Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Bush and His Aides Made 935 False Statements about Iraq In the 2 Years After 9/11

Posted by   + Show Post

Bush admin

Given the Republican obsession with Benghazi talking points, it’s time for a very specific flashback. In 2008, two non partisan groups released a study that determined that President Bush and his top aides made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001.

These statements were part of a deliberate campaign, according to the study conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism. They concluded, “The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion… 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.”

The study’s conclusions were further reinforced when former Bush White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote, “top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war… In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage.” (What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception)

According to the study, then President George W Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein’s possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.

“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…

On at least 532 separate occasions, 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.”

On July 2004, the Republican majority led Senate Select Committee released the Intelligence Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence, which identified numerous failures in intelligence gathering and “analysis” (i.e., interpretation). However, Republicans defended the Bush administration’s statements on Iraq.

An investigation into the administration’s use of the intelligence was delayed for three years due to Republicans claiming it wasn’t as important (Senator Roberts, R-KS) as other pending items. Phase two of the investigation was released in 2007, but not all of the report was released. It determined, “our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence.”

Read the examples of the egregious lies told in the lead up to the Iraq War.

Methodology: “Over the past two and a half years, researchers at the Fund for Independence in Journalism have sought to document every public statement made by eight top Bush administration officials from September 11, 2001, to September 11, 2003, regarding (1) Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction and (2) Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Although both had been frequently cited as rationales for the U.S. war in Iraq, by 2005 it was known that these assertions had not, in fact, been true.”

by on May. 13, 2013 at 6:43 PM
Replies (11-13):
by Member on May. 13, 2013 at 7:42 PM


Quoting inspain:

Oh, FFS, does there always have to be a disclaimer???  Yeah, they all lie.  I know that.  You know that.  But most of the Republicans I know would swear on a stack of bibles that their guy doesn't/didn't.  

Look, they're all about the same with some variations on theme and style.  But you have to admit some are really only working for a very select segment of the population.  I say, if you're going to fuck people, fuck EVERYONE.

Quoting ilana_ny:

And Obama does not lie? They all lie. They ALL want money and power, and non of them (Bush or Obama) cares about you or me or pur kids.  

Quoting inspain:

Shhhh!!  Republicans never do anything "wrong" they're just misunderstood.  Remember, it's all Obama's fault.

Even if Bush lied (over and over and over and over...), it's still Obama's fault.

by Gold Member on May. 13, 2013 at 7:42 PM

If you tell them to cut the crap or you won't vote for them,   they'll at least cut the crap while they're trying to get your vote.     If you don't do that,   you deserve what you get.     Good grief!

by Bronze Member on May. 13, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Because they had reason to believe this was going to happen before it did, they asked Obama (aides etc) for help and instead of sending help they took military personal AWAY - making them even more vulnerable. And once the attack happen help continued to be denied.


It's not so much that it happened it is why did the administration not help that embassy?  Why did they lie and say they never recieved requests for help when they clearly did.  Why does it look like the administraion wanted the attack to take place - (I'm not saying they did, but it kinda looks that way since they denied requests for help and instead took military personnal away!).

Why did they blame a youtube video?  WHy not just say we don't know?

And why have those who know what happened, the survivors been threatened if they talked? 

This isn't secret intelligence anymore - and really a few weeks after it happened it wasn't top secret.

Quoting TigOlBitties:

My question is...if they came out right from the jump and said "All Qaeda just successfully completed an attack on US forces/personnel in Benghazi", what would the Republicans have wanted our response to be? Full fledged war in Libya?

Also, do people really feel that they deserve to know top secret intelligence in real time? I've never expected that and we've never seen that. I don't know why this one attack is different I guess. It's sad and unfortunate of course, but we've had plenty of embassies attacked and personnel killed before...why is this one the most scrutinized? Death and attacks are the type of things that happen with embassies in volatile regions. It's just inevitable.

CafeMom Tickers

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)