Seriously, apparently Bush and top administration officials have made false statements as the fabricated evidence and a pretense for invading Iraq.
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.
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.
What amazes me is that the vast majority of those journalists and journalism nonprofits knew before the war that Bush & co. were lying, they either did not have enough balls to oppose and criticize them, or they held off the anti-war stories simply because they had a pro-war agenda. Their motivations may have ranged from political loyalties to the neo-cons and Israel to their desire for busy news season. The price of a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives seemed reasonable to them.
Anti-war activists and a handful of academics spoke out against the fabrications Bush & co. pushed through the news pipeline. However, they were vilified, accused of treason and supporting terrorism, silenced and intimidated by the Bush administration with the help of the media, similar attacks were carried out on charities and institutions that criticized Bush’s McCarthyism and march to war.
The facts did not change; what we knew to be a lie prior to 2003 is what’s being documented and chronicled in those new studies. Yet the media outlets and individuals complicit in fabricating the war pretense relied on a dumb and ignorant public that is incapable of drawing parallels when those tactics are being used to invade a nation, shut down a charity, or sensor and academic, a public that seems to suffer collective amnesia when the same fabrications and tactics are employed only a few years later, and goes in a state of severe denial when the government of its “greatest country in the world” turns out to be no better than the most corrupt dictatorships whom they grown accustomed to uncritically condemning.
At this rate, it appears that it will be a few years before some media watchdogs or the academia come out to critique the immorality and lack of ethics inherent to the war pretense, even had the claimed made by Bush et al been vindicated.
Related posts:
- NEWS FLASH: Bush Changes Position on Killing Journalists
- Bush Compares Iraq to the United States
- Bush: “Don’t Rush Me. I’m Busy Screwing Iraq Up”
- Bush and Blair Delay Iraq War Truth Until Judgment Day
- Bush Floating Down Da Nile
I didn’t follow this post at all..
Posted by Anonymous | January 22, 2008, 9:03 pmAt this rate, it appears that it will be a few years before some media watchdogs or the academia come out to critique the immorality and lack of ethics inherent to the war pretense, even had the claimed made by Bush et al been vindicated.
No, it’s old news. How much time did the media spend on Bill Clinton’s scandals, after he left office? You (and they) are rehashing stuff that everyone has known for years and acting like somebody is supposed to care about it, all over again. Why?
Posted by programmer craig | January 22, 2008, 10:20 pmPC, there is a minimum IQ requirement for commenting on this blog. How did you get through?
Posted by Anonymous | January 22, 2008, 10:28 pmSorry, anonymous. I’ve always known that people with minimum IQ were maintaining this site, but I didn’t realize it was required of commenters. I suppose it makes sense, though. I’ll try to dumb it down a bit in the future, will that be acceptable?
Posted by programmer craig | January 22, 2008, 11:42 pmYour interest is this pathetic dweeb Craig’s life support.
In the interest of dialogue, information and productive discourse, ignore him.
Posted by Ismail | January 23, 2008, 5:13 amhey craig where is your blog?
Posted by anxious reader | January 23, 2008, 7:46 amIn the interest of dialogue, information and productive discourse
What are “dialogue, information and productive discourse” in pali-speak? What are they code words for? Because you obviously aren’t using the dictionary definition for them.
ignore him.
How’s that working out for you? My opinions are pretty representative of Americans, in general. Or are you one of the ones who believes Americans actually support Palestinians, and not Israel, and that the US position is just a product of the Israeli Lobby? Which one of those multi-syllabic words do you use for that one? Is that “information”? Who is it intended for? Because it seems pretty clear Americans aren’t buying into it.
Posted by programmer craig | January 23, 2008, 8:05 amAnyone hear anything? Funny, I could have sworn I heard someone talking. Guess not. Just noise.
Posted by Ismail | January 23, 2008, 9:56 amYou must have filtered out relevant commentary from your consciousness, Ismail.
You and most Palestinian propagandists.
Posted by Roy | January 23, 2008, 10:07 amcraig why don't you have a blog? I mean whats the point of hiding behind a faceless name? Don't you want your opinion to be heard? You can't spend your whole day on sandmonkey and kabobfest can you?please please please let me know!!
Posted by anxious reader | January 23, 2008, 7:03 amSandmonkey? I think I’ve commented on his blog a grand total of 4 or 5 times in the last year. I guess one of those comments got your attention though, eh? So what was that you were saying about my opinions not being heard?
Where is your blogger profile, type in name commenter? Why don’t you want people to be able to track the other things you’ve been saying? Are you embarrassed about something?
Posted by programmer craig | January 23, 2008, 12:13 pmSeriously, it would be funny to work with Crackhead. He would be like Dwight on the Office, but not as likeable. Although of course then it would be harder to not hear his voice.
Posted by Safiyyah | January 23, 2008, 7:51 pmcraig, i comment on here regularly with my blogger account that links to both of my blogs. You on the otherhand offer nothing but racist comments. It seems like you are the one who is scared of something.
Posted by anxious reader | January 24, 2008, 7:13 am