Another Soros-Funded Study!
by Matt Margolis on January 22nd, 2008 at 09:17pm
It never ceases to amaze me what the Associated Press considers to be newsworthy. They’ve recently reported about 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.”
Who are the two so-called nonprofit organizations? The Center for Public Integrity, and the Fund for Independence in Journalism. And guess what? They’re funded by none other than George Soros. Imagine that.
As bad as it was that the Associated Press thought this was news, the actual “data” for the study is laughable. It might as well have been Media Matters who put the study out.
More at Right Voices.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Does anyone have a link to the actual study? I’ve been trying to find it over at their website with no luck…
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Yes, Mark… here’s the link.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
In my best James Gandolphini,
“yeah right”
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Why, yes. George Soros (who, to make things easier for the right, just ought to go ahead and have his name changed to Emmanuel Goldstein, because providing financial support to the Solidarity movement in Poland, the Charter 77 inititative in Czechoslovakia and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, isn’t getting him any love) did give some money to the Center For Public Integrity. As a matter of fact, so have a whole lot of people. What kind of gratitude did he get? They talked about him and 527 non-profit organizations as they “work the system” in their “Silent Partners” report.
So, let me see, if a wealthy guy with an identifiable point of view spends his money on any kind of news or research then it must be irretrievably biased. Why, thanks, now we can all turn off and put down every offering from Rupert Murdoch including all the elements of Fox, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal and books published by HarperCollins. Excellent!
So, just exactly what does it mean to say, “They’re funded by none other than George Soros”? Does their annual budget come entirely from George Soros? Has he funded them at some percentage over a number of years? Does he sit on a board of directors for the organization? If I sent them $20 can you ignore everything they ever said because they were “funded by none other than Diana Powe”?
Any of these questions relevant at all?
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
“hundreds” ? OK, they made a typo . So what ?Should be “thousands” . Big deal, they’re being generous.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Diana Powe,
Don’t be absurd. The very fact that Soros funded the study proves it is a crock of you know what. When I first read the AP report I went directly to the Center For Public Integrity website to find out who funds them because I was willing to bet it was Soros. Of course, the website is too slow and I could not get the answer. However, this blog confirmed what I suspected.
Only a demented liberal would compare Fox News to a Soros funded story. Thanks for showing your true colours Diana.
Oh and by the way, liberal Diana, Soros can put out his bias opinion all he wants. The issue here is a Soros funded organization trying to appear objective….moron.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
[...] Another Soros-Funded Study! It never ceases to amaze me what the Associated Press considers to be newsworthy. They’ve recently reported about 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.” Who are the two so-called nonprofit organizations? The Center for Public Integrity, and the Fund for Independence in Journalism. And gues [...]
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Tee hypocrisy of it all. It is the Neocon pundits here that will pass of their sources as near saint-like and blast anybody who tries to discredit them. They blame people for attacking the messenger instead of the message and try to discredit posters for doing so. Then when they find a source they dislike or disagree with they try to do the same damn thing - discredit the source instead of the report, story, article, etc. If you had half a brain to operate a free thinking mind you could easily go to youtube and find hunders of videos that validate this report. You will find clip after clip where Bush or his cabinet members will say one thing and then when questioned later will say they never said it. You can find videos where both Cheney and Bush explicitly link Al Qaeda to Iraq and then turn around and say they never said such things. I mean the amount of disception you can find is mind boggling as if they could hide such things in this day and age. And for the record, just because you don’t want something to be true doesn’t mean it isn’t.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Pete_Bondurant,
Thanks for calling me a “moron” and continuing Mark’s demonstration project as to how hateful and mean liberals are.
So, tell me, how many dollars out of what budget did George Soros contribute for this particular study? Reading what Matt wrote provides exactly zero information on this most important question if you’re going to follow the obvious lead of the post and scoff at how incredibly obviously biased and flawed this study is.
You said you went to the site and couldn’t get in it, “However, this blog confirmed what I suspected.” Really? With what information? I must have missed Matt’s explanation about the dollar amounts. Could you quote that part for me? Thanks.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Well, I think the report is probably accurate as far as it goes. But, counting the number of times people said the same wrong thing seems silly.
There were a couple of base mistakes that were indeed false and were repeated many times.
1. That Iraq had WMD and was working on getting nukes. Iraq had some old stockpiles of WMD that may not have been serviceable. And Sadaams own generals believed he was trying to obtain nukes. Sadaam himself propagated this misinformation because he thought it would prevent an attack rather than cause one.
2. That Iraq had ties to Al Queda. Well, Iraq did have ties to Al Queada along with other terror organizations. Though these ties were tenuous. A common “falsehood” propagated by some is that the administration claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11.
To some extent, these things were false. Yes. But they were believed. The studies don’t claim they were lies, just wrong. So? Whats new about that?
IF you BELIEVED that they were true. IF you BELIEVED that Iraq had ties to Al Queda and was working on nukes, it would have been your duty (as it was the administrations) to do something about it.
Now, the liberal argument is that the administration KNEW thate these things were wrong and so was lying. These studies do NOT back up that claim and I have yet to see any proof of it.
So there, we get your argument. These studies don’t support it. OK? Now - pick apart my spelling or some other nit.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Kahn,
Actually, I don’t have anything critical to say about you wrote. I haven’t looked at the study myself, so I can’t anything intelligent about its content. It may be useful or it may not be.
My objection was only to the post offering the idea that there was simply no reason to give any credence to it because of some non-specific information about how George Soros has contributed money to the organization. In fact, I have seen no information that connects Soros to this particular study at all. So, absent that, it is merely a case of classic guilt by association because George Soros is the current Emmanuel Goldstein for the right.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 am
Diana,
You know darned well that if a group had taken so much as a cent from, say, Haliburton you would automatically discount anything it had to say…
What you should be more concerned with here is no defending the study, but asking why a fat-cat, financial shark like Soros is on your side…
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
I can’t take Rupert Murdock’s Fox News… it’s just a GOP propaganda machine.
That goes for all the other Murdock publications… right wing propaganda.
He’s WAY more powerful the Soros.
There’s a lot of rich, powerful right-wingers behind the scenes like Murdock, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Sinclair family etc.
Let’s be honest about this, “Soros controlling the media” when there are a legion of right-wingers controlling things.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 am
And besides, Clinton lied about having sex.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 am
Mark,
Diane is absolutely right (as usual). Your argument regarding bias is extremely weak. How can counting verifiable public statements be biased anyway?
I’ll agree that the study itself is a bit silly. We know the administration claimed there were weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Queda, but I’m not sure what counting the number of times they said it proves - other than that they were determined to “sell” it to the public. We already knew that.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
Sorry - make that Matt
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 am
A quick look at the funders of those organizations says it all (Heinz, Streisand Foundation, Soros, etc).
But, here is the real question:
Besides the fact that the report is clearly “propoganda” and false as proven by several Senate and bi-partisan commissions who investigated the pre-war intelligence….
and, I won’t even get into what the recently translated Iraq documents have shown about Saddam’s WMD and al Qaeda connections….
if it were true…..
why doesn’t the article mention how many times Hillary Clinton lied, Bill Clinton lied, all those in Congress who signed the Iraq War Resolution lied (a lot of Democrats on that list), France lied, Germany lied, Russia lied, Britain lied, etc etc etc?
It is propoganda wrapped in newsprint. Shouldn’t that bother all freedom loving people?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:07 am
What would anybody else have done?
Situation called for something to happen. The UN sure wasnt effective. Our satellites showed alot of shuffling going to as well, just before UN Inspection teams were scheduled to show up.
Its strange how that happens, no?
Our documentation of production materials Iraq purchased is accurate. Those materials, is such massive quantities, were for WMD. We also know, Iraq admitted, that they had a massive stockpile of completed, ready to go, agents..and anthrax.
Nobody remembers that the UN found Plutonium either. Someone tried to point to Pakistan equipment, but that equipment had been checked before with out any traces.
What would anyone else do? Our troops are being fired on regularly by Saddams forces. Our Intel tells us that ground units are still active in the no fly zone, killing innocent civilians. The Oil being smuggled out of Iraq through its pourous borders is funneling substantial cash into Saddams hands. 9 out of 10 of the requesitions given to UN under Sanctions for import contain banned equipment and/or material. Its been this way for about a decade.
Should we have stopped all that was going on? Just the presence in the region to maintain the N/S no fly zone was costing America Hundreds of Millions per year. We had attacked and destroyed radar and military sites dozens of times for targeting our aircraft.
No. I dont think most reasonable people would have been irresponsible enough to let this go on much further. We were being lied to and decieved, even his son in law defected and told us they had WMD programs in violation of cease fire agreement in 95.
Saddams failure to comply with the cease fire agreement he entered into with the UN left us in a de-facto state of war. Saddam “NEVER” signed a peace treaty with anybody.
Congress said it was all true. Our intelligence agencies said it was all true. What would anyone else besides Bush have done?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 am
So the objectives and bias of George Soros has no bearing whatsoever on the objectivity of these studies, but the studies of scientists that refute global warming, are completely baseless because of the bias and objectives of big oil?
Is that what liberals are telling us?
LOL.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 am
Interesting… how is a study funded by the man who said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush in 2004 unbiased? Mr. Soros donated $23,581,000 to various groups dedicated to defeating President Bush in 2004.
Any reported funded by him that is critical of President Bush can only be biased. (and mostly built on lies)
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Call it even Noonan because the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are the ones who pushed for the Iraq War and the Long War concept of fighting terrorism. If Soros is a boogeyman what does that make Reuel Gerecht or Bill Kristol? None of them have any blood on their hands literally, but metaphorically? Buckets and buckets of human blood stain them all. You don’t get to be George Soros by being Mister Nice Guy, nor do you rise like Gerecht and Kristol by doing your own heavy lifting. It’s a push.
Here’s another one, if the current administration lied to get the US into the war and you think they did the right thing what does it matter? The 110th Congress is not going to jeopardize its current privilege by Impeaching Bush and Cheney because it’s pointless and likely could not be commenced while they are in office.
Yet they could still be tried by the Senate after Impeachment in the House AFTER they leave office and stripped of their Executive Pensions, privileges and right to USSS protection. With a Democrat in the Oval Office and a strong Democratic majority [more blue dogs please!] in Congress it would give the people something to do while they waited for the economy to cycle back around.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 am
Diane,
That’s the funniest, most delusional, blindly partisan, void of reality post I have ever read.
And, incidentally, it’s the blue dog Dems that have prevented Pelosi and Reid from securing defeat. It’s that reality detachment thing.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
Anyone interested in porn? Visit Diane T’s blog. I don’t know the age of the stars. Another “progressive”.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
7. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Thanks for calling me a “moron”
————————–
did you ever consider that it just might have some basis in reality?
look at you, raa raa for all this hoopola about some report made by a known liberal billionaire and the “non-profit” supported survey he paid for….
been looking to find the criteria they used for this accusation?
its hard enough to get their web site to download, eh?
“Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage”
what a gas!!
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Neocon,
I’m glad I could get you to laugh today but it’s neither blindly partisan nor delusional. The Blue Dogs have kept Pelosi and Reid from stepping on a political third rail and their constituencies will reward them with reelection. So how does that help the GOP? Well it doesn’t it helps the Democrats who can secure more seats in Congress by electing regional moderates in the House and liberals in the Senate than the GOP can by running pro-Bush conservatives in the House and anti-Immigrant platformists in the Senate.
You still with me? Good. Now out of all of this you get a huge shift to the CENTER in the House and to the left in the Senate. Centrists in the House are all about law and order even Democrats and they would be willing with Blue Dogs out front to Impeach Bush even after he is gone. A Senate with 64 Democrats could easily find Bush and Cheney guilty. That’s not reality detachment that’s how the boys and girls do it in places like Washington DC when you are playing for real chips.
And SEW my poor misguided little friend did the scary pictures of the naked girls offend you? I’m genuinely sorry if they did but you know what I am a progressive and I also am here to assure you everyone depicted is over the age of 18 as is required by US law.
If what we post graphically makes our opinions less valid what does that say about Rush Limbaugh doctor shopping which has gotten lesser folk who had gotten fewer Oxys some serious jail time? But more importantly what you get at The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork are facts as opposed to what people wish the facts were. And oh yeah a few hot chicks as well.
Did I mention the entire Bush administration and their enablers in corporate America are being tried in Hell in absentia?? I cannot make this stuff up people, the Afterlife is good!
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 am
I just realized that I made a big mistake in some earlier posts. I said that no other country had ever been persuaded to stop nuke production/development. I was wrong.
Iraq was, By George Bush’s father.
1. Iraq, by Bush 1 after the first Gulf war
2. Iran, by Bush 2 immediately after the Iraq invasion
3. Libya, by Bush 2 immediately after the Iraq invasion
and
4. North Korea, by Bush 2 a couple of years after the Iraq invasion.
Stopping hostile nukes is good - yes?
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
DT,
Its so easy to speculate those things, eh? Reality isnt so nice. You ding on the current administration and thier enablers in Corporate America, and then grasp at some illusion that you dont make this stuff up. The real fact is, Corporate America IS the demoncrat party, its history abounds with fact filled lobbied influence and thier efforts paying off in results hidden behind humanitarian based legislation like health care for children and defense budgets.
Didnt Pelosi and Reid run on a platform that they would stop doing that? Just to turn around and make huge loopholes to enable it? And FACT; a large majority of the veto’ed legislation by Bush was directly due to excessive earmarks in that legislation.
Do you think Americans are so stupid that they will fall for this game for ever? These Political Stunts are classic bait and switch maneuvers@!!
They KNOW Bush will veto legislation that contains excessive earmarks, so what do they do? They drum up some of the most tree hugging humanitarian issue and tag it for a free for all earmark repository so they can villify the Executive Office for doing the right thing.
Want to talk about corruption? Deal with the lies from the last election. They make Bush look like a saint!@!
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
They blame people for attacking the messenger instead of the message and try to discredit posters for doing so.
Well, because he and his ilk are so honest, I expect Kahn to be posting his usual “attacking the messenger is for liberal cowards who can’t debate the facts” spiel any minute now…
…oh, that’s right. IOKIYAR.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
Corruption js, is what Dan Rostenkowski did way back when. It is what Bob Ney did and what William Jefferson in my opinion did. It is what Murtha mostly did, but he got only a toe wet during ABSCAM. Corruption is in my opinion what Pombo and Stevens have done what Lewis has done and what every civil servant who pushed through a no bid contract for Iraq has done.
What Pelosi and Reid did was play politics by making a promise that many wished for but they couldn’t deliver. I think it’s shameful but it is just politics and that is no different than the evangelical sunrise promises the Bush White House made to Christian Conservatives only to turn their backs on them the instant they won a second term. Who was it that said “politics ain’t beanbag.” Oh yeah that would be Finley Peter Dunne a 19th and early 20th Century humorist and writer even though he rarely gets credit for it. Thomas P O’Neill said it so much that people thought it was him that coined the phrase. The perception of a politician or even a party being corrupt can be viewed the same way. I don’t think the GOP is inherently corrupt but their family values anointed one stance on most culture war issues makes them look worse to the Average Joe when they fall from their pedestal and people realize they are wearing an adult diaper, text messaging minors or going on golf trips to St Andrews, Scotland with lobbyists. Once it was an old saw that all politicians are liars. Now we think that somehow they are supposed to tell us the truth and keep all of their campaign promises? Since when have Americans become so naïve?
It is power and control in Congress that makes it easier for political parties to rot from corruption. This has happened to the Democrats three separate times in the 40s, 50s, and the 80s twice. They held such sway that even though it took a long time for many of the most corrupt to get busted they eventually do go down. And deals are made. Notice you don’t hear as much about jack Abramoff now that Hastert is gone and a laundry list of GOP members of the House are not seeking re-election? This is just a coincidence right?
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Tractius his usual???
Whatever
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
is that how you do it DT?
just use the word politics instead of lies and that makes it ok?
wake up, you are trying to sell me a two headed nickel now
Sen. Tom coburn, R-OK, had this to say on the earmark reform :
“Rather than opening the secret chambers of government to the public, this new Congress has opted to change the locks. This bill, which was negotiated in secret, guts key earmark reforms that both houses of Congress approved overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, this process shows that Congress’s 28 percent approval rating is well-deserved.
“The problem in Washington is not lobbyists, but members of Congress. This bill solves the wrong problem and creates new ways to hide earmarks. For example, it is ludicrous to give the Majority Leader of either party, not the objective Senate parliamentarian, new unilateral powers to police earmarks.
“It is also obscene that the Senate gutted a key reform preventing senators from directing earmarks to family members. The new language mirrors existing Senate rules which have done nothing to prevent these serious conflicts of interest.
“In the last election, the American people said they wanted the earmark favor factory to be shut down, not turned over to new management. As our Republican majority learned, breaking promises has consequences. Congress first broke its promise to impose an earmark moratorium by offering 32,000 earmarks. Now Congress has signaled its determination to continue the secretive earmark favor factory.”
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
I dont see any basis of belief presented in this “study” that shows Bush or any of his administration had any knowledge that the information given to them by the NIS was wrong.
Its the duty of the President to err on the side that protects the people and interests of the United States. In every debate on this topic, the most glaring thing that is absent is any evidence that Bush had any intent to deceive us. All they do is present us with a conspiracy theory that is not founded in solid factual information.
Its a joke.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
And Coburn is dead right. The problem is whoever turns off the trough of Lobbyist and earmark privilege in DC starves FIRST. So i’ll wait around for the GOP to take power and then they can get rid of all the lobbyists and the earmarks and the greatest deliberative body in the world can get down to some real business without all the lies or politicking or fake promises to their bases.
Right and all that pork in DC will sprout wings and fly. The GOP had its chance with the Contract with America, they had control of Congress and how much of that got passed?
Let me refresh your memory . . .
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
Nope.
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
Nope.
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
Almost but nope.
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
Some but not all.
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
HR 425 of the 103rd didn’t pass
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
This was impossible because select intel committee meetings are always closed
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
Nope.
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
reintroduced as HR 5470 of the 109th and failed passage. It has been reincarnated as HR 1442 of the 110th.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Oh cmon, who is in the stirrups now?
THE DEMONCRATS ARE.
How did they get there?
Promise: “Upon taking control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, Democrats vowed…to require lawmakers to disclose their requests and to certify that money they are requesting does not benefit them.” – “In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served,” Washington Post, May 24, 2007
Broken Promise: The new majority has made no move to require their members to disclose their earmark requests. And while Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) called on some members to make public all their requests, he pointedly refused to call on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to do so, and she has not. As the Washington Post reported: “The new majority is already skirting its own reforms.” – “In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served,” Washington Post, May 24, 2007
Promise: “[Democrats] are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the new Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 25
Broken Promise: Instead of spending time during the opening months of the 110th Congress subjecting appropriations bills to unprecedented scrutiny, Democratic appropriators spent four months attempting to pass a supplemental appropriations bill they knew would be vetoed. Then when it came time to move forward with the 12 standard appropriations bills, Democrats created slush funds for secret earmarks, claiming they didn’t have the time to review every earmark request. “Obey has defended his policy as a practical necessity. He said his staff cannot address each of the more than 30,000 earmark requests members have already filed in time to finish work by the Fourth of July recess.” – “Dems, GOP Near Deal to End Spending Fight,” The Politico, June 13, 2007
Promise: “The package produced by Obey, Barney Frank (D-MA), David Price (D-NC), and Tom Allen (D-ME)…is designed to…outlaw the use of earmarks to buy votes…” – Press Release from the Kansas Democratic Party, January 10, 2006
Broken Promise: On NBC’s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked several questions of Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) on Democratic leaders buying votes to win passage of their “slow-bleed” scheme:
RUSSERT: “But in that bill was $20 billion of so-called pork, money for cricket infestation, tours of the Capitol, security at the National Convention, peanut crops. Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?”
RANGEL: “Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and others because we didn’t go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there.” – NBC’s Meet the Press, April 1, 2007
This is since the 2006 elections!! Such a high end snooty club those democrats are!!
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The very foundation of power the Demoncrats created to control Congress in the 2006 elections was all smoke and mirrors.
And you want to defend “them”?
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The best part about this whole post is that the bottom line is that your beloved President Bush lied to you. Over and over.
He knew these things were misleading or untrue yet he continued to say them. Over and over.
Rumsfeld knew things he said were untrue or misldeading yet he continued to say them. Over and over.
I don’t care who funded a report that tells us this. We know it already. So the report only supports what we already know. That Bush and his administration knew that what they said was untrue and/or misldeading yet they said it over and over again until the suckers believed it.
The American people were tricked, mislead, and lied to. Soros didn’t lie to you. Your beloved Republican President Bush and his team lied to you. And the Republican Congress let him continue to do it.
The American people can only be fooled so much before they realize what’s going on.
They have woken up enough to see what’s happened.
Therefore they will not vote in more of the same.
Therefore the Republicans will lose the White House and even more of Congress until they are able change their ways.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Mark,
What? As opposed to fat-cat financial sharks on your side? Why isn’t Bill Gates a Republican? Why isn’t Warren Buffett a Republican? Don’t you find that interesting? Both are self-made billionaires. In Buffett’s case, here’s a guy who lives modestly despite his incredible wealth and holds fundraisers for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Why do they support Democrats if Republicans are the party of individual effort, meritocracy and fiscal responsibility? I don’t know because I can’t read their minds, but it’s certainly interesting to contemplate.
Anyway, as I said previously, I’m not defending or attacking the study because I haven’t read it. What I find interesting is the frantic effort here, absent anything but guilt-by-association, to basically assert that George Soros bought and paid for it because of his animus for the Bush Administration. The histrionics are almost operatic here even though no one has presented any evidence at all that any of Soros’ money had anything to do with funding this report. As I said, he should just go ahead and change his name to Emmanuel Goldstein.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/14267/1/Hardball-DickCheney-liestoBorger.wmv
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
35. SteaM | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The best part about this whole post is that the bottom line is that your beloved President Bush lied to you. Over and over.
He knew these things were misleading or untrue
—————————
oh cool
someone that has facts
can you share them with us?
show us exactly where these lies occured, ok?
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The real fact is, Corporate America IS the demoncrat party, -js
What world do you live in? This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Check out the US Chamber of Commerce and see who are members and what party the support!
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
a large majority of the veto’ed legislation by Bush was directly due to excessive earmarks in that legislation. js
Where was the Bush veto pen his first six years of his presidency?
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
js,
As an example, since you asked:
Now, how might that have worked, if we had actually done what President Bush said? The Iraqi military collapses, as it did. The regime flees Baghdad, as it did. We tell the people who replace the regime, “Don’t make us do this again, because you know we can.” Then, we leave. How hard would that have been?
However, what we actually got was not disarmament and regime change. What we got was nation-building.
Of course, I’m not sure if my source here is very reliable because I think George Soros once looked at the White House and you know what that means.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Diana:
Of course, I’m not sure if my source here is very reliable because I think George Soros once looked at the White House and you know what that means.
Now THAT was funny.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
STEAM said - “he best part about this whole post is that the bottom line is that your beloved President Bush lied to you. Over and over.”
And this is in fact - a lie. This study proves nothing of the sort. It merely counts the times he said something that was wrong.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Well that’s what I want Kahn a president that’s certain in his ignorance! Noonan should have name this BlogsForWrongheadedness!
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Diana,
Thanks for citing one of the examples.
JS,
The fact that you make a statement that is so ignorant and misinformed as that proves to me that proof is not enough for you. You’ve already decided that I am wrong and that Bush never lied or made an untrue or misleading statement.
Seriously, it’s rather frustrating to think that there’s still people out there like JS that really think Bush and other members of his administration have made false or misleading statements regarding Iraq.
Did you happen to watch that video I linked to?
Here’s another of the numerous examples:
U.S. Department of Defense website
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2185
OK… js, what did Rumsfeld mean when he said:
“We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3151
Ok, now, the difference is that when he needed to scare us he said we know where that are!!!!. But when pressed about the issue he acts like he may have just overreached with his statement and backs off to say that’s just where I BELIEVE they are. Then he cites intelligence that supposedly told him where the weapons were. Therefore he felt like he knew and was confident to just tell us that he knew.
He was not erring on the side of caution and making sure he knew where they were. He was just throwing out facts without being able to back them up. He knew that. That’s misleading.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Lying and saying something that was wrong are not the same thing.
But if you’re going to count - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and a host of Democrats argued on the House and Senate floors using the same arguments that the Administration did. Now these people had access to the same information as the administration and came to the same conclusions.
It looks like YOUR assertions about lies are unprovable and probably unfounded. It looks like your absolute hatred of Bush is blinding you to reason. You come across as vile hate filled ignorant hacks. It’s NOT attractive. It does NOT convince people. It just makes you look bad.
But hey, attack my post and prove me right.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I’m not insane or blind. I don’t hate President Bush. I am, however, severly concerned and frustrated at what has happened on the President’s watch.
Rumsfeld said something he knew was incorrect. So what he said was wrong.
However, he knew it was wrong.
He made a claim with the authority that indicates to us common folks that what he is saying is indeed true and that he can back it up. His claim was not something he could back up and also was something that he knew was incorrect. He may have been betting that he would end up being correct anyways but still… it’s that he knowingly misled the nation, the congress, and the world with his statement of fact.
Then later said his statement was wrong. So what?
So at some point he knew he had problems being as Rummy was pretty much in charge of the entire war and things were not looking good.
What does he do?
He submits his resignation to the President who turns him down.
The President is at fault for anything else that Rumsfeld bungled from then on. And, I’d say, since Rumsfeld was appointed and chosen by President Bush, that the President was ultimately responsible for the misleading statements and poor decisions that were made by Rumsfeld. Especially after he tried to quit.
When did he finally resign?
When the Republicans lost Congress. The next day actually.
I am not full of hatred for President Bush. I am frustrated because people who are not qualified to run this country and it’s military actions are in fact running it and have been for going on 8 years.
When the hell did my right to check my government go away? Aren’t I in the United States?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Steam,
So just how are Hitlery and Big Ears “qualified to run this country”?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
GOP4ME,
Your comment illustrates nicely the difference between you and me, as a for-instance. The fact that you refer to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama by childishly insulting names reveals the fact that you wouldn’t vote for either of them under any circumstance, so any answer you received is meaningless to you except as something to ridicule. By contrast, I always refer to Republican candidates by their actual names and add titles, as appropriate. That is mostly out of a sense of simple respect and partly out of a sense that, in theory, if they expressed stances and advocated policies that I agreed with, then I could vote for them.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Rally the troops Matt. Blow your bugle loud. Loud enough for the dead to hear for they are the only true believers that still buy into the garbage that you are selling. The fact of the matter is that the group of people most responsible for the subject of this report is Dick Cheney and GWB. If they hadn’t manipulated public opinion then you and your faith based ilk wouldn’t have the source to attempt to pin “blame” on.
The report is dead on accurate. Deny all you want but until you buy a plane ticket to Bagdad and investigate for yourself….first hand…you and the rest of the B4V’ers are nothing more than a shrill group of mindless syncopants.
The era of GWB is dying it’s much deserved death and I for one am glad that it is being broadcast publically.
Who do you think you are kidding Matt?
George Soros my rear. Gather the villagers with their pitchforks to attack the truth.
Do yourself a favor. Get a copy of the latest Newsweek and read.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Oh MR BILLLLLLL
why dont you actualy document some of those accusations?
why is it that liberal squaters always chase with accusations and never bring facts with them?
Its like going to a gun fight with a pair of chop sticks, ya know what i mean MR BILLLLLL
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“Only a demented liberal would compare Fox News to a Soros funded story.”
Why is that exactly? Rupert Murdoch only is a huge contributor to conservative candidates, a friend of Ronald Reagans, and a huge backer of Pat Robertson.
The President of Fox News Roger Ailes was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, he also served in the same capacity for Rudy Giuliani.
So we have Soros who gives money to democratic causes, and we have Ailes and Murdoch who run a television empire dedicated to pushing conservative causes.
“The issue here is a Soros funded organization trying to appear objective….moron.”
Like the “Fair and Balanced” Fox Noise? You really don’t realize how ridiculous you sound do you?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Mark,
We really must move the needle on the debate. Unfortunately as long as the reality challenged Diane, Diana, SteaM, libT, Joe, etc. continue to post their repetitive, continuously debunked liberal propaganda, the needle will be stuck on stupid.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Russia Moved Iraqi WMD
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005
“While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon,” stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.
“I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq,” stated Shaw.
Shaw’s assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml
Saddam’s WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 11:07pm GMT 24/01/2004
David Kay, the former head of the coalition’s hunt for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
Work on that SteaM.
It could well be true. I really dont thing anyone has any actual documentation that shows Rumsfeld or any of the Bush Administration intentionaly lied to us.
Real fact is, this intelligence comes from several sources. Why didnt we find WMD? Because it was moved. Pretty basic. Is it in Syria for sure? Want to invade and find out? What about the Russian Jets we found quite by accident, buried in the Iraq desert? Thats a huge desert too. There could be a substantial quantity of WMD in Iraq still, but until someone comes forward and tells about it, its still missing.
Did I say “missing”? Ya, it did exist. Even Saddam told us it had existed at one point. They said it was also destroyed. Funny thing though, about destroying that kind of stuff. You can analyze it for decades and figure out what it was originally. Forensics really got thier act together. Did they find the sites where the stuff was destroyed? nope. Was it destroyed for sure? Probably not. After they claimed they destroyed all that stuff, Saddams son in law ratted him out, 95 he told all about this stuff. Caught Saddam in the lie.
SO whats it all prove? We cant say it was destroyed. We saw massive shipments going into Syria before the Invasion. We know the Russians were very active right up to and during the invasion.
Whats probable? That Saddam didnt lie to us? That is not worth the risk to our allies in the region. Saddam was caught with about 500 chemical missles still. We got them. We also were crunching missiles that violated UN Sanctions when we invaded.
We also got alot of documents written in Arabic, millions of them.
So far, we know Saddam had WMD programs.
I know these are facts. I really dont care what you think, if you want to tell me facts, the do it.
But simply put, have a guess that Bush and Co. lied is nothing. Your strapped, could haves would haves and should haves do not prove intent. Rumsfeld may have had intel to the effect that WMD was stored in a region/area/township. Until you can prove that wrong, you dont have any basis calling him a liar. Facts, not your feelings, is what you need to deal with. All your feelings add up to squat. Rumor and gossip, what a show SteaM.
You amazed that he wanted to resign? Its probably because of rabid dogs spreading gossip and rumors and lies. I sure wouldnt want to stick around.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
neocon,
Thanks for contributing to Mark’s ongoing demonstration project for how uncivil and hateful the left is.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
It’s interesting that you should characterize my quoting President Bush via the White House’s website as being an example of being “reality challenged”. Lots of food for thought there.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Plant,
You might have missed the following.
CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
2100 L Street, N.W. * Suite 300 * Washington, D.C. 20037 * 202-223-2942
December 21, 2007
Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
41. Diana Powe
Gee Diana.
Your pretty well cooked on that one. DO you see him say Oh, we will be out tomorrow? Nope. Regime change, what was it?
We are not going to leave until they are stable? Are you one of them demoncrats that wanted to pull our troops out last fall and run?
Get real. Your half witted accusations just dont hold any weight.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“What would anyone else do? Our troops are being fired on regularly by Saddams forces.”
And by forces you mean our planes. Planes patrolling no-fly zones that Iraq NEVER agreed to. Whether you like it or not Iraq was perfectly justified in firing at foreign fighter planes flying over it’s territory. We would do the exact same thing.
“Our Intel tells us that ground units are still active in the no fly zone, killing innocent civilians.”
First of all there isn’t any evidence of widespread killing of Iraq civilians within the no fly zones. Second of all, you really don’t have a point considering that,
“But the southern zone has never actually contributed anything to the safety of the civilian population. In fact, the role assigned to the mission was to “observe” violations, not to stop them. As early as 1994, the US State Department’s annual report on the human rights situation in Iraq acknowledged that, although the no-fly zone prevented aerial attacks on the southern marshes, it did not prevent artillery attacks or other army actions.”
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero022001.html
“The Oil being smuggled out of Iraq through its pourous borders is funneling substantial cash into Saddams hands.”
And who was funneling that cash into Saddams hands again?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/business/08chevron.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
“A report released in 2004 by an investigator at the Central Intelligence Agency listed five American companies that bought oil through the program: the Coastal Corporation, a subsidiary of El Paso; Chevron; Texaco; BayOil, and Mobil, now part of Exxon Mobil.”
“No. I dont think most reasonable people would have been irresponsible enough to let this go on much further.”
Most sane people would realize that Iraq had a perfectly logical reason for firing on our planes patrolling the no fly zone. We were the ones doing the provoking, not the other way around.
“We were being lied to and decieved, even his son in law defected and told us they had WMD programs in violation of cease fire agreement in 95.”
Sigh. It’s amazing that people will simply choose to believe a comlete fairy tale over reality.
“During the interview, Major Izz al-Din al-Majid (transliterated as Major Ezzeddin) joins the discussion (p.10). Izz al-Din is Saddam Hussein’s cousin, and defected together with the Kamel brothers. He did not return with them to Iraq in 1996, moving instead to Jordan and now to an unknown European country.
In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:
“I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed”
(p. 13).
Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the “main focus” of the biological programme (pp.7-8). Smidovich asked Kamel: “were weapons and agents destroyed?”
Kamel replied: “nothing remained”.
He confirmed that destruction took place “after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq.” (p.7)”
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
Saddams cousin actually contradicted your main assertion.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
SteaM
Really, I dont see any factual information that anyone lied.
You post some statements, but you dont post any evidence that these people actually lied one time.
Your feelings? Thats nothing, if feelings were fact, we would all feel rich and then find a million dollars in our pockets. Feelings schmeelings!!
Facts dude, just the facts. No more rants.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Diana,
How is calling you reality challenged hateful? It’s just a fact, as evidenced by your hyper-sensitive response.
And yes, I am calling you reality challenged solely based on the WH links. ???
If you examine that statement, you might realize why I do call you reality challneged. More food for thought.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
[...] pretty much sums up what is happening with the latest Soros-funded study that claims to document all the so-called “lies” that we were told leading up to the [...]
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
2100 L Street, N.W. * Suite 300 * Washington, D.C. 20037 * 202-223-2942
December 21, 2007″
Well, according your blogsforvictory criterea it doesn’t matter what the survey says. It was conducted by the CMPA, a group led by Robert Lichter who held a chair at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and who is funded by the conservative Scaife, and Olin foundations.
See how easy that is! You don’t even have to address the substance. Just the mere fact of who it’s funded by is enough to discredit the entire study. Using your logic of course.
There isn’t a sane person who can honestly think that Fox News is balanced. And no study that attempts to look at some subjective definition of favorable, and unfavorable coverage is going to change it. A study done in 2001 of each cable stations signature political news shows showed that on FoxNews’ Special Report with Brit Hume 89% of partisan guests were self identified Republicans. 89%!
Seventy-one percent of all guests were avowed conservatives.
The numbers haven’t changed a whole lot.
That some “balance”!
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Plant,
Thank you for taking the bait. On a thread speaking to a Soros funded study and the objectivity thereof, which by the way has been defended by all of our resident liberals, you have the audacity to denigrate a study you disagree with by questioning the motives of the source.
That’s the very definition of hypocrite.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Plant,
Read my post #54. You have moved to the front of the line.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“Thank you for taking the bait. On a thread speaking to a Soros funded study and the objectivity thereof, which by the way has been defended by all of our resident liberals, you have the audacity to denigrate a study you disagree with by questioning the motives of the source.
That’s the very definition of hypocrite.”
Wow! That one went right over your head didn’t it?
In case you missed it, I was being sarcastic. Pointing out how if you can dismiss a study based on who funded it, why can’t I do the same?
Next time, try to pay attention.
“Really, I dont see any factual information that anyone lied.”
That’s because it’s easier for you to ignore things like this.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html
“Five top German intelligence officers say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly ignored warnings about the veracity of the information that an Iraqi informant named ‘Curveball’ was giving about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The Los Angeles Times, in a massive report published Sunday, reports that “the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.” They also say that ‘Curveball,’ whom the Germans described as “not a psychologically stable guy,” never claimed that he had produced germ weapons, nor had he ever seen anyone do it.
According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball’s accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.
Curveball’s German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. “This was not substantial evidence,” said a senior German intelligence official. “We made clear we could not verify the things he said.”"
And this…
“An investigation by the Los Angeles Times, based on interviews since May with about 30 current and former intelligence officials in the United States, Germany, England, Iraq, and the United Nations showed that US bungling in the Curveball case was far worse than official reports had estimated.
The White House, for example, ignored evidence that UN weapons inspectors had disproved virtually all of Curveball’s accounts before the war.
As war approached, President Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraqi germ weapons as the invasion neared, even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed.
At the CIA, senior officials embraced Curveball’s claims, even though they could not verify them or interview him until a year after the invasion.”
And this….
“After the CIA vouched for Curveball’s information, President Bush warned in his State of the Union Speech in January 2003 that Iraq had ”mobile biological weapons labs” designed to produce ”germ warfare agents.” The next month, Bush said in a radio address and a statement that Iraq ”has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.
Curveball told his German handlers, however, that he had assembled equipment on only one truck and had heard secondhand about other sites. Moreover, he could not identify what the equipment was designed to produce.”
I’ve come to expect the cult like mentality that allows people to believe that the administration was completely honest and forthcoming about everything despite all of the evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
“Read my post #54. You have moved to the front of the line.”
The irony of course is that it is YOU that completely missed the point I was making.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
My bad then. But of course you went on to claim that any “sane” person couldn’t believe it. So which is it? A viable study or not.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
66. Faceplant | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“Really, I dont see any factual information that anyone lied.”
That’s because it’s easier for you to ignore things like this.
————————
There isnt any real evidence of a lie there. You put down more gossip and rumor. Not even a good effort.
Let me define this for you, ok?
American Heritage Dictionary -
Lie n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lī’ĭng), lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Just like “bubbba” huh? Your just clueless. Without proof of intent, you got nothing. You actually need to prove that Bush knowingly mislead the nation to prove he lied. To do this, you have to prove that the information he recieved from his subordinates (which you really wont be able to do) was “NOT” wrong. This includes the political motivations of the NIE, CIA and other Intelligence agencies (which, you also will not be able to do).
So, in effect, unless you have a collection of documents that never were released because they deal with national security, then you really dont stand a chance proving squat.
All you can do is gossip and spread rumors, which seems to be all we are getting here. Dont worry, you follow a long line of bumbling liberals. Not one time have you folks been up to par, not once.
“He was just throwing out facts without being able to back them up. He knew that. That’s misleading.”
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Tractius his usual???
Trouble with the English language, Kahn? Perhaps you can find a middle-school student to assist you.
Now these people had access to the same information as the administration and came to the same conclusions.
Yeah, funny how that works–the administration cooks the intelligence, then feeds it to Congress. Congress makes the terrible mistake of trusting the administration and goes along with it. Then Congress realizes that “intelligence” was a bunch of crap and says so. I expect this concept will be too tough for you to comprehend, but give it a try anyway. I promise nobody will take your guns away if you try, mkay?
Or, conversely, you can just get mad and rant. My money’s on that option.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
factplant,
Bush’s statements concerning curveball and the mobile labs were made in May of 2003. The report
that “debunked” the mobile labs and questioned cureballs reliability was not issued until a month AFTER the President made his statements.
Also,why is this part of your evidence about pre-war
intel when these statements were made AFTER we had gone to war with Iraq.
The fact that liberals whinned and cried about the
charges leveled at John Kerry by the Swift Boats as
a bunch of right wing hacks without being able to debunk what over 200 men in uniform that served there stated and a refusal of Kerry to even debate some of these men make their dismissal of Soros being behind this study even more laughable.
Or even better is every time one of the many scientist comes out against Gore and his
ecofundamentalist crew they are accused of being the mouth piece of big oil,just ignore what they say.
The fact that liberals will take a study funded by
a man(Soros,a convicted felon in France) that spent almost 30 million in 04 to bring down Bush,over 50,000 to fund the debunked Lancet study and now
is pushing a study that is supposed to prove the
President lied about pre-war intel by including comments he made about WMD/Al-Qaeda that all
your democratic friends also made but somehow could not find room in the study, show how desperate liberals have become.
Remeber liberals,it was your hero leaders in the
senate and house that stated first thing in 06′ that
“impeachment is off the table”.
It was the democrats that shot down your hero
Kucuinich’s impeachment resolution in the senate,not the Republicans.Republicans voted to bring this to
the floor,we want this debate.We want to refresh
the nation about how strong a case Bill/Hillary clinton,John Kerry,John Edwards,Harry Reid,Al Gore,Richard Clarke,Albright,Nytimes,the CIA,
State Dept. and many others about Saddam’s WMD/
Nuclear program,ties to Al-Qaeda,genocide of his own people,and overall threat that he posed to the
region and to the west.
The Democrats have the power to do this,just like
they had the power to pull out of the Iraq war.
IT’S PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME!!
But be careful what you wish for liberal.you want be able to spin and cut and paste your talking points under oath and on the senate floor.If you want to
convict Bush/Cheney based on studies by Soros and
cut and paste information,than EVERYBODY that made these statements and voted to send our men and women to war are going to go down.
Bush could not have gone to war without congressional approval,and a lot of your liberal heroes in the previous administration and the current
one made the same statements and stronger ones.
The fact that you don’t want them held accountable
in your witch hunt only shows how pathetic and ideologically corrupt you liberals really are.
But hey,keep up the drumbeat for impeachment,it
has done wonders for the Kucuinich campain .
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Once again, completely independent of the merit of its contents, Baxter demonstrates the histrionics of denouncing this study because George Soros is “pushing” it. What is the evidence for George Soros having anything at all to do with this study? Why, his past activities including being one of a large number of donors to the Center For Public Integrity.
Why aren’t all the other donors being attacked? Perhaps one of them gave the CFPI a sum of money and said, “I want you to produce an independent [wink-wink] study that says the Administration lied about Iraq prior to the invasion.” Since we know that the CFPI is a fraud and a sham then wouldn’t it be just as plausible that one of their many other donors is the evildoer in this case?
Baxter, can you tell me when the next Two Minutes Hate is scheduled?
January 24th, 2008 at 12:34 am
“Bush’s statements concerning curveball and the mobile labs were made in May of 2003. The report
that “debunked” the mobile labs and questioned cureballs reliability was not issued until a month AFTER the President made his statements.
Also,why is this part of your evidence about pre-war
intel when these statements were made AFTER we had gone to war with Iraq.”
Do you even bother to read the article before you respond? Let’s try this again.
“German officials said that they had warned American colleagues WELL BEFORE the Iraq war that Curveball’s information was not credible - but the warning was ignored.”
They were warned before the war started that he was not credible, and they ran with what he said anyway. You can try and pretend that this didn’t happen, but it did.
“The fact that liberals whinned and cried about the
charges leveled at John Kerry by the Swift Boats as
a bunch of right wing hacks without being able to debunk what over 200 men in uniform that served there stated and a refusal of Kerry to even debate some of these men make their dismissal of Soros being behind this study even more laughable.”
Oh, I think it was proven false quite easily.
“Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, “on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies.”[49] ABC News’s The Note opined, “the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry’s medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false.”[50] Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[51] stated, “Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false.” The editorial argued this position on the basis that “Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation.” On August 22, 2004 The Washington Post reported: “An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry’s accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.”
“In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry’s claim that the Massachusetts Democrat’s boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow’s military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to “enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire” directed at “all units” of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat “despite enemy bullets flying about him.”"
The only people who think the Swiftboaters were teling the truth, are the people who only hear what they want to.
“It was the democrats that shot down your hero
Kucuinich’s impeachment resolution in the senate,not the Republicans.”
LOL! I love how people try to pretend that Dennis Kucinich is some beloved liberal hero. If that’s the case you would think he could get more than 1% of the vote in the primaries.
“But be careful what you wish for liberal.you want be able to spin and cut and paste your talking points under oath and on the senate floor.”
No, I’ll just claim “executive privelege” for EVERYTHING and not show up. I mean it’s worked for Herriet Miers didn’t it?
“If you want to
convict Bush/Cheney based on studies by Soros and
cut and paste information,than EVERYBODY that made these statements and voted to send our men and women to war are going to go down.”
Good. The Democrats who voted for this war are just as guilty as the Republicans who did. The only difference is that your party is the one who STILL thinks they were right, despite being proven wrong about everything.
You done having your meltdown now Baxter?
“There isnt any real evidence of a lie there. You put down more gossip and rumor. Not even a good effort.”
So the German intelligence is just making up a story that they told the US that Curveball wasn’t reliable over and over. The ability of the neocon to completely ditatch from any rational interpretation of events is amazing.
So let’s recap. The US starts basing it’s prewar claims on the statements of one man. The Germans warn the Americans that the source isn’t credible, and nothing he says can be verified. In response the US makes the claims with increasing frequency.
Knowing that, please tell me what conclusion any rational person could possibly come to.
I’m just glad that it appears history is well on it’s way to remembering this administration the way it deserves to be remembered.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Diane,
The fact that you and your liberal friends have
dismissed the Swift Boat Vets,Scientist debunking Al-Gore,proponents against surrender in Iraq as a bunch of right wing,neocon puppets of the bush administration for years but swallow Soro’s funded propaganda whole simply shows you have no objectivity or credibility discussing the issues.
If it fits your”I hate Bush “agenda you carry the water with the rest of your party:
Bush lied
Bush stole the 2000,2004 election
Bush did 9/11
Bush killed millions of people for oil
Bush blew up the levee’s in New Orleans
Bush is Hitler
and all of the other really objective,intelligent and
progressive positions super intelligent liberals and the democratic party they represent have put forth
over the last 7 years.
But hey,keep it up.This new BDS “Bush lied” line is
only going to rile up the left wing base even more to
demand the democrats in congress to do something they know they can’t successfully do,Impeach President Bush and VP Cheney.
When the Democrats don’t come through,the left wing base will turn the hate they have for Bush onto your democratic friends in congress.Add this to your
Democratic heroes failures to stop the war and the
“two minutes hate”your projecting on me will be a walk in the park compared to the hate your
liberal friends will be directing at everybody in government.
Just look at the blog comments from liberal sites,they are foaming at the mouth over this.
It is obvious with this new propaganda campaign
that the left is worried more than ever about the
success in Iraq and the upcoming testimony by
Gen.Petraeus.
As much as you liberals have done everything in your power to ensure surrender in Iraq and turning it over to Al-Qaeda and Iran,you are going to have to suffer through the next year of a free Iraq doing it’s best to bring a representative government and free
society where there never has been one.
But just keep your hands over your ears and keep
yelling”but Bush lied”all day long and you want have
to face how you sold out your country,our Soldiers, and the people of Iraq just so you could gain political
power and hang failure around our Presidents neck.
Can you tell me when you will hold the people in your own party accountable for the same crimes you
whine on and on about that President Bush is supposed to have committed.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Faceplant,
Your Post editorial does not in any way dismiss the fact that the first time Kerry debated o’neil he got his ass handed to him and to this day will not debate o’neil now.But hey, what the hell do a few hundred Soldiers know,right.Kind of the same way Kerry said on Imus that he would reveal his entire record to the public and then gave it to the Boston Globe and LA times.Not the same thing is it,just another lie that liberals like you look right past because they have a D beside their name.Their are so many inconsistencies with Kerry from his Christmas in Cambodia,accusations about atrocities that were supposed to have happened but were shown later to be lies, that if you want to stand with
“I was for the war before I was against it”Kerry,it’s certainly fits the liberal way of believing only what fits your agenda and ignoring all the facts against it.
After all,I am sure you are as proud of Kerry’s picture hanging in that N. Vietnam museum thanking
him for helping the communist win the war against America as Jane Fonda is.
Curve ball lied about many things,but a lot of what
he said jived with French,Russian,British and American intelligence concerning Saddam’s WMD program.Whether some of Germany’s intelligence agents disagreements made it all the way to Bush
does not seem to jive with the head of the CIA telling Bush it was a “slam dunk” concerning Saddam’s WMD programs.
Gathering comments made here and there and using evaluations concerning Pre-war intel that were
validated after we had gone into Iraq(which by the way is the only way we could verify Saddam’s WMD/Nuclear capabilities remember) is not basis or prof that the Bush Administration,Democrats,
Republicans and the worlds intelligence agencies lied or manipulated intelligence.
You can keep acting like you know more than everybody else in government,and our intelligence agencies but the actions of your democratic heroes in congress and every bi-partisan report done on
pre-war intelligence don’t support your “Bush lied”
propaganda.
Good luck with this and be prepared to get the same results out of this latest leftest propaganda ride that you got out of your Bush did 9/11,Bush
stole the 2000 and 2004 election……Yada,Yada,Yada.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:24 am
As in the words of Ol’ Slick: ‘This is the biggest fairy-tale I’ve ever seen.’
Left-wing = Hate-wing.
–Jeremiah–
January 24th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Suppose, for just one minute, that no matter WHO gave money, suppose this study is correct…
Just suppose…
January 24th, 2008 at 7:55 am
And suppose Soros didn’t fund James Hansen $720,000 as the chief researcher for Global Warming, or suppose Soros didn’t fund the Johns Hopkins “study” finding 650,000 deaths in Iraq. Just suppose Soros and his simpleton parrots had not been discovered.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-gontesky/2007/09/26/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros
January 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Just suppose this study is driven by an anti-Bush agenda, just suppose …
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/debunking_the_cpi_report.php
January 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
It’s interesting that Bob Owens at Pajamas Media doesn’t take the leap that Matt did here in calling the report “another Soros-funded study”. Rather, it was “heavily funded by left-leaning foundations and individuals”. Apparently, he hasn’t been paying enough attention in the Two Minutes Hate.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:36 am
j.s.,
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
I have a question for you. Since we both agree with, and have verified, the definition of “lie” now.
What is it called when someone says:
A) We know where they are.
- or -
B) We believe, or, feel like we know where they are.
The difference is huge. It is a deliberately misleading and untrue to say “we know” versus to say “we think we know”.
Because one is definitive and can be backed up as it is presented as fact.
The other is a speculation and cannot be backed up as fact however it might be true … it might not.
Pretty careless stuff when you are talking about how we are going to utilize out honrable men and woman who serve our country… don’t you think?
January 24th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Futhermore,
I speculate based on my research which includes novels such as Bob Woodwards’ “State of Denial” that Vice President Dick Cheney and/or President George Bush pushed this through from the beginning. They wanted this war so bad they could taste it. Even before 9-11.
So they put then SecDef Don Rumsfeld in charge of post-war operations.
Instead of the State Dept being in charge of post-war planning the President or VP (or both) decided to put it in the hands of the Pentagon. Therefore they put SecDef Don Rumsfeld in charge.
At the very beginning ORHA was in charge of the post-war planning. From what has been reported so far, what we now know, this operation looked to be fairly organized but was not given the manpower or the time to truely take what was to be a huge taks of running the Iraqi government once it was vacated by those whom we deposed and/or fired and banned from government service (known as “debaathification” which I think was Paul Bremer’s decision, but more on that in a bit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority
Jay Garner put together a team of people who’s job it was to run the Iraqi government. They had very inadequate resources and therefore they had to work with what they had. Which was very little. This is where the statement is verfied that there truely was no post-war planning or that it was mismanaged. That’s because it was not given the tools it needed for success. Probably because we thought this would be a “cake walk” or that we would be “greeted as liberators” so why put so much focus on post-war planning?
Anyways, so Jay Garner did an excellent job of getting people together to run the government. By the time they got to Iraq, having little resources and few if any translators, they encountered government building which had been looted. They had no supplies, no paperwork, nothing in these buildings. They literally went around on the streets asking if anyone knew anyone who used to work in the vital government positions. THe only government building which was protected by our military was the Ministry of OIL.
Garner was replaced shortly afterward by Paul Bremer. This was President Bush’s decision however it might have been influenced by Cheney or Rumsfeld.
It was a bad idea. Bremer immediatly fired and banned the government workers from their jobs. He dismantely the military which pissed off millions of armed men who used to honorably serve their country. They would have to try to provide for their families all of the sudden. This become the insurgency.
This is not just my “feelings”. This is what has been documented and is what happened.