Report on misleading statements by administration

[StSanta]

I came across this report on the net which deals with alleged "misleading statements" by the current US administration with regards to the justification of the Iraq war.

Now, I'm willing to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt, even as far as accepting that things were "misspoken" if the administration officials say so.

This is not a Bush/US slam or anything like it. I think it's a tribute to American democracy that such reports are made, and made available for the public.

Te special report is by :

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY STAFF
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
MARCH 16, 2004

so it's brand new. The direct link is:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

Please, read it with an open non partisan mind and gimme your opinions (both republicans and democrats and all others).

To me, the report suggests that on numerous occasions, misleading or incomplete statements were made. The officials weren't directly lying (except in a few situations), but they were selective in what they told and when. Data/opinions/conclusions that did not back up their claims were ignored, and they attempted to establish certainty were there was none. To get this certainity, they deliberately kept all sources that'd question it out of their statements.

They had their reasons, I suppose. But, to me, the statements are misleading.

What do you chaps think?

[MrLars]

I saw a link to this yesterday, my feeling is that compiling the info like this is helpfull and necessary for people to form their own opinion.

Ferreting out a single lie from this will, IMO, take some sort of testimony under oath, something I don't see comming from this administration until after November.

[Batz]

Come on Santa, do you know what the "Minority Staff" is? Do you know who Henry Waxman is?

So when you say "Please, read it with an open non partisan mind" you mean please read this partisan report with a non-partisan mind".

Deciding if something is misleading or not is judgement call and based on opinion 99% of the time and can not be "non-partisan"

Suppose the "Majority Staff" said "Bush did not mis-lead" would you post that as a non-partisan report?

Do a quick search and you will see there is nothing "non-partisan" about that "report".

[Udie]

LOL! I accept your open mindedness on this subject Santa but that's a hatchet job.  It's from the dems and if it's from Waxman it's from one of the most dishonest dem's that exists.  


Batz nailed head on.....

[ra]

Republicans hate Waxman because of his honesty and integrity, and they are jealous of his good looks.

[StSanta]

Originally posted by Batz
[Come on Santa, do you know what the "Minority Staff" is? Do you know who Henry Waxman is?

No. I know nothing of the source except the "minority staff" bit, which I figured would be the "opposing party". Still, one has to evaluate things on facts, not on the author. Saying something is false because person A made it is a logical fallacy. I am well aware this is politically motivated. I'm just wondering how well it holds up in reality - the document, on its own, is pretty compelling.

So when you say "Please, read it with an open non partisan mind" you mean please read this partisan report with a non-partisan mind".

Yes, that is essentially what I am saying. Or was trying to.

Deciding if something is misleading or not is judgement call and based on opinion 99% of the time and can not be "non-partisan"

Agreed. The document, however, gives me access to quotes and dates as well as other information that can be verified. Based on that I can form ym own opinions. I will, as best I can, try to look at it objectively through the political taint. And not all of it is mere opinion - there's documented stuff in there, and that's what I am interested in.

Suppose the "Majority Staff" said "Bush did not mis-lead" would you post that as a non-partisan report?

I'd read it, study the sources, ask the people I value of their opinion and then form my own. Sort of like I am doing with this one

Do a quick search and you will see there is nothing "non-partisan" about that "report".

Will do. I was a bit lazy in not doing so prior to posting. Gonna make up for it - do you by any chance have any particular link you can recommend?

[10Bears]

Lets replace "misleading statements" to "lies" and see how it reads... LOL!

President George Bush, vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretarty Donald Rumsfeld, Secretarty of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. It finds that the five officials made lies about the threat posed by Iraq in 125 public appearances. The report and an accompanying database identify 237 specific lies by the five officials.

The 30-day period with the greatest number of lies was the period before the congressional vote on the Iraq war resolution. Congress voted on the measure on October 10 and October 11, 2002. From September 8 through October 8, 2002, the five officaials made 64 lies in 16 public appearances.  A large number of lies were also made during the two months before the war began. Between January 19 and March 19, 2003, the five officials made 48 lies in 26 public appearances.

Well that's 236 more lies than Bill Clinton LOL..

We can give thanks that at least George Bush didn't lie about sex!

[Batz]

I am not going to through the whole thing with but what is a "logical fallacy" is nothing but your opinion just like the whole "report" is the "opinion" of a party who has an interest in propagandizing this whole issue.

But I will site one example,

The misleading statements began at least one year before the start of the war in Iraq, when Vice President Cheney stated on March 17, 2002:

The report sites the following as an example of executive "misleading"

The President’s made it clear that we are concerned about nations such as Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction. We know the Iraqis have been engaged in such efforts over the years. We know they have biological and chemical weapons. . . . And we also have reason to believe they’re pursuing the acquisition of nuclear  weapons.

What’s not include in this "non partisan report" are the facts that these conclusion did not originate with the Bush Whitehouse but on a mountain of intelligence that goes back years. Not only from US sources but also from the UN and many other Nations. Similar words even came from Clinton’s mouth.

You can search that for yourself.

Now I can go through the whole report and site example after example of these kinds of "misleading" opinions.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the whole "report" is in fact a very partisan attack on a President seeking re-election.

I didn't vote for Bush and I won't vote for him again but if you are concerned with honesty then you need to look further then this "minority" report.

[mosgood]

Originally posted by 10Bears
Lets replace "misleading statements" to "lies" and see how it reads... LOL!



Well that's 236 more lies than Bill Clinton LOL..

We can give thanks that at least George Bush didn't lie about sex!

ya ns.....  the Republicans got all hot and heavy over Clinton lying about a BJ....  but the Dems are a bunch a tards for calling Bush a lier about Nuks and Chem weapons....  

How much does a BJ cost these days??  40 Billion??

[Udie]

Well I think it's safe to say that most of us nasty old evil repugs are waiting for some proof of a lie or proof that the intel was wrong (which doesn't mean Bush lied).  Just because we've found no WMD's doesn't mean the intel was 100% wrong.  We cataloged the stuff he had in the 90's.  We asked for proof that it was gone, he gave nothing but stone walls....  


 The question I'd like answered is where the hell is all the stuff we know he had?

[midnight Target]

So, what if Bush lied?

Would you still vote for him? Was it worth the effort to topple Saddam?

A Rolex is a great watch... worth $10,000 or more. Is it worth $1 million? Heck no! So the toppling of Saddam is like a Rolex..... a good thing, but not worth the price without the benefit of the added national security.

PS.  I Was in favor of this war from the start. I think Bush needs an exit strategy now... real quick.

[Udie]

Originally posted by midnight Target
So, what if Bush lied?

Would you still vote for him? Was it worth the effort to topple Saddam?

A Rolex is a great watch... worth $10,000 or more. Is it worth $1 million? Heck no! So the toppling of Saddam is like a Rolex..... a good thing, but not worth the price without the benefit of the added national security.

PS.  I Was in favor of this war from the start. I think Bush needs an exit strategy now... real quick.

 If it turns out that he lied about intel reports to get us into this war with Iraq I wouldn't vote for him again.  As of right now the ONLY thing I'll be voting for is his foriegn policy.  Domesticly he's a democrat and there hasn't been much done that's made me happy with him or the Republicans in congress.  But in all honesty even if he lied I still may vote for him becuase I trust kerry less than I trusted Clinton.  I agree we need an exit strategy, by God I hope they had one before they went in.  But I'm not in so much of a hurry to get out of there.  We need to make sure it's fixxed first.   If the invasion was right or if it was wrong doesn't matter a hill of beans to me now.  NOW we have to make sure we do what's right by the Iraqi people.


 Was it worth it? I tend to think that yes it was. But that's from my biased opinion that this needed to be done in 1991 as soon as he used helecopters to kill Iraqi's.   Beyond all the monica/paula jones BS smoke screen of the 90's one of my main problems with Clinton was how he handled Iraq.  To me this is the one of the worst legacies of his terms.  And I'm not saying it's all his fault.  I don't know what kind of intel he had or his reasons for doing anything.  I just hated seeing what was happening to the Iraqi people.

[mosgood]

What if he lied??  Here's a better question... What if he had told the truth?


If Bush had said, Saddam is a Tyrant and we need to free the Iragi ppl... can I have XXX Billions dollars please??  I know what my opinion would have been.  This country fought for our own independance... let the Iraqi's do the same.  

I gotta tell ya, IMO For The President of the United States to lie to Congress and the rest of the world and then say "Well, uh, hey....  nobody really liked the guy anyways right?"  Is total BS.

And, even if Bush DID think that Saddam had the weapons, he ended up being wrong and should be held accountable for going to war for it.  THAT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE!!!!

Common... He said it to justify going to WAR.  Who here DOESN'T think that Bush should be held accountable for being wrong about this?

[Udie]

ya know if that had been the only stated reason for going there you'd be 100% correct.  But it wasn't and you're not.

[Batz]

I was against the war but I had the uneasy feeling in the aftermath of WTC that if Iraq was actually a threat then something needed to be done. I also wasn't one of the vengefully Ami types who argued for nuking the entire Middle East after WTC.

Adding to the uneasy feeling I had there was a mountain of evidence accumulated over the years from the UN, 3 US executive administrations (Clinton attacked Iraq as well and made statements that supported Bush's contentions prior to the invasion). Also, intelligence from other nations tended to support the claim that Saddam had WMDs. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I argued staunchly against those crackpot Euro leftists who kept claiming war for oil and Bush is Hitler crap etc. I mentioned in one thread at the time that if WMDs weren't found that Bush should be held accountable. However, I haven't seen any evidence that the claim of WMD in Iraq was an outright lie. If it was it was often repeated not only by the Bush administration but also by many, many others.

OTOH Kerry is liar, everything he does and everything he says is "misleading".

I won't vote for either.