US Bush administration lied 935 times about Iraq


This video from the USA is called WMD LIES – Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. – THE ULTIMATE CLIP.

From the Center for Public Integrity in the USA:

False Pretenses

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows 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.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration’s case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

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.

See also here.

Those 935 or more are just the lies before the war started. Maybe one would need a super computer to count the lies by the Bush administration since the Iraq war started.

Five years after Colin Powell’s infamous “Iraq WMD” speech in the UN: here. And here.

An Algerian living in Britain who was wrongly accused of being involved in the 9/11 terror attacks tells for the first time today of how his life has been ‘ruined’ by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service: here.

This video is called Hans Blix: ”Cheney threatened to discredit me”.

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

27 thoughts on “US Bush administration lied 935 times about Iraq

  1. Study: False statements preceded war

    By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET

    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/

    ———————————————-

    Dope the troops!
    Posted by: “Compañero” companyero@bellsouth.net chocoano05
    Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:13 pm (PST)

    http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/72956/?page=entire

    Pentagon, Big Pharma: Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War

    By Penny Coleman, AlterNet. Posted January 10, 2008.

    The DoD is flirting with the idea of medicating soldiers to desensitize them to combat trauma — will an army of unfeeling monsters result?

    In June, the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health acknowledged “daunting and growing” psychological problems among our troops: Nearly 40 percent of soldiers, a third of Marines and half of National Guard members are presenting with serious mental health issues. They also reported “fundamental weaknesses” in the U.S. military’s approach to psychological health. That report was followed in August by the Army Suicide Event Report (ASER), which reported that 2006 saw the highest rate of military suicides in 26 years. And last month, CBS News reported that, based on its own extensive research, over 6,250 American veterans took their own lives in 2005 alone — that works out to a little more than 17 suicides every day.

    That’s all pretty bleak, but there is reason for optimism in the long-overdue attention being paid to the emotional and psychic cost of these new wars. The shrill hypocrisy of an administration that has decked itself in yellow ribbons and mandatory lapel pins while ignoring a human crisis of monumental proportion is finally being exposed.

    On Dec. 12, Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, called a hearing on “Stopping Suicides: Mental Health Challenges Within the Department of Veterans Affairs.” At that hearing suggestions were raised and conversations begun that hopefully will bear fruit.

    But I find myself extremely anxious in the face of some of these new suggestions, specifically what is being called the Psychological Kevlar Act of 2007 and use of the drug propranalol to treat the symptoms of posttraumatic stress injuries. Though both, at least in theory, sound entirely reasonable, even desirable, in the wrong hands, under the wrong leadership, they could make the sci-fi fantasies of Blade Runner seem prescient.

    The Psychological Kevlar Act “directs the secretary of defense to develop and implement a plan to incorporate preventive and early-intervention measures, practices or procedures that reduce the likelihood that personnel in combat will develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other stress-related psychopathologies, including substance use conditions. (Kevlar, a DuPont fiber, is an essential component of U.S. military helmets and bullet-proof vests advertised to be “five times stronger than steel.”) The stated purpose of this legislation is to make American soldiers less vulnerable to the combat stressors that so often result in psychic injuries.

    On the face of it, the bill sounds logical and even compassionate. After all, our soldiers are supplied with physical armor — at least in theory. So why not mental? My guess is that the representatives who have signed on to this bill are genuinely concerned about the welfare of troops and their families. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., is the bill’s sponsor, and I have no reason to question his genuine commitment to mental health issues, both within and outside of the military. Still, I find myself chilled at the prospects. To explain my discomfort, I need to go briefly into the history of military training.

    Since World War II, our military has sought and found any number of ways to override the values and belief systems recruits have absorbed from their families, schools, communities and religions. Using the principles of operant conditioning, the military has found ways to reprogram their human software, overriding those characteristics that are inconvenient in a military context, most particularly the inherent resistance human beings have to killing others of their own species. “Modern combat training conditions soldiers to act reflexively to stimuli,” says Lt. Col. Peter Kilner, a professor of philosophy and ethics at West Point, “and this maximizes soldiers’ lethality, but it does so by bypassing their moral autonomy. Soldiers are conditioned to act without considering the moral repercussions of their actions; they are enabled to kill without making the conscious decision to do so. If they are unable to justify to themselves the fact that they killed another human being, they will likely — and understandably — suffer enormous guilt. This guilt manifests itself as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and it has damaged the lives of thousands of men who performed their duty in combat.”

    By military standards, operant conditioning has been highly effective. It’s enabled American soldiers to kill more often and more efficiently, and that ability continues to exact a terrible toll on those we have designated as the “enemy.” But the toll on the troops themselves is also tragic. Even when troops struggle honorably with the difference between a protected person and a permissible target (and I believe that the vast majority do so struggle, though the distinction is one I find both ethically and humanely problematic) in war “shit happens.” When soldiers are witness to overwhelming horror, or because of a reflexive accident, an illegitimate order, or because multiple deployments have thoroughly distorted their perceptions, or simply because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time — those are the moments that will continue to haunt them, the memories they will not be able to forgive or forget, and the stuff of posttraumatic stress injuries.

    And it’s not just the inherent conscientious objector our military finds inconvenient: current U.S. military training also includes a component to desensitize male soldiers http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0304,baard,41331,1.html to the sounds of women being raped, so the enemy cannot use the cries of their fellow soldiers to leverage information. I think it not unreasonable to connect such desensitization techniques to the rates of domestic violence in the military, which are, according to the DoD, five times those in the civilian population http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/07/base_crimes.html . Is anyone really surprised that men who have been specifically trained to ignore the pain and fear of women have a difficult time coming home to their wives and families? And clearly they do. There were 2,374 reported cases of sexual assault in the military in 2005, a 40 percent increase over 2004. But that figure represents only reported cases, and, as Air Force Brig. Gen. K.C. McClain, commander of DoD’s Joint Task Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response pointed out http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15162, “Studies indicate that only 5 percent of sexual assaults are reported.”

    I have thought a lot about the implications of “psychological Kevlar” — what kind of “preventive and early-intervention measures, practices or procedures” might be developed that would “reduce the likelihood that personnel in combat will develop post-traumatic stress disorder.” How would a soldier with a shield against moral response “five times stronger than steel” behave?

    I cannot convince myself that what is really being promoted isn’t a form of moral lobotomy.

    I cannot imagine what aspects of selfhood will have to be excised or paralyzed so soldiers will no longer be troubled by what they, not to mention we, would otherwise consider morally repugnant. A soldier who has lost an arm can be welcomed home because he or she still shares fundamental societal values. But the soldier who sees her friend emulsified by a bomb, or who is ordered to run over children in the road rather than slow down the convoy, or who realizes too late that the woman was carrying a baby, not a bomb — if that soldier’s ability to feel terror and horror has been amputated, if he or she can no longer be appalled or haunted, something far more precious has been lost. I am afraid that the training or conditioning or drug that will be developed to protect soldiers from such injuries will leave an indifference to violence that will make them unrecognizable to themselves and to those who love them. They will be alienated and isolated, and finally unable to come home.

    Posttraumatic stress injuries can devastate the lives of soldiers and their families. The suicides that are so often the result of such injuries make it clear that they can be every bit as lethal as bullets or bombs, and to date no cure has been found. Treatment and disability payments, both for injured troops and their families, are a huge budgetary concern that becomes ever more daunting as these wars drag on. The Psychological Kevlar Act perhaps holds out the promise of a prophylactic remedy, but it should come as no surprise that Big Pharma has been looking for a chemical intervention.

    What they have come up with has already been dubbed “the mourning after pill.” Propranalol, if taken immediately following a traumatic event, can subdue a victim’s stress response and so soften his or her perception of the memory. That does not mean the memory has been erased, but proponents claim that the drug can render it emotionally toothless.

    If your daughter were raped, the argument goes, wouldn’t you want to spare her a traumatic memory that might well ruin her life? As the mother of a 23-year old daughter, I can certainly understand the appeal of that argument. And a drug that could prevent the terrible effects of traumatic injuries in soldiers? If I were the parent of a soldier suffering from such a life-altering injury, I can imagine being similarly persuaded.

    Not surprisingly, the Army is already on board. Propranolol is a well-tolerated medication that has been used for years for other purposes.

    And it is inexpensive.

    But is it moral to weaken memories of horrendous acts a person has committed? Some would say that there is no difference between offering injured soldiers penicillin to prevent an infection and giving a drug that prevents them from suffering from a posttraumatic stress injury for the rest of their lives. Others, like Leon Kass, chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics, object to propranolol’s use on the grounds that it medicates away one’s conscience. “It’s the morning-after pill for just about anything that produces regret, remorse, pain or guilt,” he says. Barry Romo, a national coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is even more blunt. “That’s the devil pill,” he says. “That’s the monster pill, the anti-morality pill. That’s the pill that can make men and women do anything and think they can get away with it. Even if it doesn’t work, what’s scary is that a young soldier could believe it will.”

    It doesn’t take a neuroscientist to see the problem with both of these solutions. Though both hold the promise of relief from the effects of an injury that causes unspeakable pain, they do so at what appears to be great cost. Whatever research projects might be funded by the Psychological Kevlar Act and whatever use is made of propranolol, they will almost certainly involve a diminished range of feelings and memory, without which soldiers and veterans will be different. But in what ways?

    I wish I could trust the leadership of our country to prioritize the lives and well-being of our citizens. I don’t. The last six years have clearly shown the extent to which this administration is willing to go to use soldiers for its own ends, discarding them when they are damaged. Will efforts be made to fix what has been broken? Return what has been taken? Bring them home? Will citizens be enlightened about what we are condoning in our ignorance, dispassion or indifference? Or will these two solutions simply bring us closer to realizing the bullet-proof mind, devoid of the inconvenient vulnerability of decent human beings to atrocity and horror? And finally, these are all questions about the morality of proposals that are trying to prevent injuries without changing the social circumstances that bring them about, which sidestep the most fundamental moral dilemma: that of sending people to war in the first place.

    Penny Coleman is the widow of a Vietnam veteran who took his own life after coming home. Her latest book, Flashback: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Suicide and the Lessons of War http://alternet.bookswelike.net/isbn/0807050407, was released on Memorial Day, 2006. Her blog is Flashback
    http://www.flashbackhome.com/.

  2. Book accuses White House of faking Iraq-9/11 link

    From the Washington Post
    August 6, 2008

    WASHINGTON — The Bush administration and former top CIA officials denounced a new book’s assertion that the White House ordered the forgery of Iraqi documents to suggest a link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the lead hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks.

    The claim was made by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind, whose book “The Way of the World” also contends that the White House obtained compelling evidence in early 2003 that Iraq possessed no significant stocks of nuclear or biological weapons but decided to invade anyway.

    Suskind, who has written two previous investigative books that contained criticism of Bush administration policies, described the alleged forgery as one of the great lies in modern American political history, likening it to Watergate.

    White House condemnations of the book were equally dramatic, with officials blasting it as “gutter journalism.”

    In separate statements, several former and current CIA officials disputed portions of the account, including two named by Suskind as key sources.

    The book’s most contentious allegations involve Tahir Jalil Habbush, Hussein’s intelligence chief before the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003. As the deadline for war neared, U.S. and British officials met with Habbush and confronted him about weapons of mass destruction.

    In those secret meetings, Habbush explained why United Nations inspectors had been unable to find evidence of active Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs: There weren’t any, Suskind writes. Habbush’s accounts were shared with the CIA and the White House, where they were dismissed as deception.

    After the invasion, Habbush was paid $5 million by the CIA for serving as an informant, and resettled in Jordan. It was then, Suskind writes, that the White House enlisted his help with a forgery — one suggesting a link between Hussein’s government and Mohamed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

    Suskind states that in September 2003, the White House directed then-CIA Director George J. Tenet to concoct a fake letter, backdated to July 2001, claiming that Atta had trained in Iraq for his mission. Habbush agreed to sign the letter, which was leaked to a British journalist in December 2003, Suskind writes.

    The author quotes two former CIA officials — Robert Richer and John Maguire — as sources. But the two men, in a statement to the Washington Post, denied the story. Tenet denied it as well.

    Suskind said he stood by his reporting.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia6-2008aug06,0,5481059.story

  3. Pingback: Australian Iraq war lies condemned | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: WikiLeaks’ Assange, interviewed by Chris Hedges | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: British and Swedish poetry and history | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: NSA spying on Merkel update | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: Nelson Mandela’s condemnation of the Iraq war | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: United States military cutbacks | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  9. Pingback: No new Crimean war, no World War III! | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  10. Pingback: No Ukraine war, Jeremy Corbyn says | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  11. Pingback: Iraq war keeps killing in Fort Hood, Texas | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  12. Pingback: Bring Tony Blair to justice | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  13. Pingback: ‘Privatisation kills Turkish miners’ | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  14. Pingback: United States NSA spies scared of Bahamas hummingbirds invasion | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  15. Pingback: British intelligence services did not trust Tony Blair | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  16. Pingback: Tony Blair and Iraq war update | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  17. Pingback: Edward Snowden about revealing NSA spying | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  18. Pingback: Iraq, from 2003 invasion to 2014 bloodshed | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  19. Pingback: ‘New bloodbath in Iraq proves failure of NATO warmongers’ | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  20. Pingback: Bush’s 2003 Iraq invasion caused 2014 bloodshed, general says | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  21. Pingback: Bush’s Iraq invasion caused present bloodshed, Chelsea Manning writes | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  22. Pingback: Detroit workers against re-starting US war in Iraq | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  23. Pingback: Not another US war on Iraq | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  24. Pingback: Tony Blair getting rich advising Egyptian military dictator | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  25. Pingback: United States general suggests re-invasion of Iraq | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  26. Pingback: Ukrainian government kills its own civilian people | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  27. Pingback: Ukrainian government kills its own civilian people | The Socialist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s