Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Despite 935 Documented Lies, Rove Book Insists Iraq War Was Justified
Source:
RAW STORY
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/2010/03/935-doc ... ok-insists-iraq-war-justified/
Published: Mar 3, 2010
Author: RAW STORY
Post Date: 2010-03-03 15:40:25 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 7810
Comments: 30
Blames Democrats for Katrina aftermath Republican strategist Karl Rove says in a new memoir that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq badly damaged the Bush administration's credibility and led to dwindling public support for the war. The former White House political adviser blames himself for not pushing back against claims that President George W. Bush had taken the country to war under false pretenses, calling it one of the worst mistakes he made during the Bush presidency. The president, he adds, did not knowingly mislead the American public about the existence of such weapons. In "Courage and Consequence," Rove argues that history will look favorably on Bush's two-term presidency, particularly his decision to invade Iraq. He calls the 2003 invasion the most consequential act of the Bush presidency and a justifiable response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, even though al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, not Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, were responsible. In the run-up to the war, Bush and his national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney, attempted to link Saddam to the attacks as a way to build support for the invasion. Story continues below... "Having seen how much carnage four airplanes could cause, Bush was determined to do all he could to prevent the most powerful weapons from falling into the hands of the world's most dangerous dictators," Rove wrote. Rove depicts Bush as a courageous and resolute leader whose conduct in office was forever shaped by the Sept. 11 attacks. He calls Bush's achievements over two terms "impressive, durable and significant" and says many of the controversies that weakened his presidency were falsehoods perpetuated by political opponents. Rove staunchly defends Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated states along the Gulf of Mexico in September 2005. Bush came under withering criticism for the federal government's response to the crisis; his memorable praise for FEMA administrator Michael Brown — "Heck of a job, Brownie" — was fodder for those who said it revealed the administration's detachment and incompetence. In the book, Rove blames state and local officials for botching recovery efforts, particularly Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, both Democrats. He also has sharp words for President Barack Obama, calling him a stereotypical Chicago politician who plays fast and loose with the facts. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the book in advance of its March 9 release. In 2008, the AP reported that 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 -- posted on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism -- 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S, padlock (#0)
A hurricane was the dems fault? Oh lord...
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
Even Rove can't help Boy Blunder's legacy now...
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
A punishment from God, I think, because they're evil. Only through the efforts of the Good Bush were the people saved from even worse things happening. You did a heckofajob, Bushie.
One of the things I've learned about Star Trek, They are way ahead of their time and none of the scientific concepts they use is bogus. They base it all on REAL science. - Goldi-lox 3/01/10
In The Five Stages of Political Death, Boy Blunder apologists cannot seem to get past "Denial"...especially Padlock...
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/01/how_to_lie_abou.html How to Lie About Lying This one is simply befuddling: 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." Now, would any disinterested party read the above -- and not think the study authors were accusing President Bush and his administration of deliberately lying us into war? Surely this subtextual implication must have crept in because of bad writing; I can't imagine that the elite media would be so intentionally partisan. Here are the specific charges: 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." One notes that "Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members" -- isn't that a lovely grammatical construct? -- do not deny that Iraq was "trying to... obtain" WMD, even though they appear to include such claims under the category of "false statements." Nor do they deny the administration's claim that Iraq had "links" with al-Qaeda. They merely dispute the meaningfulness of those links... and dub that another "false statement" by the president and his administration. Here is that section from the report itself, from their database of "false statements;" it's a perfect primer on the anatomy of a falsehood: In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear." This one is instructive to deconstruct: 1. What they say: "In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: 'Sure.'" What they mean: Rumsfeld asserts that relationships exist between Iraq and al-Qaeda. 2. What they say: "[A]n assessment... found an absence of 'compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.'" What they mean: The later assessment found that there were relationships, but they did not rise to the level of military alliances. 3. What they say: "[A]n earlier DIA assessment said that 'the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.'" What they mean: Before we found out the nature of the relationships, we did not know the nature of the relationships. If you can find that Rumsfeld's statement (1) -- which evidently consisted of the single word "Sure" -- is falsified by either (2) of (3), please take to the comments and explain it to the rest of us... because to me, laboring under the disadvantage of having been intensely trained only in the lesser rhetorical art of mathematical logic, they appear to be able to exist in the same 'hood without bothering each other. Here is another "false statement" (we are meant to understand "obvious lie") that the Center discovered, after digging deeply into the substrata of hidden rhetorical diplospeak. I must admit, this one was a marvel of original research that all by itself may justify the report -- if only to bring this one hidden, obscure falsehood to the light of day: On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax." This is such an out of the blue, never before seen accusation that I haven't had time to formulate a response. He has me there! Thus the massive database of dishonesty and mountain of mendacity they unearthed, dutifully reported by the Associated Press... with but a single effort to elicit a general response from the administration -- and no attempt whatsoever to delve into these alleged "false statements" to see whether there is even a contradiction between what the administration said and what the Center for Pubic Integrity said. Yet there is also this unanswered (unasked) question that seems somewhat pertinent, at least to me: How many of these "false statements" were, in fact, believed true by virtually everybody, Republican and Democrat alike, when they were made? How many were parroted by Democrats, including those on the House and Senate Permanent Select Intelligence Committees, who thereby had access to the same intelligence as la Casablanca? The Center doesn't tell, and the incurious media elites don't ask. This is as close as they come in their executive summary: Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies. On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials [Eric Shinseki? Weasely Clark? Bill Clinton?], have publicly -- and in some cases vociferously ["rabidly" would be the better word choice] -- accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. A growing number of critics! Well, who could argue with that? Here are a couple of inconvenient truths the AP story neglects to tell us: * "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations..." The Fund for Independence in Journalism says its "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." Eight of the eleven members of the Fund's board of directors are either on the BoD of the Center for Public Integrity, or else are on the Center's Advisory Board. Thus these "two" organizations are actually joined at the hip. * "Fund for Independence in Journalism..." The Center is heavily funded by George Soros. It has also received funding from Bill Moyers, though some of that money might have actually been from Soros, laundered through Moyers via the Open Society Foundation. Other funders include the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts (used to be conservative, but in 1987 they veered sharply to the left, and are now a dyed-in-the-wool "progressive" funder), the Los Angeles Times Foundation, and so forth. The Center is a far-left organization funded by far-left millionaires, billionaires, and trusts. Even the New York Times, in their "me too" article on the data dump, admits that there is nothing new in this release... just a jumble of statements, some of which later turned out to have been erroneous, others which just constitute heresy within the liberal catechism: 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.” By "wallowing," the Times means those in the terminal stage of BDS can search for phrases like "mushroom cloud" or "yellowcake" and be rewarded by screens and screens of shrill denunciation of the Bush administration... just as Watergate junkies used to do (without the benefit of computers) in the early 1970s. (Mediocre science-fiction author and liberal "paleotruther" Isaac Asimov called this, evidently without realizing the irony, "getting my Watergate fix.") The Nixon reference appears to have been suggested by the report itself; the executive summary ends: Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it? I'm certain it's sheer coincidence that this nonsense was spewed across the news sockets during the peak of the election primary season... and right before the primary in Florida, of all states. Had anyone at AP or the Times realized how this might affect the election, I know their independent journalistic integrity would have suggested they hold this non-time-constrained story until afterwards. Say, they could even have used the time to consider whether "Iraq and al-Qaeda had a relationship" and "the relationship didn't amount to direct cooperation" contradict each other. A less charitable person than I might imagine this "database" was nothing but a mechanical tool to allow good liberals easier access to a tasty "two-minutes hate." But realizing that the elite media has only our best interests at heart, my only possible conclusion is that, despite the multiple layers of editorial input that must occur at these venues, several important facts just slipped through the cracks: * The fact that the Center for Public Integrity is a Left-funded, leftist, activist organization with a serious hatchet to grind with the Bush administration; * The fact that the Fund for Independence in Journalism is neither independent, nor is it engaged in journalism (it's a front group of mostly the same people whose purpose is to shield the Center from lawsuits); * And the fact that the vast majority of the supposed "false statements" are in fact simply positions with which liberals disagree, or else statements widely accepted at the time that later investigation (after deposing Saddam Hussein) showed to be inaccurate.
You did a heckofajob, Bushie. You might stop too realize that the Hurricane actually hit MS, not New Orleans, and that State with a Republican Administration wasn't whining like a bunch spoiled demanding children about what the Federal government should be doing for them.
You might want to conider that as bullshit. It made initial landfall on LA noved up to NOLA and to just inside the western border of MS both...
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
It skimmed a very small, virtually unpopulated area of the Louisiana delta (no where near New orleans) before moving into MS. It never directly hit NO -- NO never had the impact MS did, and the storm surge east of the hurricane was higher than that in LA. Just more of your pointless anti-Bush bullshit.
You're arguing with the 2 maps, puddin'.
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
The eye was 25 miles east of NO, the area it passed over was virtually unpopulated, and the big storm surge was to the east, not over LA. That's your map.
You're arguing with the map...to quote Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot...I'm done...
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
Just more of your pointless anti-Bush bullshit. Agreed. Facts are to liberals like Kryptonite is to Superman.
Goldi-Lox: You're one dumb-fucking bitch.
You're arguing with the maps too? Geezus...thought you had more sense than that...
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
Nobody is arguing with the map, tool. It's a matter of relevancy. The hurricane hit MS.
Then why was the French Quarter spared?
Where I live is 30 miles closer to the epicenter of the Loma Prieta earthquake than San Francisco. As a result of the earthquake a cupboard door swung open in my kitchen, a bottle of soy sauce fell over on its side, and a puddle of soy sauce was on the floor. That's it. The fact that I didn't whine following the earthquake has nothing to do with politics, stoicism, intelligence, or independence, it has to do with the fact that the land upon which my house sits is pretty stable (by California standards), and my house is single story wood frame construction. The point is that the same natural event doesn't impact all areas in the same way regardless of distance from the center of the activity. Most of the damage to New Orleans was caused by flooding due to 50 breaches in the levees as a result of the storm surge. And yes, the federal government should have been there doing something for the people trapped by the flood because if a government can't get it together to take care of its own in a disaster, it has no legitimate reason to govern. If it was an attack like 911 we would care about the victims and accept that the government has a duty to protect us, why not after a hurricane? There is no enemy to fight, but there are still citizens who's lives need to be saved.
But missed NO:A. I got it. Thanks. fucking moron
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
Dude...she's doing it...
Day 10 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 8 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
God loves everything French.
One of the things I've learned about Star Trek, They are way ahead of their time and none of the scientific concepts they use is bogus. They base it all on REAL science. - Goldi-lox 3/01/10
Shhh, don't tell.
I got it. Thanks. Yes it did. It passed 25 miles to the East, and the storm surge was to the east of that. In fact, on the day of the hurricane the reports from NO were that they had luckily any major affects. fucking moron I know you are.
Riiiight...all the damage to NOLA was niggers rioting and looting. Thread is now on ignore puddin'.
Day 11 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 9 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount? Jan 30, 2006 ... by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot...
The problem was the breach of the unexpected breach of the levee wall which allowed the low lying areas to flood trapping the dumbasses too stupid to realize that you need to evacuate an are below sea level when a hurricane is in the vicinity. There was relatively little actual wind storm/surge damage in New Orleans
Only if you don't include the damage to the levee.
It's speculated the breech of the levee was caused by it being hit by a runaway barge. The worry of the overtopping of the levee by the storm surge never happened.
Overtopping did occur, and there were 50 breaches in the levees with a total of 169 miles of the system damaged. It wasn't all the run away barge. Of the [457 km] 284 miles of federal levees and floodwalls-there are approximately [563 km] 350 miles in total-[272 km] 169 miles were damaged" (ASCE Review Panel 2007, p. 25). Failures of the system began even before Hurricane Katrina made landfall, with overtopping of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet levees and flooding of parts of St. Bernard Parish. Shortly after landfall, at 6:30 a.m., levees on the south side of the New Orleans East neighborhood were also overtopped and breached. Shortly thereafter, waves reached 1.2 m (4 ft) in the Industrial Canal, causing more overtopping and flooding. Four I-walls also breached, between about 5:00 and 8:00 a.m., even before the water rose high enough to overtop them (ASCE Review Panel 2007, pp. 25-27).
You've never begun, wart. Naqin and Blanco are mental midgets, just like you.
Sneakypete, have you ever been married? Said things you later regretted?
It was the failure of the 17th street canal levee that caused caused the problems in NO, and there was no overtopping.
Late Morning (exact time uncertain) - The vital 17th Street Canal levee gives way, sending the water from Lake Pontchartrain into the city in a second, slower wave of flooding than inundates the downtown area. A full day will pass before state or federal officials fully realize what is happening. —John McQuaid, " Katrina trapped city in double disasters," New Orleans Times-Picayune, 7 Sept 2005. The NSF report says "these three levee failures were likely caused by failures in the foundation soils underlying the levees." But is also says the failures could easily have been prevented: "The performance of many of the levees and floodwalls could have been significantly improved, and some of the failures likely prevented, with relatively inexpensive modifications of the levee and floodwall system details." The report's lead author will say these failures are probably due to human error, and possibly to outright malfeasance. Raymond Seed of the University of California Berkeley will tell reporters, "It may not have been the result of human error. There's a high likelihood that it was. But we're receiving some very disturbing reports from people who were involved in some of these projects, and it suggests that perhaps not just human error was involved; there may have been some malfeasance. Some of the sections may not have been constructed as they were designed."
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: war (#1)
A hurricane was the dems fault?
#4. To: Skip Intro (#3)
(Edited)
#5. To: Brian S (#0)
#6. To: Skip Intro (#3)
(Edited)
A punishment from God, I think, because they're evil. Only through the efforts of the Good Bush were the people saved from even worse things happening.
#7. To: dont eat that (#6)
(Edited)
You might stop too realize that the Hurricane actually hit MS, not New Orleans
#8. To: dont eat that (#6)
#9. To: war (#7)
#10. To: dont eat that (#9)
(Edited)
#11. To: war (#10)
#12. To: dont eat that (#11)
#13. To: dont eat that (#9)
It skimmed a very small, virtually unpopulated area of the Louisiana delta (no where near New orleans) before moving into MS. It never directly hit NO -- NO never had the impact MS did, and the storm surge east of the hurricane was higher than that in LA.
#14. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#13)
#15. To: war (#14)
#16. To: Skip Intro (#3)
A punishment from God, I think, because they're evil.
#17. To: dont eat that (#6)
You might stop too realize that the Hurricane actually hit MS, not New Orleans, and that State with a Republican Administration wasn't whining like a bunch spoiled demanding children about what the Federal government should be doing for them.
#18. To: dont eat that (#15)
#19. To: lucysmom, Barycoprules (#17)
#20. To: lucysmom (#16)
Then why was the French Quarter spared?
#21. To: Skip Intro (#20)
#22. To: war (#18)
But missed NO:A.
#23. To: dont eat that (#22)
#24. To: war (#23)
all the damage to NOLA was niggers rioting and looting.
#25. To: dont eat that (#24)
There was relatively little actual wind storm/surge damage in New Orleans
#26. To: lucysmom (#25)
Only if you don't include the damage to the levee.
#27. To: dont eat that (#26)
It's speculated the breech of the levee was caused by it being hit by a runaway barge. The worry of the overtopping of the levee by the storm surge never happened.
#28. To: war, dont eat that (#12)
I'm done...
#29. To: lucysmom (#27)
#30. To: lucysmom (#27)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]