Looks like what alot of were saying here on dp was true. What disturbs me is why are some dp'ers caring more about smearing RP with bs than with asking themselves why were we lied to so much. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago WASHINGTON - 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 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." 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 H. 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-Qaida, 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-Qaida. 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. ___ On the Net: Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/
I know it's apparently difficult to accept, but one can disagree, even vehemently disagree, with the current administration and its practices, and raise a question about RP, a Presidential candidate, at the same time. And the real mind blower is that both can happen without being a part of a conspiracy of one kind or another. Much like, I don't know, one can say JBS is great at grassroots marketing, while questioning whether it's an organization with "Liberty" as its true watchword. The world is rarely as simple as one might like, Ping.
Im sorry but how dare u disagree with our president, its unamerican, its blasphemous and its very communistic. Ask gtech, if anyone disagrees with our administrations policies then they are akin to evil people or just lunatics. By the way i see u enjoying the smear campaign and never once saw u smearing our beloved presidents name. I agree the world is not as simple as it might seem, and i still see the JBS thing as almost a non issue. To em an issie is sending thousands of our troops to their deaths over a lie of a war and i would think that it would disturb you much more than smear campaigns on RP But then again its only 3000 soldiers right, we shouldnt protest this much. I feel we should concentrate on trying to tear down a candidate that wants to bring our troops back home. Im with you guys lets get ron paullll. Im for keeping the troops another 100 years
Ping, it seems to me the reason you are perplexed is because I don't see questions as "smear." I see them as questions, and it goes across ideologies, party lines, candidates, whatever one might be taking a look at. I have consistently opposed this administration, and have stated so with facts as to why. And it is the same with this particular aspect of your candidate, in that I raised a question based on facts on the page, that I would like aired and answered. To be honest, I would imagine the candidate would be deeply embarrassed by some of his supporters' fears, as displayed here by some. A question is a good thing - its answer dispels myths, or provides truths.
Then my appologies. I didnt know you looked at both sides of the coin, Im so used to gtech and their gang and their bs
I don't need an apology, Ping - my feelings aren't hurt - but thank you. I would just say that is the problem - as you said, you didn't know, and yet here (and on the other thread, with Briant), your first post, and your every post since, has been to call it all a smear campaign, without dealing with the question at hand. I would say, if you disagree with someone - myself, Gtech, whoever - and if there is something that you find is factually inaccurate - skewer away, but on the facts. You might find that even people who fundamentally disagree with you have something valid to say. Otherwise, it just comes off, to me, anyway, as something based in fear, and not principles.
Cause they are ignorant, shortsighted, angry _____ with low IQs. Mind you these are the same sheeple that voted for terrorist BUSH...TWICE!!!