Blogcritics Comments on Dishonest Dems

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:33:32 EST

Handyguy, Helping the poor does not help the economy. It's a zero sum game. The old saying about giving a man a fish applies, and I don't see programs such as mortgage bailouts or green collar jobs as teaching anyone to fish. It sounds like a lot of government meddling in private sector business. I do support programs that help people go to college, and the like. However these types of programs are long term and do not have a near immediate benefit of a tax cut or even a rate cut. While the New Deal might have made a lot of sense back in it's day, it isn't needed now. This country is a capitalist society - the goal isn't to rely more on the government for our needs. Much more importantly, the world is a capitalist world. In order to function in this global economy, we have to focus on what helps business. If you want to help the poor, cut taxes on small business and make it attractive for them to hire more people. Forcing a min wage on small businesses doesn't get this done - in fact, it cost people jobs. Cut corporate taxes so that it's more attractive to own and operate a business in America, rather than tax and regulate to the point where people move their headquaters to the UK or elsewhere. Unfortunately when the Democrat front runners are running around with words like "CEO pay" and "tax increases for the rich" leaking out of their mouth, small and large business gets turned off. The fact of the matter is in a global economy, our government needs business. Not the other way around. The reality is that we are competing with other countries in the world where it is more favorable to do business. What's Hillary's answer to that? you say: ""Security" has only been a winning Republican issue in the era since 1968. And the rhetoric by which the Republicans retained the White House and Congress in 2002 and 2004 is the very model of "dishonest discourse." It was, in fact, quite despicable." I was ready to respond, but you didn't cite any examples. So not really sure what you are talking about. I do know, that we have not been attacked since 9/11 with Bush at the helm. When Dems talk about negotiations with Iran, as if that has never been thought of or tried before, as their way of ensuring security, that's despicable. As far as the "Bush Gates", these were not crimes. That you took the bait and exemplified exactly what I was talking about in the article is actually quite amusing to me. It's not a crime for a president to fire attorney generals. No allegation was ever made that justice was not carried out because of the firings. In fact, weren't they fired because they didn't want to investigate dem instigated voter fraud? What happened with Valerie Plame, well let me just say that if her CIA cover was so important, why was she and her husband talking to the press? And if I remember, the president and vp have the right to declassify information should they wish. Maybe they had an axe to grind. Are you really trying to say the same kind of thing never happened during the clinton presidency? Please, there was no crime here. Arguably an ethical question, but not one that I really care about. What happened to Libby was a disgrace of justice. Bear in mind, no one has ever made the allegation that this "leak" put any CIA operative or operation in danger. As far as my never voting for Dems. No, not the way they've been carrying themselves in the last few years. I agree with them on many issues. Socially, I tend to lean left. On the hard issues of taxes, economy, security, I find nothing at all in common with the Dems. Why are we talking about me again? I don't know how you can say that Hillary's comments about the AWB are truthful, especially in light of the facts I've detailed. Why is it important? Because the AWB is nonsense legislation, why don't we focus on trying to stop people from killing each other, than whether they have this or that weapon to do it with. Fact is, there is a reason why there is a second ammendment. I find it curious that you would be so quick to relinquish said rights. Yes, there Arnold and Mitt both have health plans similar to HRC. But don't for a second pretend that Arnold has been holding up the ideals of the GOP, he hasn't and no one really considers him a Republican anymore. As far as mitt, I don't support him or his plan and I am happy, albiet surprised that McCain has overtaken him, for now. "See: Multiple attacks on McCain's immigration stand; Huckabee's blatant use of religion against Romney in Iowa; Romney's false attacks on McCain's tax-cutting stances. And going back to the last Republican contest in 2000, do you remember what Bush did to McCain in SC?" How is any of that like claiming that someone said something racist when they did not. At least the GOP is arguing about issues. As far as huckabee and romney, I agree, that was a disgrace. To hell with the both of them. I would be very sad if either won the GOP primary because the GOP would likely lose the Presidency to the Dems. "It's hard not to laugh at this: think of Giuliani and Romney on abortion, gay rights, gun control. That's quite a lot of double-speak already." That the GOP is willing to consider front runner's who don't follow the party platform on gun rights and abortion is actually something I am proud of. Better to be open to alternate points of view than the taboo-izing of any stance that is out of line with DNC doctrine. Please, that you consider that a bad thing speaks volumes my friend. Given that the title of the article is "Dishonest Dems" it's not so far fetched to sum it up as "Dems suck" - but if I just said that, and didn't make the case to suppor that claim, then we'd have nothing to talk about.

Comment by handyguy on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:38:15 EST

Helping the poor (and the middle class) is not unrelated to helping the economy. It's not just some nice afterthought. You're talking about tens of millions of citizens. The Democratic Party won the presidency on the basis of the economy in 1932 and 1992, and probably also in 1960. The Republicans won the presidency on the basis of the economy in 1980. The economy is working against the Republicans politically this year. It's hardly a one-party issue. "Security" has only been a winning Republican issue in the era since 1968. And the rhetoric by which the Republicans retained the White House and Congress in 2002 and 2004 is the very model of "dishonest discourse." It was, in fact, quite despicable. In recent times, the left has feigned ignorance when it suited them. (Not one of the many words which follow this sentence contain any concrete examples "proving" this dumb thesis.) The truth is that all these manufactured "bushgates" prove that the Bush administration has made some really stupid, and perhaps ethical mistakes, nothing more. A truly preposterous sentence. Ethical mistakes and stupidity are acceptable coming from the White House? Those of us who dare to point these things out are "manufacturing scandal"? Can you honestly not see the outlandishness of what you write? So you're not going to vote for the Democrats because of the squabbling about race and Reagan that was in the headlines lately. But wait. You already made it clear that you will never vote for a Democrat because you differ with them on almost all the issues. You offer examples of Democrats making reasonable statements which were used out of context by a rival candidate. Yet every campaign in history, Dem and GOP, has contained squabbles and skirmishes, many of them wrongheaded and minor. One assumes you won't actually use them (certainly not the ones occurring on the GOP side) as the basis of your vote. So what, exactly, is your point? Omission of all of the facts is dishonesty. Selective recall is dishonesty. This would serve as excellent self-criticism if only that were its intent. Is your long-winded attack on banning assault weapons actually relevant to the campaign? How many assault rifles do you own or want to own? Why use so much space on it? Besides, your own selective use of statistics does not prove that HRC or anyone "lied." You mock HRC's economic stimulus plan, but you are silent on GW Bush's and Mitt Romney's even larger plans. All three of these plans may be more smoke and mirrors than real policy, but how does singling out one of them prove any kind of dishonesty? You simply make an assertion. Then we come to your prize jewel, the central thesis that took us a long time to reach: That the Democratic party has been able to continue pushing this fallacy that tax cuts are bad, but government spending programs and assistance programs for the poor are good economic policy, is one of the most egregious examples of political dishonesty in modern times. The only thing more perplexing to me is the hordes of Americans who willingly vote for people running on this platform. No politician likes to raise taxes, despite the fact that you find it fun to pretend so. It is possible to have a disagreement on the specifics of the Bush tax cuts, is it not, without claiming that all tax cuts are bad. Whether the Bush cuts really aided the economy, whether they really favor the extremely wealthy, whether extending them is "essential" or merely politically expedient – these are all questions worth exploring. So explore them, don't just shout them down. I don't agree with your thesis about Dems and taxes; it is factually wrong; and the assertion that the Democratic position is based on dishonesty remains 100% unproven by you. Your assessment of HRC's health proposals – very similar to the programs from the GOP governor of California and the former GOP governor of Massachusetts, now running for President – does nothing to prove dishonesty. You complain that we don't know what changing the system would do. But you don't go so far as to claim the current system is just fine. Do you? Maybe HRC is not the one being dishonest. Your "analysis" (a generous term) of the state of Iraq and Democratic proposals about it conveniently ignores two things: [1] Most people in the country want out – the Dem candidates are responding to public opinion, not just making up some evil surrender plan; and [2] Just how long do you want us to stay there? McCain's "100 years, 1,000 years!"?? As a rule, the GOP candidates have managed to avoid a dust-up akin to the racial warfare of Clinton-Obama, or the faux populism of Edwards-Obama. See: Multiple attacks on McCain's immigration stand; Huckabee's blatant use of religion against Romney in Iowa; Romney's false attacks on McCain's tax-cutting stances. And going back to the last Republican contest in 2000, do you remember what Bush did to McCain in SC? Much more importantly, on the issues there is much less spin on the right. You don't have to parse words wondering where GOP pols stand. Even if you disagree with the GOP on issues such as abortion, gun control, or even the war in Iraq, the positions the candidates have taken are based on an observable logic, and it's not masked in double-speak. It's hard not to laugh at this: think of Giuliani and Romney on abortion, gay rights, gun control. That's quite a lot of double-speak already. All politicians speak double. It's part of the job description. This is not a great thing. But are you going to pretend the Democrats have a monopoly on it? Remove the spin, and your article reads: Hillary stinks, as do all Democrats. I'm voting for McCain. Now that's honesty.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:07:38 EST

Doc, I have to admit, it's heresay, but I did a search on the web and could not come up with anything concrete. Stories abound from a gold toilet seat, gold handled toilet and a plain gold toilet. The guy did have access to several billion dollars, so he certainly could afford to be that silly. I just gotta think that on a cold night, it must be really uncomfortable.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:59:30 EST

I say it with a straight face because it's true. For as long as I have been aware, I've paid very close attention to politics. You cannot produce a quote because he never said it. And for me, the logic of taking down Saddam had a lot more to do with the 12 year history of American sponsored UN resolutions asking Saddam to disarm following the gulf war. Add to that Saddam's well documented support for terror. Add to that the fact that we had just been attacked by terrorists. There were arguably many more motivating issues for taking down Saddam than whether or not he just happened to be involved in 9/11. But I won't debate whether it was a good idea to go into Iraq. Whether it was a good idea back in 2003 doesn't matter, the mismanagement of the war, the ensuing cost has made it impossible to be worth the benefits of having the Iraq we have now. The only real question is what do we do now. And on that front, and back on topic, the Democrat's position is also a lie. Compare whatever it is that Clinton or Obama is proposing to do about Iraq to what John McCain would do, it's just no contest. You keep talking about my credibility but you pretty much admitted to not even reading my article past the 4th paragraph. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. This isn't about me. I don't care who wrote this article, the points made have merit, but let's keep talking about whether Bush lied about Saddam and 9/11 even though we all admit he never said it.

Comment by Deano on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:30:14 EST

OA, The point is, in stating your case against the Dems as liars, you dance down the same path of intellectual dishonesty that you fingerpoint at them for. If you have paid the slightest ounce of attention to the last six years of media coverage and can still say, with a straight face, that you don't think and were never cognizant of the Bush adminstration's efforts to push a linkage between Saddam and 9/11 in the eye's of the public...well, basically that throws any credibility you have right out the proverbial window. You are either being partisan or stupid - take your pick. If you want a good summation of the admin's linkage efforts, go read Thomas Ricks 'Fiasco' or Cobra II by Micahel Gordon. They have a pretty good documentation of the process and key communications leading up to the war. I'm not inclined to repeat it here. By the way, regarding quotes - I recognize that Bush didn't explicitly state that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I'll also note that he couldn't - there was no evidence of any connection. The whole point is that the administration deliberately manufactured belief in the general public of a linkage between the two by repeatedly lumping the subjects together and creating connections between the subjects. It is generally the writer of the piece that should back up their assertions with evidence, not the reader. If your argument can't hold water, it is an indicator that you need to work on your content.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:35:27 EST

He had a what? Cool! Do you know what happened to it after the invasion? Is it in a museum somewhere? Can I bid for it on eBay?

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:08:09 EST

Deano, Firstly, let me remind you that none other than Saddam himself had a gold toilet. As far as your point about bush "connecting the dots" - I'd like to see one quote where Bush said Saddam was involved in 9/11. This should be really simple. Why can't anyone produce an actual quote that says that? Because it doesn't exist. If you connected some dots to some other dots, that isn't Bush's fault. Moreover, I am not Bush's defense attorney. I don't agree with Bush on everything. I dislike the negative aura he's given to the GOP and the wasted capital spent in Iraq. You won't get me to defend his decision to go to war or the case he made. But if you try and pretend he said something he didn't, or try to cast aspersions about the admin or myself for that matter, because you jumped to conclusions, be sure I will set the record straight on that one. I like your last paragraph, which is such a blatant cop out I cannot even respond. Sorry bud, better luck next time. I won't respond

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:59:41 EST

Thanks Doc, And perhaps I agree that she really does believe that her healthcare plan will work. However, she cannot know what will happen, and it's her statements on that front that I object to. There are similarities to her claims on healthcare, and the Bush admins claims of WMDs in Iraq - namely that the press and constituants have given each a free pass to say what they wanted on the issue. In a way, it's the lack of any kind of real analysis of such campaign promises, and the simultaneous agreement with that platform by the party that is a form of dishonesty I object to. While you are right, that it's a disagreement between the me and her platform that this would do all that is promised, claiming to know what would happen when moving an entire sector public, if not dishonest, is at least naive. But I really doubt Hillary is naive. BTW, Thanks for trying to bring the discussion above board! Handyguy, Another attempt at attacking the writer, the article ANYTHING but the substance. Jumbled eh? is that the excuse now for not reading it? It's a long article, it covers lots of ground. But it's not jumbled. Perhaps if I broke it up into 4 second soundbytes you'd enjoy it more? :>

Comment by Deano on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:56:16 EST

OA, The expression was "gilding the outhouse" - as in putting a layer of glitter/gold on something that manifestly is inappropriate to gild. I'll note that if you don't want anyone calling bullshit on your statements around Bush et al and their manipulation and dishonesty in managing the Iraq situation, Al Qaeda and the war on terror, then you shouldn't heap two paragraphs devoted to how you never heard Bush connect the dots and it was all the lies and spin of the nefarious Dems near the start of your little screed . There is ample evidence supporting the administration manipulations in that particular situation. Recasting it as the Dem's lies is just manifestly crap. If the Dems are guilty of anything, it was blatent political expediency for NOT actively opposing some of the tenuous connections that the admisnitration was making to justify the war. As for the remainder of your article, it may well be accurate (in all honesty, I don't care and it sounds exactly the same as all the other partisan crap floating around the election) but in my opinion your nonsensical statements around Iraq near the beginning of the article tend to indicate to me that you probably are equally off on your other statements...in short, you don't carry much credibility for the latter part of your argument as you tainted it with idiocy near the start.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:48:24 EST

All right, Obnox, let's put you out of your misery and at least try to get a discussion started on one or two of the points you raised other than Iraq. I'm not going to take a position here but I do want to look at the meat of your article, which holds that Democrats are dishonest on the issues. Several of your points are good: the flannel coming out of the mouths of some liberal politicians is as exasperating to those of us who lean leftwards as it is to you. My personal theory is that liberalism worldwide is basically still reeling from Reaganomics/Thatcherism and is only just starting to find its footing again: it's considered not safe - politically incorrect, to adopt a term which actually fits rather nicely - to have unconservative opinions, particularly on the economy. The Democrats, bluntly, need to grow some balls, as their transatlantic counterparts the Labour Party did under Blair. However, I do want to take issue with your view of Hillary Clinton and her healthcare plan. I don't think she is being disingenuous here: she clearly believes such a plan can work or she wouldn't have been pushing it for the last 10+ years. She says her plan would offer more choice and lower costs; you think it would result in the American medical industry losing its competitiveness. That's not dishonesty on her part: it's a disagreement on yours.

Comment by handyguy on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:28:20 EST

The title and subhead of the piece are what people are reacting to. The "substance" of the article is hard to respond to because the reasoning and the organization of the ideas are so jumbled and poor. Dishonest Dems — Why Democrats and truth don't get along. The title succeeds in being provocative - but not in being honest. The article itself succeeds at neither.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:16:53 EST

Sorry Deano, but there has been no shallow whitewash. Firstly, you can try to glide the outhouse yourself here (whatever that means), but you cannot deny the fact that Intel committee dems who had as much access as Bush did to the raw data, went along. Not just to appear unpatriotic, not for cowardice, but because they agreed that Saddam was bad. How do you explain Hillary's hawkishness? Pure political play? Her husband agreed with Bush and bombed Iraq himself when he was president. So the main premise of your comment is wrong. More importantly, this article wasn't about the case to go to war. In this and many articles, I don't defend the administration at all in their decision or handling of the war, I even suggest that they made a mistake going to war, and are easily flummoxed. Are you suggesting that any article where I criticize the Dems, I should write a preface that derides the Bush administration in it's decision to go to Iraq? Sure, if that was the topic of this article. But it's not. I am way past talking about the decision to go to war, because we are already AT war. This article is about the future, not the past. 90% of the article talks about things that were said or done by democrats in the last 2 months as part of the 2008 campaign. The question facing us now is who do we trust in 2008, based on the issues and the platforms of the candidates. The point of this article is that the Dems throw lies around, blatant lies, such as the Hillary's comments on the Assault Weapons Ban, economic stimulus, and Universal Healthcare. No one has so far refuted any of the items in this article.

Comment by Deano on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:55:47 EST

Bear in mind, that in the wake of 9/11, not a whole lot of scrutiny was being placed on the blanket statements of the government by the media. The Bush adminstration got a very nice "by" for an extended period of time. Neither was the Democratic party inclined to shoot themselves in the head politically in the post 9/11 period. None of them would dare for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. unAmerican etc. Instead they demonstrated what politicians of all stripes aptly demonstrate - they rolled with the majority and pandered for approval...in this case it was the old byline - "we are at war, we must support the president". You can keep on gilding the outhouse as much as you please, parsing selective quotes but the reality is, and the overwhelming evidence from government documents, intelligence briefs and the after the fact media interviews, that the current adminstration deliberately exaggerated both the WMD intelligence and the claims of linkage between Al Quaeda, Bin Ladin and Iraq. In short - they cooked the books and leveraged it for political and propaganda advantage. This may not change the fundamental proposition of your article - that the Dems are liars (and you can probably add political cowards to that as well) - but you might have more mileage, credibility and substance in your claims if you actually dealt with the machinations of the current administration rather then giving them a cursory and shallow whitewash.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:46:58 EST

I wonder how many statements were lies from Democrats, or were these people merely wrong? "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 Oh wait, are you now going to tell me that Bush lied to them too? I know, Bush said there was a danger and these people believed it, without doing any due diligence of their own. Even though some referenced here get the same intel as the president, and the current Dem frontrunner's husband actually dropped a few bombs of his own on Iraq. This article isn't even about Iraq and WMDs. Keep on trying to cloud the issue so you don't have to answer to the valid points made in the article.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:33:21 EST

I've read this article. False statements do not equal lies. That these non-profit (but not necessarily non-partisan) organizations suggest that our lack of quality intel equals "[leading] the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses" is where you lose me. The VAST majority of the false statements were in regards to Iraq's WMD's (of Bush's 259 false statements, 231 were about WMDs). Thing is, the WHOLE WORLD thought Iraq had WMDs. How can you suggest that because Bush agreed with what was generally accepted intel, that he was somehow not just wrong, but also lying? Trying to turn what was obviously a mistake in judgement into something more evil, such as a lie, is just another form of democrat dishonesty. I will reiterate the admin's response: "The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said. Was the decision to go to war a poor one? Quite possibly? Should Bush have been more considerate as to the quality of the intel, I won't argue against that. But why not just argue that point, it's a valid one. Why do democrats also have to turn it into a malicious, intentional effort to delude Americans when the reality is that the Bush admin just showed poor judgement. Isn't poor judgement enough of an indictment? And let me point out that this article was talking about the Saddam/911 connection as well as many other Democrat platform lies. Notice that the MSNBC article does not claim that Bush ever tried to make a false Saddam and 9/11 connection. Seems if that common dem charge were true, they'd have mentioned it here, no? The fact that the lefties on this board have managed to respond to everything BUT the points raised in the article (such as my views, or the validity of my opinions, the lenght of the article, that it's a straw man, WMDs and poll numbers showing a poorly informed public), it's clear you don't have a real rebuttal. When anyone is ready to actually discuss the issues I've raised I will be here ready to have an actual discourse.

Comment by odo on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:51:26 EST

935 Lies Bush Told 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. ___

Comment by Deano on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:06:53 EST

FYI. Read it.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:05:28 EST

Jet, I am a centrist. I share views with both parties. Can you honestly say the same? Given some of our prior discussions, I don't believe you are a centrist, and I think you are proud of that (not that you shouldn't be). But claiming that I am not a centrist is just your attempt to color my comments as completely Republican in nature. It's yet another "straw man." I think you are going to have to do better than that if you want anyone to take you seriously in this discussion. Bennet, Yes yes, it's all a big scam by cheney to make money off of the Iraq war. Sure. Perhaps Cheney's political experience is why a company like Haliburton hired him. And perhaps the fact that Haliburton does the kind of work that the government needs is why the government hired Haliburton to assist in Iraq. I am not a fan of no-bid contracts, although when you are in the middle of a war, waiting for RFP's may not be the best course of action either. Since you brought up Haliburton, I'd like you to mention another American company, one whose operations are a known quantity to the executive branch, that could have provided similar services in Iraq. As far as NASA, I agree that the appointment was a good choice. What I mean when I refer to NASA is the undeniable fact that the NASA of today is not the NASA that got us to the moon. We've lost something there, and that goes to my point about this American being different than the American of 40 or more years ago. Context baby.

Comment by Maurice on Dishonest Dems

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:12:22 EST

#15 bliffle Wow! I never thought you and I would agree on anything! You nailed it buddy!

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Dishonest Dems

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:42:35 EST

"Let me start off by saying I am a centrist who leans to the right." Who are you kidding? you're about as much a centrist as I am...

Comment by Bennett on Dishonest Dems

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:36:58 EST

"Haliburton is a case in point, while they charged excesses, it was our government that decided to use them." See "Cheney, Dick, U.S.V.P., Ex-Haliburton Pres" "NASA is another example." Of what? Appointing Mike Griffin to head NASA was just about the only thing I can think of that this administration got right. Unlike Haliburton, NASA works for us. Nothing Haliburton does has the ability to inspire anyone other than shareholders and war profiteers. Please, wax poetic about your "Platform Issues" and how they can be sung by the "Average White Band".

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:45:51 EST

George, I'd like you to produce a single quote where Bush does that. I do agree, only retards bought into the idea, but I don't agree that he ever said it. Mark E, Agree 100% Doc, Lolll! Can we talk about the other "Platform Issues" I raised also? pretty please? I am dying to talk about the AWB.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Dishonest Dems

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:43:36 EST

Mark, you've obviously spent a lot more time on this than I have, but from what I can see, every last reference on your site is to terror-related activities by former regime members after Saddam's demise. Propaganda portraying Saddam as a lynchpin of global terror has a tenuous provenance at best.

Comment by The Obnoxious American on Dishonest Dems

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:41:28 EST

REMF, For once, I could not agree with you more. Winston, All interesting points. I do think that government *can* do things effectively. Unfortunately, I don't usually see evidence of that. Haliburton is a case in point, while they charged excesses, it was our government that decided to use them. NASA is another example. I just don't think this is the same America, with the same selflessness and decency among people, to accomplish the things that were possibly just 40 years ago. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but I just happen to think that the mindset these days, is much different. Ultimately, I don't think either approach is fully right, because government can't always be trusted to accomplish things properly, and the private sector can't be trusted to accomplish things that are not in their own interest. It is a balance.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Dishonest Dems

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:33:41 EST

Straw man is a nice word to throw around, but in this case as in others where that allegation was made, but in this case especially, it's false. You mean, it's a straw man...? [/irony]