

01-02-03 White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels told The New York Times...that such a conflict could cost $50 billion to $60 billion...In September, Daniels disputed an estimate by Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey -- who has since left the White House -- that war with Iraq could cost $200 billion. Daniels said he believes Lindsey's estimate was "the upper end of a hypothetical,"

March 27, 2003 Wolfowitz tells Congress that oil should pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. “The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but… We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”

March 2003 Cheney dismissed Tim Russert he asked whether the American people be "prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
Cheney: "I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."

09-14-03Cheney: "To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."

Oh, you're upset that they said it would be $200B for Iraq and now it's somewhere around $500B (I'm just guessing at the Iraq/Afghanistan split though, since both are combined in the bills). Or were they talking about the initial invasion? Because $50-60B is probably just about right on that. And looking at the Cheney quote from March 2003 it's pretty clear that he's discussing the initial invasion - where it was pretty quick, not very costly, and we were greeted as liberators (though none of that did last).

And what does the last Cheney quote have to do with anything? "Several hundred thousand troops" is significantly more than what we have in country right now, so yes, he is right, we don't need that much even now. That doesn't help your argument at all.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

"Oh, you're upset that they said it would be $200B for Iraq and now it's somewhere around $500B (I'm just guessing at the Iraq/Afghanistan split though, since both are combined in the bills)."

$500 billion? The Congressional Budget Office estimates $2.4 trillion over the next decade for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Don't trust them? How about a nobel prize winning economist? He says $2 Trillion http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html

But I'm sure those are just "libruls" who don't know about the real cost like Darin H does.

looking at the Cheney quote from March 2003 it's pretty clear that he's discussing the initial invasion - where it was pretty quick, not very costly, and we were greeted as liberators (though none of that did last).

You're right, because, you know, the occupation part was hardly worth mentioning. Or planning for. Not part of the equation at all.

$500 billion? The Congressional Budget Office estimates $2.4 trillion over the next decade for Afghanistan and Iraq.

So are you complaining about the cost of Afghanistan now? I thought this was about Iraq??

You're right, because, you know, the occupation part was hardly worth mentioning. Or planning for. Not part of the equation at all.

You asserted something that was incorrect, I corrected you, now you're just moving the goalposts.

I think we've jacked this thread enough as it is....

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

No, I'm not complaining about Afghanistan. Let's say for the sake of argument that the two wars are evenly split. That's an estimated $1.2 trillion for a war they said would be $200 billion at the high end. That's quite an underestimation don't you think?

As for the Cheney quote, I did not make an incorrect assertion. Let me go over it again. In response to this:

March 2003 Cheney dismissed Tim Russert when he asked whether the American people would be "prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
Cheney: "I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."

you wrote this:

And looking at the Cheney quote from March 2003 it's pretty clear that he's discussing the initial invasion - where it was pretty quick, not very costly, and we were greeted as liberators (though none of that did last).

OK, I'll grant you that he might have been discussing the initial invasion, but he wasn't answering the question about a "a long, costly and bloody battle"

That's my point, and it's why the "selling" of the war bothered me so much. Saying that their rosy projections were right if you only look at the first two weeks doesn't answer the criticism that they were wrong about so much that happened after that. And it's not just that they were wrong on a few points of post invasion Iraq, they were wrong to the point that their expectations weren’t even realistic.

Eh by Darin H

Were they talking about the initial invasion costing $200B? Or the entire war costing that? Seems like a big distinction to me.

As for the other, let me highlight a different part and see if it changes the meaning to you (so you can see where I'm getting it from); "a long, costly and bloody battle". For me, the operative word is "battle," meaning he was asking about the initial invasion.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

01-02-03: White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels disputed an estimate by Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey -- who has since left the White House -- that war with Iraq could cost $200 billion. Daniels said he believes Lindsey's estimate was "the upper end of a hypothetical,"

We're still at war right? I'm sure the soldiers getting shot at think we are.

As for your interpretation of "battle", that's one way to read it, but I don't think it's the common sense reading. Consider this Dick Cheney quote from 1991:

The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we'd have to do once we got there. You'd probably have to put some new government in place. It's not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you'd have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.

I realize that's an old quote, and 9/11 changed things, but the basic truths of urban warfare and occupation didn't go out the window. Really, are those the words of man that thinks the "battle" will end when we roll into Baghdad? Maybe his opinion changed, maybe all of his misgiving went away, but I doubt it.

The actual war phase was, what, 4 weeks? So no, I don't agree that we're still at war with the government of Iraq. We are doing counter insurgency and counter terrorism along side the Iraq troops & police. This is why I asked if he was talking about the initial invasion since I can read it this way: that war with Iraq could cost $200 billion. We're no longer at war with Iraq, we defeated the Saddam government. And while the bullets are still flying, a co-in is different.

From your second quote, that is a different statement than what was asked the first time.

And yes, times change. Not only 9/11 happened, but our military and technology changed, so in 1991 it wasn't worth the risk, post 9/11 we weren't going to take the chance. Also other things happened in between - specifically the uprising against Saddam that we didn't support after we said we would probably gave our intelligence agencies the thought that they would support the removal of Saddam (which they did) but after than it it was Al Qaida's meddling that prompted the insurgency. It looked like in 2005 that we were on our way to a peaceful & free Iraq, I remember all those purple fingers. Then Al Qaida bombed the Golden Mosque and all heck broke loose, not really something anyone could have predicted 2 years earlier.

Anyways, it's been fun, but I'm off to cook dinner.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Your failure to do same was the tipping point. So - after you zip your fly - you can get started on a 500 word essay on the semantic difference between being incorrect and being mendacious. Send it in and we'll think about turning your account back on.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

the Center for Public Integrity gets a good chunk of its funding from George Soros and assorted "progressive" leaning foundations (link). That's pretty much all you have to know about those groups.

1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani

It’s amazing to me that the same media that carries this “story” doesn’t blink about thier own consistent misrepresentation of the WMD’s as being the *only* motivation for the invasion.

Just out of curiosity, did this study also look into how the administration “lied” about the other reasons for going to war, like:

  • Saddam had, for 12 years, reneged on the agreement tht ended the *first* Gulf war; it was NEVER our responsibility to prove that he didn't have WMD, it was HIS responsibility to present proof that he'd destroyed them (proof that has yet to surface, BTW).
  • He had used the sanctions as a pretext to brutalize his people and blame us
  • He was in the process of bribing his way out of the sanctions, which would have meant that no future US administration could ever expect an enemy to honor a peace agreement that they had signed.
  • He was paying people to perform kamikaze bombings in Israel
  • He was a serial aggressor who invaded two of his neighbors
  • He was a brutal dictator at the head of a savage thugocracy
  • He had tried to have a US president assassinated
  • The Clinton administration was at war with Iraq for eight years (the REAL "illegal war") and bungled the job
  • Clinton's demonstrated inability to stomach a ground war was very likely a factor in Al Queda's 9/11 planning.
  • Any one of these items would have been a good justification for doing so, the WMD was simply the one that the press fixated on.

    ___________________________
    "You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

    Perception is 9/10ths of reality. The perception is now so ingrained in so many Americans that there is very little chance of correcting the lies of the Democrats and the media. What these reports have done though is to deny the Dems in Congress the impeachment they so desperately want.

    I believe though that they may attempt it this year over the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes which they claim showed torture methods used with the knowledge and encouragement of President Bush.

    Just wait, they are only now back in session but it won't be long before they ratchet up the rhetoric to try to inflame the passions of their sheeple in their attempt to reclaim the WH.

    What i've yet to hear from any News source is how our "intelligence" or lack there of can be blamed for the most part on the Clinton era. If Bill didn't drop a WMD on the intelligence community maybe we would have had stronger evidence to prove or disprove our reasons for war.

    2nd so many in hollywood run to their soap boxes to say we should help what went on in Darfur, which we should help to resolve, but we need UN approval. Saddam had broken UN sanctions time and time again, that gave us a right to form a coalition and enforce these sanctions. On the other hand the UN turned away from the Darfur crisis and along with good old peanut Carter decided its not really genocide it was just a game of paintball gone horribly wrong.

    The news no longer needs reporting, people like Bath tub boy use Blogs as sources and edited media clips as proof. Theres no repercussions of false media except the meda getting their way. The pinnacle of such BS will be the new "biography" that Oliver Stone wants to put out on Bush in October. I'm sure this will be 10% truth, but it would be unbecomming of a President to sue the pants off stone for slander. So all the truth can do is sit and fester in a file somewhere till 50 years down the road a reporter picks it up and goes "Wow we were so wrong in our reporting for so long"

    I think Mr. Daniel was one of my journalism profs back in college, about 10 years ago. Oh well. I never went into the field, anyway. Didn't pay enough.
    R.J.

     
    Redstate Network Login:
    (lost password?)


    ©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service