OT, just in case you didn't know: Iraq was wrong!

[Mr Punch]

Apart from the tens of military advisors and senior commanders in the UK and US who advised against it logistically (or at least advised that way more troops and a way longer time were needed) and were ignored...

Here's a good article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2244183,00.html).

I think it's safe to say that you could substitute Blair for Bush through most of it too, especially given that for some reason Bush's govt decided to use British advisors on Arabism (and even then way after they should've appointed any advisors: i.e. before the invasion!).

And yep, I know it's from the socialist scoundrels that are the Guardian, but if you're gonna argue about it at least try refuting some of the points - I dare ya! :D

[Chosen-frozen]

Okay, I didn`t read the entire article because it kept repeating the same points over and over. But those points seemed to be that no one was willing to offer any opnions that ran contrary to Blair`s.

The three academics said they thought it was a bad idea, but no one in the foreign service office said they thought it was a bad idea. The academics never briefed the diplomats in the Middle East section, but one would pressume that`s because the people in that section are already weel versed on the topic.

I don`t generally follow the British papers, so I don`t know if Blair had stated that he thought this would be over and done with quickly. But I do remember Bush saying that it would require years and years.

But considering how long theU.S. occupations of Germany and Japan were after WWII, and the fact that we were still getting small amounts of guerilla activity in Germany 8 years after the end of the war. I don`t think any of what`s going on in Iraq now was unforseen. But then again the majority of the population is always looking for the quick fix.

"Those who do not learn from History are destined to repeat it." H. G. Welles

[Merryprankster]

Hmmm... this will get a billion responses or none. I'm going to guess I've read every point in that article tons of times. My thoughts, for all they are worth, or not:

The Iraq war was a bad idea from a "solvability" perspective. Furthermore, it set a bad precedent (preventative war vs. preemptive strike). It was launched on false premises, (premises vice PRETENSES - please keep those notions separate, thanks) by an administration so blinded by their ideology that one of the defining American traits - pragmatism - was overwhelmed by theories about how the world works that ignored historical evidence (after all, history isn't important in a "globalized" age, because it changes everything, right?)....anybody remember that we were to be hailed as liberators and that Iraqis would just up and become a peaceful, stable nation?

In execution, it was a badly botched campaign (genuinely getting better now), matching the wrong type of forces against the wrong type of challenges, using a wrong-headed strategy that ignored the historical and cultural nuances of the region. It has had a destabilizing impact in a strategically important (for more than just oil, thanks...please pay attention to life a little harder) area, and improved the relative position of Iran as a regional power.

Our severely crippled moral authority has allowed Russia and China to assert themselves in ways I say they wouldn't have dared do, prior.

In the meantime, important issues, like finding Bin Ladin, getting a jump start on Africa, which IMO will be THE issue of the 21st century, etc, have gone unattended to.

Yeah.... Iraq matters.

Let's talk now about what it wasn't:

1. It wasn't about "getting the oil." Basic understanding of the oil market renders this argument stupid.

2. It wasn't illegal. The French claimed there was no "automaticity" built into the UN resolutions the United States cited in its justification for war. I've read the relevant resolutions; the French need to learn to ****ing read. You don't want "automaticity?" Write a better resolution next time.

3. It wasn't "built on lies." The Intel community didn't cook the books. They screwed up royally, but lying requires intent. You can make an untrue statement without that intent. Neither did the Bush administration lie. Blinded by American exceptionalism? You bet. Total ****tards in not questioning the data that were behind the analysis on such a major decision? Oh yeah - anything major, I'm going to want to talk about what information the analysis is based on. I'm not talking about sifting through the raw reports. I want to know what TYPES of sources and corroboration exist, etc. Completely ignorant (or merely IGNORING) the area's history? Sure. Lying? Nope.

I wish they had lied. I really really do... because lying is easier to deal with and a hell of a lot less scary than a group of people in power who are utterly and implacably convinced of the moral rightness of their chosen courses of action. That's a path to justifying empire (We aren't one. Words mean things. Empire means something specific. It has been co-opted into colloquial use and then that loose meaning has been used by the vaguely literate or those with an axe to grind.)

I personally plan on holding an election day and inaugural day party, regardless of the election's outcome; any of the potential (ie those with a realistic chance of winning) candidates are better than this.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Wait....hold on a sec....

You mean George Bush isn't saving my ass, whether I like it or not?

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Iraq war was a bad idea from a "solvability" perspective. Furthermore, it set a bad precedent (preventative war vs. preemptive strike). It was launched on false premises, (premises vice PRETENSES - please keep those notions separate, thanks) by an administration so blinded by their ideology that one of the defining American traits - pragmatism - was overwhelmed by theories about how the world works that ignored historical evidence (after all, history isn't important in a "globalized" age, because it changes everything, right?)....anybody remember that we were to be hailed as liberators and that Iraqis would just up and become a peaceful, stable nation?

Fighting wars in other peoples back yards is never a good idea, you may win battles, but you won't win the war, the "insurgents" have no where to go...


In execution, it was a badly botched campaign (genuinely getting better now), matching the wrong type of forces against the wrong type of challenges, using a wrong-headed strategy that ignored the historical and cultural nuances of the region. It has had a destabilizing impact in a strategically important (for more than just oil, thanks...please pay attention to life a little harder) area, and improved the relative position of Iran as a regional power.

Everyone saw this coming, one wonders why they "didn't"...


Our severely crippled moral authority has allowed Russia and China to assert themselves in ways I say they wouldn't have dared do, prior.

No one saw that coming either....:rolleyes:


1. It wasn't about "getting the oil." Basic understanding of the oil market renders this argument stupid.

No, its was about establishing a clear cut sizable presence in the Gulf since they had to leave SA, and why did they want a presence in the Golf? why because of the sandy beaches.


3. It wasn't "built on lies." The Intel community didn't cook the books. They screwed up royally, but lying requires intent. You can make an untrue statement without that intent. Neither did the Bush administration lie. Blinded by American exceptionalism? You bet. Total ****tards in not questioning the data that were behind the analysis on such a major decision? Oh yeah - anything major, I'm going to want to talk about what information the analysis is based on. I'm not talking about sifting through the raw reports. I want to know what TYPES of sources and corroboration exist, etc. Completely ignorant (or merely IGNORING) the area's history? Sure. Lying? Nope.

They were quick to believe what they wanted to to justify what they wanted to do, for whatever reasons they wanted to do it.

[rogue]

Wait....hold on a sec....

You mean George Bush isn't saving my ass, whether I like it or not?
Don't worry, he still is. The war on terror, which is still underway, has been pretty successful.


In execution, it was a badly botched campaign (genuinely getting better now), matching the wrong type of forces against the wrong type of challenges, using a wrong-headed strategy that ignored the historical and cultural nuances of the region. It has had a destabilizing impact in a strategically important (for more than just oil, thanks...please pay attention to life a little harder) area, and improved the relative position of Iran as a regional power.

One reason is the planners thought this would just be like Iraq War I, and needless to say it wasn't. War planners hate unconventional warfare and deal with it by ignoring it's possibility even after it happens.

My opinion in regards to Iran is that it was only a matter of time before they gained more power, and I don't think Iraq sans Sadaam would have survived very long. So in a way we pushed the time line up of something that was almost inevitable.

[xcakid]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Liokault]

1. It wasn't about "getting the oil." Basic understanding of the oil market renders this argument stupid.

So, what was it about? Certainly nothing to do with terrorism, unless the point was to 'grow' the threat.




3. It wasn't "built on lies."

Yes it was, the whole WMD thing was clearly a pretext. Look at the whole "Iraq has WMD's that can be deployed in 45 minuets, were all at risk" thing, as it was presented to parliament and was one of the key reasons that the UK went to war, where it latter turned out that they meant there were WMD's that could be deployed locally in the field in Iraq.......so no one was under any level of threat until we went in!

[Seppukku]

So, what was it about? Certainly nothing to do with terrorism, unless the point was to 'grow' the threat.




Yes it was, the whole WMD thing was clearly a pretext. Look at the whole "Iraq has WMD's that can be deployed in 45 minuets, were all at risk" thing, as it was presented to parliament and was one of the key reasons that the UK went to war, where it latter turned out that they meant there were WMD's that could be deployed locally in the field in Iraq.......so no one was under any level of threat until we went in!

Are you sure you're not talking about the Bay of Pigs?:confused:

[MasterKiller]

So, what was it about? Certainly nothing to do with terrorism, unless the point was to 'grow' the threat.!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[Shaolin Wookie]

American globalism?:confused:

They missed the imperial train by a century. I can't believe this kind of rhetoric is popping up again.


Take up the Democratic Burden

Send forth your sturdy kin,

And load them down with Bibles

And cannon-balls and gin.

Throw in a few diseases

To spread the tropic climes,

For there the healthy ******s

Are quite behind the times.

And don’t forget the factories.

On those benighted shores

They have no cheerful iron mills,

Nor eke department stores.

They never work twelve hours a day

And live in strange content,

Altho they never have to pay

A single sou of rent.

Take up the White Man’s burden,

And teach the Philippines

What interest and taxes are

And what a mortgage means.

Give them electrocution chairs,

And prisons, too, galore,

And if they seem inclined to kick,

Then spill their heathen gore.

They need our labor question, too,

And politics and fraud—

We’ve made a pretty mess at home,

Let’s make a mess abroad.
And let us ever humbly pray

The Lord of Hosts may deign

To stir our feeble memories

Lest we forget—the Maine.

Take up the White’s Man’s burden.

To you who thus succeed

In civilizing savage hordes,

They owe a debt, indeed;

Concessions, pensions, salaries,

And privilege and right—

With outstretched hands you raised to bless

Grab everything in sight.

Take up the White Man’s burden

And if you write in verse,

Flatter your nation’s vices

And strive to make them worse.

Then learn that if with pious words

You ornament each phrase,

In a world of canting hypocrites

This kind of business pays.

--Crosby (edit)

[MasterKiller]

Look at the names on that charter list:


Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,

D1ck Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes,

Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle,

Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby , Norman Podhoretz,

Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen,

Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

Sound familiar?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Look at the names on that charter list:



Sound familiar?

Look at the net worth of some of those names.:eek:

[Golden Spider]

So,
How do you folks feel about MONSANTO owning 80%+ of all food producing technology in the western world? Donald Rumsfeld used to be on their board of directors I believe...?

[rogue]

So, what was it about? Certainly nothing to do with terrorism, unless the point was to 'grow' the threat.

I don't think so, but part of it could be unfinished business. The US takes a dim view of it's presidents being assassinated, more so when the target in question is your dad.


From the organ of the vast right wing conspiracy, Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/assassination.html)


During the former president's visit to Kuwait to commemorate the coalition's victory over Iraq in the Gulf War, Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in a car bomb plot to kill George H.W. Bush. Through interviews with the suspects and examinations of the bomb's circuitry and wiring, the FBI established that the plot had been directed by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. A Kuwaiti court later convicted all but one of the defendants.

In retaliation, President Clinton two months later ordered the firing of 23 cruise missiles at Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad. The day before the attack U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright went before the Security Council to present evidence of the Iraqi plot. And, after the U.S. attack, Vice President Gore said the attack "was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot" to assassinate Bush "was hatched and implemented."

From the journal of neo-con thought... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm)


U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."

Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

In regards to WMD, don't forget that Sadaam thought of himself as a master games man. Acting like he had WMD was possibly a cheap way to deter enemies and something to use as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The Russians may be using the same type of ploy with their "missing" nukes.

[rogue]

BTW, I first heard this theory on NPR in an interview with an Iraqi WMD scientist. I never heard much about it after so I'm not sure if it was disproved or just shoved to the side since it didn't benefit either the pro or anti war/Bush crowds.

I did find a reference to the theory on David Horowitz' site (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=EFBDC09D-5987-49E1-897E-4E30687C2E96) who probably isn't a non-biased third party. Not to say that he's wrong.

[Mr Punch]

Hmmm... this will get a billion responses or none. I'm going to guess I've read every point in that article tons of times.Are you telling me you didn't read it!? :eek: I'm hurt MP, you thinking I'd post the same old conspiracy tripe. :rolleyes: It isn't.

It is addressing Blair's ideological perspectives and how they prevented any honest input of information from people who mattered.


The Iraq war was a bad idea from a "solvability" perspective.Part of the point of the article.

Furthermore, it set a bad precedent (preventative war vs. preemptive strike).Not mentioned.
It was launched on false premises, (premises vice PRETENSES - please keep those notions separate, thanks) by an administration so blinded by their ideology that one of the defining American traits - pragmatism - was overwhelmed by theories about how the world works that ignored historical evidence (after all, history isn't important in a "globalized" age, because it changes everything, right?)Bolded part main point of the article but with Blair buying into that trait...
anybody remember that we were to be hailed as liberators and that Iraqis would just up and become a peaceful, stable nation?It's a thoughtful article, not a polemic, so this kind of point is not rubbed in our faces again.


In execution, it was a badly botched campaign (genuinely getting better now), matching the wrong type of forces against the wrong type of challenges, using a wrong-headed strategy that ignored the historical and cultural nuances of the region. Main point. But in this article this failure is given a renewed prominence, which in terms of future political ramifications (internal, not diplomatic, international, religious etc) is where it should really make us think.


It has had a destabilizing impact in a strategically important (for more than just oil, thanks...please pay attention to life a little harder) area,Interesting. At least now you're accepting that oil had some bearing, whereas before you were always denying that it had anything to do with oil IIRC. Not being snide, just wondering: any reason for your change of stance? BTW, not mentioned in the article. and improved the relative position of Iran as a regional power.
The rest of your points except No 3 are irrelevant to the article but of course good and valid points anyway.
3. It wasn't "built on lies." The Intel community didn't cook the books. They screwed up royally, but lying requires intent. You can make an untrue statement without that intent. Neither did the Bush administration lie. Blinded by American exceptionalism? You bet. Total ****tards in not questioning the data that were behind the analysis on such a major decision? Oh yeah - anything major, I'm going to want to talk about what information the analysis is based on. I'm not talking about sifting through the raw reports. I want to know what TYPES of sources and corroboration exist, etc. Completely ignorant (or merely IGNORING) the area's history? Sure. Lying? Nope.

I wish they had lied. I really really do... because lying is easier to deal with and a hell of a lot less scary than a group of people in power who are utterly and implacably convinced of the moral rightness of their chosen courses of action.This is the point, and why I posted the article. Although I think your final distinction (though, again, not mentioned in the article) is a point worth arguing. At what point does the colloquial use become the more pertinent one? But then it's a semantic argument and I'm not really confident enough of my knowledge of linguistics to pull it off.


I personally plan on holding an election day and inaugural day party, regardless of the election's outcome; any of the potential (ie those with a realistic chance of winning) candidates are better than this.LOL, that's very optimistic! Huckabee? McCain? Hilary? Come on!

[rogue]

A senior Foreign Office official admitted to worrying that Iran would benefit from the invasion more than other countries. "I remember saying to myself that we might be in a position of having destroyed Iraq and leaving a resurgent Iran," he told me. Typically, he never communicated his concern to ministers. His reason, he said, was that as the war drew nearer, the mood in Downing Street discouraged officials from raising problems.

The same old story of so many people who were obviously smarter than everyone else in charge but failed to say something.:rolleyes:


I agree about the current crop of candidates on both sides being slightly less than inspiring. If only Obama was a conservative and actually stood for something besides a fuzzy idea of "change".

[Mr Punch]

The same old story of so many people who were obviously smarter than everyone else in charge but failed to say something.:rolleyes:Exactly. Makes me wonder why there is so much suspicion of intellectuals in Anglo-Saxon society... One would have thought that electing more economists and -ologists would be a good idea. I certainly look forward to it over the ****ing Lords in the UK, when they're finally completely done away with in favour of an elected Upper House.


I agree about the current crop of candidates on both sides being slightly less than inspiring.Uh-oh. Seems like this may be about to develop into another impossible presidential debate thread! IMO, the answer is more simple. Democracy itself is failing in many ways due to the size of the jurisdictions. There needs to be more state autonomy (including Scottish and Welsh devolution/independence in the UK) and reform of electoral systems. Maybe that would prevent asshats like Blair ignoring everyone.
If only Obama was a conservative and actually stood for something besides a fuzzy idea of "change".A lot of conservatives seem to think it would be good if he were conservative... maybe you should give him a chance. Fuzzy ideas of change may be what's needed to generate the kind of enthusiasm and constructive idealism for real change that your forefathers had. Maybe... :o

[Mr Punch]

BTW Rogue, GWB still isn't saving my ass.

:p

[rogue]

Uh-oh. Seems like this may be about to develop into another impossible presidential debate thread!

But it could be fun.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080122/D8UAT5IG0.html


GWB still isn't saving my ass.
You aint dead are ya? :p

[rogue]

And to get some panties in a wad...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html

[Mas Judt]

I agree about the current crop of candidates on both sides being slightly less than inspiring. If only Obama was a conservative and actually stood for something besides a fuzzy idea of "change".

On the contrary, Obama paints a very clear picture - he os a Woodrow Wilson 'Progressive.' He advocates 'change' for 'change' sake. He advocates a technocratic approach that 'transcends' left or right (i.e. statism is the ONLY solution), he advocates aggressive internationlism (I'll invade Pakistan if I have too!).

Frankly, he has a lot more in common with GW Bush than you might think.

[rogue]

There is that, but I'm still waiting for someone who is more of a conservative or Classical Liberal.

[rogue]

(CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml


BTW, David Ross is saving your azz whether you like it or not.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml


BTW, David Ross is saving your azz whether you like it or not.

As long as that is SAVING and not SHAVING.

[jo]

Study: False statements preceded war
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 54 minutes ago

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 **** 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/

[Yao Sing]

What do you mean "was"?


As long as that is SAVING and not SHAVING.

Guess you haven't noticed my sig.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What do you mean "was"?



Guess you haven't noticed my sig.

Well, at least its not a brazilian wax...

[Baqualin]

Study: False statements preceded war
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 54 minutes ago

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 **** 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/

Funded by George Sorros!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Funded by George Sorros!

Ok...but is it incorrect ?

[Black Jack II]

No, I think its on the ball.

Soro's is all about shaping policy. This is another one of hid deals I believe.

[bakxierboxer]

No, I think its on the ball.

Soro's is all about shaping policy. This is another one of hid deals I believe.

You almost sound like you "approve" of "his deals".... which include world-wide gun-control regulations.....

[SifuAbel]

Its unfortunate that your devil is telling the truth. He may be the devil, buts its still the truth.

[Black Jack II]

You almost sound like you "approve" of "his deals".... which include world-wide gun-control regulations.....

Are you high or is comprehension the problem. I was speaking about how it "IS" a soro article.

I never stated I approve of anything that ******* believes in. Don't lump be in with that liberal POS.

[bakxierboxer]

Are you high or is comprehension the problem. I was speaking about how it "IS" a soro article.

I never stated I approve of anything that ******* believes in. Don't lump be in with that liberal POS.

I didn't think you were "on his side", but the article itself is pretty clearly in favor of his actions/policies.... otherwise "certain parties" wouldn't have bothered to post it.

[rogue]

The Soros funded group could be right with their count, just add what Piro is saying and you get that the Administration was wrong on their analysis, helped by a dictator who was bluffing for all that he was worth that he had something he didn't, but with a bottom line that the Administration was not telling intentional "false hoods".

So this may be accurate...

...false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

But this is not...

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."

[sanjuro_ronin]

No, I think its on the ball.

Soro's is all about shaping policy. This is another one of hid deals I believe.

Its a tricky slope, you may not like or agree with the lobby group for beef, for example, but if they fund a study that, correctly, says that beef is rich in iron, it's still is the truth wither you like them or not.

Its drawing conclusions from a given study that is the "bias" part.

[bakxierboxer]

Its a tricky slope, you may not like or agree with the lobby group for beef, for example, but if they fund a study that, correctly, says that beef is rich in iron, it's still is the truth wither you like them or not.

Its drawing conclusions from a given study that is the "bias" part.

Soros only funds studies/organizations/candidates that will say what he wants them to say.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Soros only funds studies/organizations/candidates that will say what he wants them to say.

Which is irrelevant IF what they say is the truth.

[bakxierboxer]

Which is irrelevant IF what they say is the truth.

Reaching a preordained conclusion based on selected "facts" is NOT what most folks understand to be a "scientific study"....
OTOH, it is kind of over-reaching to expect some folks to understand that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Reaching a preordained conclusion based on selected "facts" is NOT what most folks understand to be a "scientific study"....
OTOH, it is kind of over-reaching to expect some folks to understand that.

Which has nothing to do with someone funding any "study".

When a study that is funded by a vegitarian group shows that veggies are good for you, it doesn't change that fact that they are good for you.
Its when you use those very same facts to reach a conclusion that has zero to do with the study, like veggies are better than meat, that there is a problem.

[bakxierboxer]

Which has nothing to do with someone funding any "study".

No, it doesn't, since such a "study" is actually propaganda/dogma.
(don't ask what happens when the dog-mas get together with the dog-pas)


When a study that is funded by a vegitarian group shows that veggies are good for you, it doesn't change that fact that they are good for you.

IF it is truly studied/investigated.
If it is simply regurgitating rote points it should be presented as such.


Its when you use those very same facts to reach a conclusion that has zero to do with the study, like veggies are better than meat, that there is a problem.

You mean like the way that posted AP hype/"story" was presented?
(Kinda like a modern day Grimm fairy-tale/tail)

In any case, what is this recent fixation you have on beef/veggies/food in general?
You looking for things to try out with some strange kinda gravy?

[sanjuro_ronin]

No, it doesn't, since such a "study" is actually propaganda/dogma.
(don't ask what happens when the dog-mas get together with the dog-pas)



IF it is truly studied/investigated.
If it is simply regurgitating rote points it should be presented as such.



You mean like the way that posted AP hype/"story" was presented?
(Kinda like a modern day Grimm fairy-tale/tail)

In any case, what is this recent fixation you have on beef/veggies/food in general?
You looking for things to try out with some strange kinda gravy?

LOL !

I am hungry, **** fasting regime !
I need taco ;)

[bakxierboxer]

LOL !

I am hungry, **** fasting regime !
I need taco ;)

?????????
You gonna put dat gravy onna Taco?

[sanjuro_ronin]

?????????
You gonna put dat gravy onna Taco?

My taco makes its own juices !
;)

[bakxierboxer]

My taco makes its own juices !
;)

Didn' look like no taco to me..........

[sanjuro_ronin]

Didn' look like no taco to me..........

Hidden taco (though not by much) :D

[bakxierboxer]

Hidden taco (though not by much) :D

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Taco"??

[sanjuro_ronin]

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Taco"??

If she was asian, in this case, being hispanic it would be more like...ummm...latin taco....*drool*...sorry, lost my track of thought...

[bakxierboxer]

If she was asian, in this case, being hispanic it would be more like...ummm...latin taco....*drool*...sorry, lost my track of thought...

At least we've gotten to the point that we've established that we're not talking about you having your own personal taco/body-part(ing).....

[rogue]

The war with terrorists continues. At least it shows the results you'll get for caving in to their demands.

Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2650359520080126?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true)


Print | Close this window
Islamists planned attacks across Europe: report
Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:06am EST

MADRID (Reuters) - Islamist extremists were planning attacks across Europe, especially against public transport, before their arrests in Barcelona last weekend, a Spanish paper reported on Saturday, citing a would-be attacker's testimony.

The Al Qaeda-inspired cell planned to attack the Barcelona metro and other targets in Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom, said the bomber turned police informant.

In testimony that led to the arrest of 14 South Asians last Saturday, the informant told police the group had a preference for attacks on public transport, especially metro systems, El Pais newspaper reported.

"If we attack the metro, the emergency services can't get there," the informant said he was told by a fellow suicide bomber, El Pais reported.

Two pairs with explosive-filled bags were to enter separate Barcelona subway stations and other members of the group were to detonate their bombs by remote control, said the witness.

On Friday, Spain's government said the Barcelona cell was preparing to carry out the metro attack either last weekend or in the following 15 days.

Two other pairs of suicide bombers had been assigned targets elsewhere in Spain, another was to attack Germany, three were given objectives in France and two more were to strike Portugal.

The informant said the Barcelona cell had six suicide bombers and other members responsible for preparing explosives and planning attacks in other European states. Four of those arrested have since been released due to lack of evidence.

Al Qaeda was to take responsibility for the Barcelona attacks through Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban commander the Pakistani government says was behind the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, El Pais said.

"Only the leadership of the organization knows what requests the emir (Baitullah) will make after the first attack, but if they are not carried out, there will be a second attack, a third in Spain. And next Germany, France, Portugal, United Kingdom," the head of the cell told the police informer, El Pais reported.

The Barcelona bombings could have taken place less than two months before Spain's March 9 general election.

Islamic militants attacked Madrid commuter trains days before Spain's last general election in March 2004, killing 191 people and wounding 1,800. They said the attacks were made in revenge for Spain sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.