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

There is no doubt eh? Uh huh. When staff themselves are saying "where does he get this stuff?"

Once again i am not concerned with the ethics of false rhetoric, I am concerned with this study severely exaggerating its frequency.

Why is it unreasonable, for the purposes of the report to include supporting evidence of what they are researching? Especially, specific supporting evidence such as the staff comment?

As a nice piece of posturing in their overview (what is really the introduction), sure staff comments fit nicely. but it has nothing to do with analyzing the rhetoric of those 8 people. I want to see this data, but the Study seems to be designed in order to hide this information from me. I never mentioned these comments, and never called them unreasonable, so I don't really understand why you are trying to fight me on yet another barely relevant issue?

Continue to fool yourself, or go collect your undeserving check WuTang, because you aren't fooling me. It just takes one, Wutang. Just one. If an administration is clearly going to twist evidence to fit their policy, instead of twisting their policy to fit the evidence, they do not deserve the trust of the American people.

First of all, I find extremely offense your insinuation I am any less deserving of anything because I questioned the CPIs study. I don't agree with you, I don't deserve to be paid? That Sir, is ignorance. I am not trying to fool anyone, I leave that to the CPI. You speak of the relationship of policy and evidence. Well I speak of the relationship of evidence and results.

When you change your evidence to fit your results, that is called BUNK SCIENCE!

And Leo! I would liek reply to your two comments (which i will lump together )

Rome is burning and some folks want to check sources

If you don't know whats going on by now... you don't want to know... or don't care.
------------------
Remember the Iraq Iran war. Remember the photos of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam??

I am not checking sources, rather I am uncovering biased methods of research. Is Rome really falling, or have a few acorns fell from the trees? (someone has got get that one )

As for Rummy and Saddam, although highly irrelevant, they worked together (along with Kuwait and most of the ME) to reduce Iran's influence, as the new regime there threatened to a spread a radical form of Islam throughout the ME that quite frankly scared everyone.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Study: Bush, Other Officials Issued Hundreds of False Statements Before Iraq Invasion

Ah yes ... a liberal-leaning and funded mainstream media source that supports lefty causes found fault with a conservative Republican president.

ooOOOoooh. Stop the presses!

While I'm sure liberals buy this stuff hook, line and sinker I find that the source from which this tidbit oozed to be so questionable that it's amazing that anyone of sound mind would believe it.

Maybe if it was a truly neutral source. Maybe if it fiscally pure. Maybe if it didn't support MoveOn causes almost exclusively ... then maybe there'd be a chance that I wouldn't wonder about the underlying motive.

However, knowing the organization, I question the validity of everything they write...Even the date of the article is suspect in my book.

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by budski
I saw this and went to post it but was beaten to the punch

For those who cry "left wing nutjobs" I saw it on another site, and not raw story, although I also came across it there whilst trying to verify.

Raw Story?

It's an AP story that's based on a 'study' by the Center for Public Integrity, who are clearly not a non-biased resource.

The media has become less media and more rumour and innuendo.

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by WuTang
Since America is a democracy

Republic.

America is a republic, not a democracy.

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
If we have to speak in analogies, here's mine.

In 2002 George Bush's administration claimed 935 times that Iraq was a threat to the United States.
Cost to the Nation: 3500+ Combat Deaths, 800+ Billion Dollars, 55,000+ Iraqi Deaths, 1,000,000+ Iraqi refugees, The Middle East in Turmoil.

American civilians killed by Saddam Hussein on American soil, 0.

Iraqis tortured or killed by Saddam Hussein or his lovely children since American invasion, 0.

Terror attacks on American soil, 0.

America wins. Thank you President Bush! You've made the world a better place!

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by mmmeat

Originally posted by budski
I saw this and went to post it but was beaten to the punch

For those who cry "left wing nutjobs" I saw it on another site, and not raw story, although I also came across it there whilst trying to verify.

Raw Story?

It's an AP story that's based on a 'study' by the Center for Public Integrity, who are clearly not a non-biased resource.

The media has become less media and more rumour and innuendo.

Your pal,
Meat.

Thanks for the input, meat, I'll be sure to look you up when I need an answer to something.

reply to post by WuTang


Well you keep checking Wu. You may find bias

I would say you seem to be in the "don't care" camp.

Let me ask you Wu. Were you personally really "scared" of Iran???

What , afraid you couldn't fill up your SUV! What exactly were you afraid of?? Radical Islam...like Hitler in the 30's right? Pshaw Wu Pshaw!

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Actually, it was this book along with the relevant back up material in a university history class. I learned what happened in Iran as they nationalized their oil industry. I don't think the average American was afraid of Iran at that point. I said the rest of the ME were afraid, and they were. As for me, I don't think I was old enough to be afraid of anything on the news. Beyond that, I'm not even American.

As for not caring, I do care. I just leave my bias out to look at the subject of this thread, because it is a scientific field that is of interest to me. I am not here to argue about this war, because there are countless other threads for that. I can't say it any simpler than that. If you like the idea of the math behind how this kind of thing affects populations check out some Riker
Peace

[edit on 25-1-2008 by WuTang]

reply to post by WuTang


Well good luck to you in your studies Wu.

What's your take on the CIA overthrow of Mossedegh??

Originally posted by mmmeatAmerican civilians killed by Saddam Hussein on American soil, 0.

Iraqis tortured or killed by Saddam Hussein or his lovely children since American invasion, 0.

Terror attacks on American soil, 0.

you forgot the most important one

Americans who lost civil liberties from Bush Administration - Priceless

Originally posted by mmmeat
[Ah yes ... a liberal-leaning and funded mainstream media source that supports lefty causes found fault with a conservative Republican president.

ooOOOoooh. Stop the presses!

And the same thing could be said about right wing media outlets who find fault with the Clinton's.

Don't you think that the article contains a factual incorrect statement is far more important then the political biase(SP?) of the source ?

Originally posted by budski
lol: have you ever thought of joining the "Thread Killers?"

I think you need to be 15 or younger to apply ( or about that mature) so there isn't any hope for me.

search for thread killers V2

apart from the cherrypicking, nice job.

I pick the posts i disagree with and i respond to them. Do you use a different method?

I always prefer dialogue or try to at least - but I also understand that some people want to address individual points..

Since i am rather lazy but do want to address points i do it the way i do. I have nice dialogue's with relatively well informed people but it's impossible when you are dealing with people who just have completely opposite , and predictably main stream propaganda based , views.

[quoteI prefer dialogue, because addressing individual points can sometime be seen as being misleading -quotes taken out of context, that kind of thing.

Tell me how dialoguess ( or rather the monologues that rarely contains a change of mind) are more prone to yielding the type of direct in context questions my method does? How does it help if there is simply no structure to the discussion with both participants being able to avoid addressing whichever parts opposing views they dislike? When i quote a poste i quote it in it's entirety thus revealing which parts i agree with and which i don't! By which method would you have me address a multitude of issues in a more efficient manner?

But like I said, that's just MY opinion.

Otherwise

And we all have them.

Stellar

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
reply to post by WuTang

 

Well good luck to you in your studies Wu.

What's your take on the CIA overthrow of Mossedegh??

Without getting into detail, it was one crazy night . The most interesting part of the whole thing is that the entire dispute between the British and Iranians over oil royalties was caused by America. America made a deal with the Saudis to split profits in SA 50/50 (which is incredibly fair, Saudi land, American investments and development). Iran was getting a much worse deal (officially around 20/80, but with bad bookkeeping by the Brits was more like 10/90), and this triggered a large part of the nationalization movement. The Brits sponsored a few failed coups, finally got Americas help the last time and we all know what happened from there. In the Brits defense, they eventually offered Iran a similiar 50/50 scheme before the coup, but by that point the regime was so pissed off nothing short of nationalization would do. I just find it so ironic that America being fair to the Saudis brought on this whole debacle, and that they eventually got dragged into it. America being nice to one Arab state caused one of the major incidents that got them the reputation as evil with a large amount of the others.

Edit: You should really check out that book, All the Shahs Men. It is almost half history half narrative. It follows the story of Kermit Roosevelt (son of President Theodore I think?), who is the CIA man in charge of the coup. It dodges in between the action of that night, and the history of the dispute. Although not an acedemic "source", it is pretty close to the truth, and one hell of a read compared to big thick boring textbooks!

[edit on 26-1-2008 by WuTang]

reply to post by WuTang


So American generosity was responsible for the coup. I've never heard it put that way before


If generosity is a fault call me guilty guilty guilty!

reply to post by StellarX



my post wasn't a criticism.

I used to use the same style but gave it up because it made me too counter productive and angry.

It's always very easy to try and pick something apart one stitch at a time - taking it apart as a whole requires different methods, and a little more subtlety.

But thats just my opinion.

Originally posted by budski
my post wasn't a criticism.

And Bush said that they brought democracy to Iraq; few people bother to consult dictionaries before they engage in discussion!

I used to use the same style but gave it up because it made me too counter productive and angry.

What is more productive than questioning the motives and knowledge of those who are clearly not contributing anything productive? What angers such people more than having their every 'fact' disputed or disproved? If you can suggest a way in which i can address ignorant spammers more efficiently i am ALL ears.

t's always very easy to try and pick something apart one stitch at a time -

Which hardly explains why those i address completely fails to address my POINTED objections.

taking it apart as a whole requires different methods, and a little more subtlety.

I will save the subtlety for the people who are intelligent and informed enough to appreciate it...

But thats just my opinion.

Yup.

Stellar

The ball, not each other... remember?

Now, where's that pesky topic gone to?

Originally posted by mmmeat
Maybe if it was a truly neutral source. Maybe if it fiscally pure. Maybe if it didn't support MoveOn causes almost exclusively ... then maybe there'd be a chance that I wouldn't wonder about the underlying motive

No, I'm sure you'd still find something to whine about. We understand though.

*emphasis is mine

[edit on 28-1-2008 by Sublime620]