|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: Study: Bush Led US To War on �False Pretenses� |
 |
|
| Quote: |
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 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.
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 Qaeda, or both.
�It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda,� according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, 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 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 Qaeda, 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 Qaeda.
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.
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 Nixon used to dismissively call �wallowing in Watergate.�
|
LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Study: Captain Obvious Exists, Works as Researcher at Redundancy Thinktank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was living in the USA during the run up to the war. It seems to me the attitude was like "we know Bush is fulla crap but we want that cool Gulf War tv show back on CNN."
I remember the night the war started a coworker announced he was going home to watch it and order pizza. It was like the super bowl.
I can't help but feel the majority of the American public was rather complicit. A bit like the Germans during WWII. "Oh well, we were all terribly deceived by Hitler. We never knew." But turns out the average German had a great idea about what was going on with the Jews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| I can't help but feel the majority of the American public was rather complicit. |
Agreed. Many were beating that drum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The real reason for the war.
| Quote: |
S Arabia 'real reason' for Iraq war
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9177354%255E1702,00.html
03apr04
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."
He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.
Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.
He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.
But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.
"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.
"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."
Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.
"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.
"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.
"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.
"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
and at any rate the war was morally justified not only cause Saddam never gave up his war , but also cause Saddam had he not been contained would have killed many more than people than the Iraq war and the US could not contain Saddam forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and at any rate the war was morally justified not only cause Saddam never gave up his war , |
Preemptive war is never morally justified.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| but also cause Saddam had he not been contained would have killed many more than people than the Iraq war and the US could not contain Saddam forever. |
You have no way to know that.
I think the pathetic thing about this is that Bush and Co. are doing it all over again now with Iran, and people seem AGAIN to be going along with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Where's that impeachment thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="bacasper"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and at any rate the war was morally justified not only cause Saddam never gave up his war , |
Preemptive war is never morally justified.
Saddam never gave up his war
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| but also cause Saddam had he not been contained would have killed many more than people than the Iraq war and the US could not contain Saddam forever. |
| Quote: |
You have no way to know that. |
You mean the US could keep tens of thousand in Saddam's face when half of the UN wanted him to go free and drop the sanctions.
It is pretty clear from Saddam's track record.
If you are stupid enough to trust Saddam Hussein to make nice don't expect others to be so stupid to trust you,
| Quote: |
I think the pathetic thing about this is that Bush and Co. are doing it all over again now with Iran, and people seem AGAIN to be going along with it. |
Well If Iran just gave up their war then there would be no problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Where's that impeachment thread? |
I don't know why don't you complain to your congressman?
Oh I forgot you are not from the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| don't worry. he'll pardon himself and his boys and they'll all die rich. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
| bacasper wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and at any rate the war was morally justified not only cause Saddam never gave up his war , |
Preemptive war is never morally justified.
Saddam never gave up his war
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| but also cause Saddam had he not been contained would have killed many more than people than the Iraq war and the US could not contain Saddam forever. |
| Quote: |
You have no way to know that. |
You mean the US could keep tens of thousand in Saddam's face when half of the UN wanted him to go free and drop the sanctions.
It is pretty clear from Saddam's track record.
If you are stupid enough to trust Saddam Hussein to make nice don't expect others to be so stupid to trust you,
| Quote: |
I think the pathetic thing about this is that Bush and Co. are doing it all over again now with Iran, and people seem AGAIN to be going along with it. |
Well If Iran just gave up their war then there would be no problem. |
Imaginary wars in the minds of delusional people are also not morally justifiable reasons for preemptive war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is not delusional if you look at Saddam's track record. In fact it is delusional if you think that Saddam would be nice.
Then again you are a 9-11 conspiracy theorist... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
It is not delusional if you look at Saddam's track record. In fact it is delusional if you think that Saddam would be nice.
Then again you are a 9-11 conspiracy theorist... |
And you are a labeler.
You disappoint me, Joo. You forgot my thread "9/11 was no conspiracy?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right you think that 9-11 was an inside job and that was business as usual.
Okay.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Then again you are a 9-11 conspiracy theorist ... |
IRONY ALERT !!!
The 9/11 conspiracy theory you constantly pimp out on your keyboard is far more "delusional" than the ones you don't care to subscribe to
Mind you this is political "correctness" for you  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
