Study: Bush, Other Officials Issued Hundreds of False Statements Before Iraq Invasion

reply to post by Rasputin13


Perhaps you should look around on YouTube.There are a plethora of videos of Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld saying Saddam had WMD AND videos of them denying they ever said it.
I've seen them at least 30 times and was appalled each time.I won't go into Bush's other obvious lies.
I could fill this page with videos of their deceit.
The current administration has run America into the ground.
Someone mentioned "taking back America" or words to that effect.Read the Military Commissions Act.You too can be held as an enemy combatant and locked up in Gitmo or a FEMA camp.
Another poster asked if Bush was pushing a Bill to exclude him and his cohorts from war crimes.If I read correctly, this was passed last year, but I'm not a 100% sure.I read it on Alex Jone's site a few months ago.
He archives his pages so I'm sure anyone could easily find it.
My heart goes out to my American brethren.I pray "We the People" prevail.

reply to post by citizen truth


God Bless the Daily Show. There were so good at that. Every time Chaney or Bush tried to lie out of something, you knew it was coming. Then bang, a clip from a few months ago would pop up of them saying the exact words of what the interviewer asked.

Oh, and that bill was old. It was from last year. It did pass, and yes, Bush and his entire administration did attach a rider that stated they would have reverse immunity for any war crimes.


[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


I think you are missing my point. I am not looking at this subjectively - whether or not it is good or bad to lie 1/5 or 1/5000 times. I am not passing judgment in favor of either side of that debate. I am objectively looking at the study, the object of the news report, and seeing that they have directly lied about their methods, and conducted their study in a misleading way. That is wrong.

Look at it like this. It is not a 1v1 game as with the mother and child. This is an 8 v 300 Million game. Every 1 of those 900 odd times, the amount of people in society who believe these erroneousness statements will increase. Since America is a democracy, it is vital how many people believe the statements. However, you have to remember that this rhetoric is a minuscule percentage of total rhetoric. Does your brain remember everything you ever experienced? Do you remember the words to a song you heard once, or that song on the radio every hour? It is important what the brain experiences most frequently. I don't know any clearer way to state that the ratio (how frequently that rhetoric appears) is what is important. No one in America has experienced (through any media) all 380 000 of those words. No one has been directly lied to 900 odd times. What matters is how frequently these lies are flowing into a citizens mind, in relation to their total information intake.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by WuTang]

Originally posted by johnsky

Originally posted by Ahabstar
But to play devil's advocate suppose the history was completely different. That Bush decided to err on the side of caution and Saddam had indeed been pushing to redevelop his WMD program. The spotty intel states that he would have had bio and chemical and maybe nuclear by now.

That's a pretty blind way of looking at it.

.
.
.

That's pretty illogical man. When it comes to peoples lives, you make DAMN sure you KNOW what is going on. The last thing you do is go in with guns blazing and search for your evidence afterwards.

You should know better.

To err on the side of caution in what I asked would have meant to not have engaged Iraq despite the intel that was presented from multiple agencies and nations on the grounds that they might have been wrong.

The absolute why's of engaging Iraq go beyond possible WMD. No, we were not told the full reasons of why Iraq. And if people limit their suggestions to money and Iraqi oil then they won't debate you hard on that. Nor will they openly admit the other stronger reason because the people would not have gone for it.

I clearly see it because I studied what happened and can deduce what mostlikely would have happened had we not gone into Iraq. Most of what I can tell you is all here on ATS. One thing I won't mention because I haven't seen it here and would fall under national security protocals in times of war.

Here goes. Had we limited the WOT to just Afganistan then Saddam would have made a grab for Saudi Arabia. The Saud family only remains in power so long as they can hold Mecca and the other Islamic Holy Sites. If the Saud family losses that power which is backed by the US then we no longer have any voice in OPEC pricing and production (not that we have much of a voice now).

Saddam's Iraq had the definate military might to take every country in the region with the exception of Iran. Iran does support Al Qaida by haboring within borders. Iran also opposes Israel which the US must support. Thus no Iran-US cooperation to keep Iraq in check. Turkey did not want to be involved with the US directly but made passive agreements.

Now with Saddam taking Suadi Arabia, Kuwait, (Syria, Palenstine and Jordan--could either join them or be taken) there would be absolutely no way in the world that Israel could have been told, begged or bribed to stay out of it as was done in both the Gulf War and the current Iraq war. And to keep Iran out of it Saddam would give or take Israel for Iran.

That is just the political aspect of it. Adding in the religious factor of the factions only complicates the matter as somewhat fair divisions between the traditional family tribes and sects would have to happen to keep things from breaking down. But with Israel in the mix other countries outsid of the Middle East would become involved, thus truely WWIII.

The causality and death tolls today would be laughable compared to what that would have been. Saddam only had to keep Iran appeased or convinced that the US would come in and get Iran. Since Iran would not allow airspace to the US for the WOT it is doubtful that they would have allowed it to attack Saddam.

Other option, engage Iran. The option was there for all to see in the Axis of Evil speeches. Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Our case for hitting Iran was actually stronger than for Iraq. But the risks and time until relative control was less with Iraq. Remember the NIE reports states high confidence that the Iranian nuclear weapon program halted in fall of 2003. Iraq war started March 2003. NIE doesn't state 100% positive.

Now for the first up to six months of Iraq, Iran kept their heads down and mouths mostly quiet while they still worked on warhead development according to NIE. Now as a kid I would sometimes have to halt building a model car when I didn't have enough model glue to finish assembly.

The absolute what if is what if we did nothing and hoped that campaign in Afganistan was enough. That Al Qadia did not retreat into Iran and the mountians of Pakistan where we didn't have permission to follow. No wait, they did do that. And Saddam started talking smack when Bush started poking him with the rhetoric stick. And wasn't there that threat of Al Qadia to hit Mecca?

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things I'd love to give W a good old fashioned ass kicking about. Pounding the propaganda drum on what was the best intel at the time isn't one of them. But ultimately making the descision to enter Iraq at the right time and removing Saddam was in the best intrests of the world.

But if the Saud family had been overthrown/Mecca hit and you think we would be paying less that $5/gal for gas in the US now....well, you should know better.

reply to post by Ahabstar


You're kidding right??


What if what if hmm let me see...

If Iraq had attacked Saudi Arabia...remember our military bases were there at the time...Iraq was restricted by no fly zones...Iraq's army was seriously depleted after the first Gulf War.

Let me see ...I think the international community would have strongly disapproved of Iraq attacking Saudi Arabia...remember Kuwait???

I believe an Iraq offensive would have lasted maybe a day possibly 2 if you count the retreat.

You are either a fear monger or ....you're joking.

reply to post by WuTang


Okay, I see. So we are talking about repitition and how it would affect the American Public's opinions. Is that correct?

If so, then I do agree with your points. That is an interesting perspective. However, number ratios can't show everything. Numbers do lie. Even if politicians didn't mention Iraq in connection with WMD's and terrorists on a large scale, it is still a very scary notion. A scary enough notion that the media took the line and ran with it.

So then I suppose it comes more to whether you want to place blame on the media or the administration. Of course, then you run into the problem that the media didn't have the same facts the Bush had. However, it's the media's job to find those facts, and they have failed on that job lately.

The debate could go on and on. Which is why I don't care. I know that Bush and his administration knew that Saddam was not an immediate threat. I know that Bush was never concerned with Usama. He has said so even recently that he cares nothing about capturing Usama.

They lied, they lied a lot, and the lied in such a way that it caused a storm in the media and panic to the public. That's all I cared about. This study didn't impress me. I provided me with facts I already knew.

reply to post by Ahabstar


If true, that's absolutely unacceptable. If Iraq had intentions of invading Saudi Arabia then we should have waited for that to happen. There is no way the US could afford to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally. I believe the world would agree.

Instead of lieing to the American public, and the world. we could have had a real coalition of the willing. Money holds a lot of sway in the world and I have no doubt that the world would have sent even more forces to help.

Most importantly, this would have been a war by the definition. We would have had just cause and we would have been helped by fighting in Saudia Arabia. We would have been fighting on our turf, not theirs.

It would have taken al Qaeda's eyes off of American and put those eyes onto Iraq. Keep in mind, most of the al Qaeda operatives involved in 9/11 were Saudi. As is the bin Laden family.

Please, give me the "ultimate top secret classified reason". I hope it's a lot better than that.

edited to add:

Oh and did I mention we would have been just fighting an army and not occupying? It would have been a massacre. No way would Iraq even consider it.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Mindless

 

no offense mindless, but people can star posts for whatever reason they want, much like moderators can applaud anyone they want for any reason. It would be pretty fruitless trying to figure out why they are doing it, because the reasons are going to vary quite widely.

You'd be better served to concentrate on the subject at hand, and try to add something meaningful, just imho. And yeah, at this point I think we have like 3 threads on this same topic, referencing the same studies, all in the same forum. The mods will take care of it eventually.

edit:grammar

[edit on 23-1-2008 by TrueAmerican]

You know, that's what the astronomers told Harrison when he was perfecting the marine chronometer. They told him he was wasting his time, and felt that the science of astronomy had ben offended by the very thought of a "mechanical" method of determining longitude.

Telling anyone that they are wasting their time discourages wonderful methods and sciences from being created; Latent Semantic Indexing, for example.

And of all places! On Above Top Secret, a forum for the open minded discussion of admittedly fringe subjects. Let the poster conduct their experiment and refrain from discouraging them with demeaning statements such as those quoted above.

Well Duh, ever since 2002 when bush made his state of the union speech where he villified saddam and stated that saddam had weapons of mass destruction, stated that iraq bought "yellow cake" from that african country niger and that iraq had ties to al queda, I knew these were all lies. So basically this article is about 5 years too late because it could have prevented this unnecessary war and occupation of iraq had these so called journalists done their job and exposed these lies. With that said, let's start jailing these criminals.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by rolotommasi]

Yeah you are right I must be joking. I mean a small determed force couldn't acomplish much of anything. 1979 63 beheaded after the two week capture, all except Mahrous bin Laden, Osama's older half-brother, because of the bin Laden's ties to the Saud royal family.


I mean what are the odds that one lone man could hold the Washington Monument hostage for 10 hours in the Regan era 1982? Norman Mayer

Not to mention 19 hijackers in 2001, if you are so inclined.

I could go on for days of small groups can do, but that would lead to the conclusion of fear monger, sociopath or historian.

The point of it was that Saddam didn't have to win, he only had to engage and push Israel into action to make the whole Middle East flashover. With US UK and Israel to take the heat. Kicking an anthill. The hit in Saudi Arabia would have been a feint, and more than likely not a uniformed military operation.

And while Osama was by birth a Saudi he was quite opposed to the US (and all western influences) in Saudi during the Gulf War and afterwards.

And the whole Iraq War after the regime change has been that of a security force, not an occupying force. There is a world of difference.



[edit on 23-1-2008 by Ahabstar]

reply to post by Ahabstar


I'm no sucker. One man can hold the Washington Monument for 10 hours because they allow him to. Because they were worried about loss of life and also did not want to shoot this man in the face. They tried to negotiate.

If Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia this would not be the case and holds absolutely no relevence. They would be slaughtered. Saudia Arabia is our turf. There would be no hiding in houses, or caves, or tunnels. It would be standing armies... and I believe you saw what happened to Iraq's standing army. Most of them fled and didn't even fight.

I digress. Iraq would have known better. If they attacked they would have been odds with the world. We may not have had everyone in our pocket, but I garuntee support from everyone. After that, Iraq would be sanctioned by the UN. Possibly peace keepers would be sent in. Possibly Saddam would have been removed from power.

As far as Osama. Well lets discuss his problems with us, then we will compare and see what he may think about Iraq invading Saudi Arabia.

Here are the listed, but shortened by me, reasons that Usama has waged a jihad against the US (Information pulled from the well written and insightful book "Imperial Hubris") Source:

• America has declared the Muslim's jihad a criminal act and has jailed without trial. Muslim's not obeying this jihad means disobeying their religions law.
  
• We have forced Muslims regimes to limit charitable donations to organizations that server their "poor, refugge, or embattled brethren". Again, fundamentally forcing them to break their God's law.
  
• We have forced Muslim regimes to change their curicula to more modern - or western - teachings. Again, against their religion.
  
• Our policies supports oppression and/or aggression against Muslims across the world. These places range from Kashmir, Mindanao, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Arabian Peninsula, and Palestine.
  
• We support corrupt "apostate Islamic governments" in Kawait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Not ruled by God's law.
  
• We impose sanctions on Muslims. This includes: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Iran, and Indonesia. Not only do we sanction them, but then we aide their enemies in India and Israel.
  
• And the obvious - US governments want control fo the oil
  
• Now onto occupation - and this is important - we created a Christian State in East Timor. It was taken from Indonesia, the most populous Muslim state.
  
• We occupy these: Iraq, Afghanistan, states of the Arabian Peninsula - the Prophet Mohammed's birthplace.
  
• Obviously our backing of Israel's occupation of Palestine.
  

These are the major offenses the US has committed towards Islam. Clearly, Usama is against the occupation of Muslim states and I don't think he would appreciate Saddam attempting to occupy his homeland.

Usama is actually very angry with Saudia Arabia right now, and would probably like to see it topple, but not from the likes of Saddam. I think, for a short period, you may have seen US and mujahideen forces fighting side by side.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

Let's try not to play the revisionist history game Let's put away the crystal ball. And no more with the "b-b-but Clinton said."

It wouldn't matter if Bush was Green Party, it doesn't change the facts. The fact is that HE is responsible for a preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq that has resulted in the loss of 4,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians.

I know it's hard to accept that you have been deceived. I know it's hard to admit that you are wrong. I know the media machine is tough to ignore. But please take the R or D off of your sleeve and stand up for what's right. When did we stop demanding accountability from our leaders? Where will we draw the line? How many more have to die?

Originally posted by Ahabstar
63 beheaded after the two week capture, all except Mahrous bin Laden, Osama's older half-brother, because of the bin Laden's ties to the Saud royal family.

I mean what are the odds that one lone man could hold the Washington Monument hostage for 10 hours in the Regan era 1982? Norman Mayer

Not to mention 19 hijackers in 2001, if you are so inclined.

None of that has anything to do with our situation in Iraq. America has paid itself into trillions of dollars in debt and the death of thousands of soldiers: and not a single bit of it is relevant to the meager and unrelated examples you could come up with it.

This war is not about Terror and every free thinking citizen can realize that.

P.S. Saddam Hussein was put in power by American interference. Al Qeida is a CIA invention and Osama is a known operative.

I could go on.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by NewWorldOver]

Bush lied, people died.
Withdraw all troops worldwide.
Take our ball and go home.

The US is more than able to sustain itself without any assistance from the world. Alternatives to the Mid East oil can be implimented in very short order. Until then our own oil can sustain us just fine.

Think it would make the world play nice or would the world see it as us lifting our collective fingers in a giant F you?

reply to post by Ahabstar


The US would do just fine unless they needed clothing, electrical goods, small cars and some foodstuffs - you know, luxury items

Perhaps some US citizens underestimate the scale of the global market and how dependant the US is on foreign imports - like nearly everyone else.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
The US is more than able to sustain itself without any assistance from the world. Alternatives to the Mid East oil can be implimented in very short order. Until then our own oil can sustain us just fine.

Do you think the only thing we rely on the rest of the world for is oil imports? A quick look at the economy over the last 4 months should remind you that we can't survive without capital investment from foreign countries. If China, Japan and Saudi Arabia pulled out of their US investments and sold off their US Dollar reserves, most of us would be standing in a soup line within a few weeks. We have a ballooning trade deficit, record mortgage and credit card defaults, growing unemployment, rising inflation, falling stock market and falling dollar. All of which can be directly linked to this government's runaway spending on a war that was started on false pretenses.

The rest of your claims about Saddam's big threat and plans to launch attacks all over the middle east are just ridiculous, his country was divided up and shut down so tight he couldn't launch a plane or even turn on a radar station without getting the crap bombed out of it.

Moving onto Iran, you claim they're harboring Al-Queda. The strict secular Shiite Iran, is harboring the extremist Sunni Wahabist Al-Queda...? Any Proof? Silly me, you don't need proof just make the claim about 935 times and launch the nukes. We can worry about the proof later.

Pakistan on the other hand IS harboring Al-Queda, and your favorite government is paying them $10 Billion a year for the service. Maybe you should take a closer look at the words being spoken versus the actions being taken.

Some of us were never fooled by this administration. Bushes whole manner and the way the media was all but coranating him as the next president before the first primary was even held prompted me to vote in the Virginia Republican primary for John McCain, if only to register my protest, even though I would have never voted for McCain in the general election.

I have talked to a lot of people about the depradations of this administration and its corruption over the past few years and almost to a person, they didn't want to hear it or to know it. Fortunately that attitude has begun to change. And it wasn't even as if i was digging deep to find the stuff on them... it was in print and on TV all along, usually as sidebar articles on the back pages or an aside to the evening news... but even so the information was there for those who wanted to know. Hell Molly Ivins tried to warn us in both "Shrub" and "Bushwhacked" based on what she had observed of him as governor of Texas.

The only reasons this criminal presidency has gotten away with as much as it has are twofold... the given, 9/11 and six years of an enabling Republican controlled congress who forfited its obligations outlined in the constituition to serve as an oversight to the executive branch. If they had done their jobs like they were supposed to (and the Democrats are guilty of this as well) much of the damage he has inflicted on this country could have been avoided.

THIS is what happens when one party (and it doesn't matter which one) pushes for total and permanant domination of the government.

Hey you Republicans and conservatives out there... in case you were sleeping in civics class... its called a one party state when that happens and it is the antithesis of democracy... in short it was nothing less than an attempted coup against the constituition and the nation that you guys make such a big deal over about your so called patriotism.

BULLHOOEY!!! they all should be tried for treason.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by grover]

Did I hear correctly that this was another George Soros funded study, to further his agenda toward weakening the U.S. and shifting power to China?

"I'm looking for a significant shift of power and influence away from the US in particular and a shift in favour of the developing world, particularly China."

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by makeitso


Oh yeah, that's it. It's just a left wing plot.

Sarcasm is a wonderful tool.

But seriously, was this study funded by Soros, or not?

reply to post by makeitso


If it was funded by Soros I'm sure you'll have the evidence, but so far you're the only one saying it. That would change the facts how though?