Study: 2 Years Of Lies Led To Iraq War

bush lied... so many died... so much debt... so little leadership... such a mess... such a dismal failure... why can't he be impeached?

jsut like hes doing to iran, getting the isreals to attack ,,,so we get sucked into the war this moronwants , even when his lies are disproved or doubtfully fail to be affirmed he will stay the course , war with iran , one way or another ,,

It took a 2 year study to figure that out? Dang, I want to get into the research industry. Those idiots get paid tons of money for publicizing what the rest of us already know.

And let's see just how far this thread goes. What do you want to bet it doesn't collect too many posts. People would rather complain about Clinton's lies about a BJ than Bush's lies about war and getting Americans killed.

john wrote:

jsut like hes doing to iran, getting the isreals to attack ,,,so we get sucked into the war this moronwants , even when his lies are disproved or doubtfully fail to be affirmed he will stay the course , war with iran , one way or another ,,

He was so disappointed the trumped up boating incident didn't gain any traction. He's itching. He only has one year left, but I think he aims to make it worth his while.

It took two foundations tell us the "decider" and his "spinners" lied about Saddam and WMD's!

The IAEA told us the same thing for free, and much earlier.

Bush lie? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Lets get a study to see if the nitwit told the truth about anything!!! How bout Dick "shotgun Cheney? O yeah they just had an article on Topix about GW's religious mentor. HAHAHAHA

FROM THIS STUDY:

""...It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," 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 Mr. 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.

Mr. Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al Qaeda, 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 Qaeda..."

This is the reason that they are called "LYING NEO-CONSERVATIVES."

The only one who really surprised me was Colin Powell. I once thought that he cared more about his country and his 'boys' than his political viability. He is the saddest dissapointment of all. The rest were rats from the get-go.

So true I had high hopes for Powell.Notice though how he bailed out right after.I cant wait to see the Bush lickers come out on this one.The first argument will be the groups that did the study are nothing but liberals.I'm taking bets on this one.

Mr_Bill wrote:

FROM THIS STUDY:
""...It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," 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 Mr. 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.
Mr. Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al Qaeda, 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 Qaeda..."
This is the reason that they are called "LYING NEO-CONSERVATIVES."
The only one who really surprised me was Colin Powell. I once thought that he cared more about his country and his 'boys' than his political viability. He is the saddest dissapointment of all. The rest were rats from the get-go.

Let's see how many presidential candidates FACE THIS ISSUE and tell us how they will BE HONEST and run a transparent government, so the people will KNOW what is REALLY going on.

I was waiting for this to show up in forums .... at first I thought all the right-wing-neo-conservatives would be rallying trying to defend Bush, but I realize they have no way to defend him except to call the study lies. That's not possible.

The one thing I would love to know(and I know we will never get it) is why ?
Why was it and is it so important to fight in the Middle East?

I by no means defend Bush's administration, and I truly believe there were plenty of lies.

However, you really have to look at the sources here. I have been unable to access the Center for Public Integrity's web site, but did get to the Fund for Indepence in Journalism.

The latter is completely focused on anti-Bush propaganda. Hardly a "bi-partisan" source.

Be careful with stories like these. While Bush's war has been the worst thing this country has done in my lifetime, it's the type of thing that gives the opponents too much power. We're just getting set up for the same type of tragedy initiated by the other side.

I could go into the lambasting of the morons that did this supposed study,(they must have been taking their notes from the democratic caucus instead of looking at real facts) but, I like the rest of the world already know the truth, Bush went on what he was being told at the time by foreign powers and the previous administration of liars. With all those lies told to him and the thoughts of going after the man that attempted to murder his father on top of it, not to mention the fact we were able to get rid of a terrorist in the process, I can see why he did it. Who cares why, it's already done, were there and we did our jobs. Of course now we also have to do the rebuilding too, and that always takes time and is the dirtiest part of it all. When it's all said and done, we're not finished over there and having our people already in place, we're in a better position to handle the situation at hand. Bush will go down in history as the man who cleaned up the middle east, the Clintons on the other hand have already gone down,(besides on women,) as being the ones who sent all our jobs south while taking what money we weren't making and destroying the economy in the process. I'll be so glad to see Hillary go away in the next few months!

Bush lies...duh.

I guess I spoke too soon.

bryts wrote:

I by no means defend Bush's administration, and I truly believe there were plenty of lies.
However, you really have to look at the sources here. I have been unable to access the Center for Public Integrity's web site, but did get to the Fund for Indepence in Journalism.
The latter is completely focused on anti-Bush propaganda. Hardly a "bi-partisan" source.
Be careful with stories like these. While Bush's war has been the worst thing this country has done in my lifetime, it's the type of thing that gives the opponents too much power. We're just getting set up for the same type of tragedy initiated by the other side.

Where did you get the information that Fund for Independence in Journalism is a bush-bashing source? I found nothing in their website to indicate that at all. http://www.tfij.org/

Here's the other website.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.as...

Monday quarterbacks .... get a grip ...

well wat a bout that
stop the uk tankers supling petrol to the british
must of lost to neney and my kid
merry in the phill, was killd after the 9.11. attaks
led to that and so on
the raven

Im not suprised it took to years, it took 20 years for people to realize cigarattes actually turn your insides into the seventh circle of hell...I wonder how the pundits are going to spin this one. They will say the research group is PRO-Hillary, or PRO-Liberal, or PRO anything that is Anti NeoCon. Ha. I Love myself, im so witty.

Lets not forget the Jewish neocons and the jewish owned media that led us the whole way into the war nor the PNAC. These people have one thing on their minds and one thing only, World Jewery. Everything else is meaningless to them. Its the reason these people were kicked out of every country they ever lived in. Wake up!

Just wondering how someone could know there were no WMDs until after they went to Iraq? 20/20 hindsight I guess. Remember Saddam totally defying NATO orders for full disclosure? Is that how innocent leaders act? If there were no WMDs, he should have removed all doubt by letting NATO in there when they originally approached him. He had three full months to ship those weapons out of Iraq, and when Bush finally got sick of all the p/ussy footing around by NATO, and with the FULL APPROVAL of Congress, we went there to hold Saddam accountable. America lost over 3000 people to terrorists who were funded and equipped by the Iraqi leadership, and we expected our President to do nothing? I'm so sick of all this democrat bu/llcrap!