Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied
Captain's Quarters ^ | Jan. 23, 2008 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 01/23/2008 5:50:01 AM PST by jdm

The AP reports, and the New York Times expands, on a new study by a supposedly "independent" organization that claims to have assembled hundred of "false statements" by the Bush administration in the course of the Iraq war. However, the Center for Public Integrity hardly qualifies as "independent". It gets much of its funding from George Soros, who has thrown millions of dollars behind Democratic political candidates, and explicitly campaigned to defeat George Bush in 2004:

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.

Nowhere in these articles do either news organization bother to inform their reader of the partisan nature of the CPI. Besides Soros, it gets financing from the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation. The FIJ shares most of its board members with the CPI, which hardly makes it a separate entity in terms of its political direction.

Dafydd at Big Lizards does a good job of pulling apart the supposed quotes that CPI used to blow some hot air into the limp "Bush lied" meme, but even the New York Times wasn't impressed:

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope, and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard M. Nixon used to dismissively call “wallowing in Watergate.”

In fact, there is nothing new in this site that hasn't already been picked apart by the blogosphere, and some of it discredited. It includes the debunked charge that Bush lied in the "sixteen words" of the 2003 State of the Union address. Joe Wilson's own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger's Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999. The CPI site has the sixteen words posted as one of their false statements.

Let's boil this down. An organization funded by known political activists puts up a website with shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented -- and this somehow qualifies as news?

Hey, AP. I'll be posting a couple of essays today. I'll be sure to look for your breathless report on the wires later this afternoon.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democratparty; fundedbysoros; georgesoros; soros; study
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 01/23/2008 5:50:02 AM PST by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jdm
Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

Yeah.....OK.

2 posted on 01/23/2008 5:52:48 AM PST by Delta 21 ( MKC USCG - ret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21

So does that studies funded by Cigarette and Oil companies are suspect as well?


3 posted on 01/23/2008 5:55:22 AM PST by Philly Nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jdm

4 posted on 01/23/2008 5:55:33 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (Reluctant Mitt Supporter as of 01/22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

You really wonder what the point of conducting such a study might be. Oh, I can understand why the researchers might be in favor of it. They get paid to do what they do best—nothing. It’s a mystery to me why Soros or anyone else would fund it though. Maybe his brain has finally reached such a sorry state of regression, that this makes sense to him.


5 posted on 01/23/2008 5:56:36 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

George Soros....CHRISTIAN HATER...is the MOST DANGEROUS man in AMERICA.


6 posted on 01/23/2008 5:57:57 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion.....The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Is George Soros an American citizen??
7 posted on 01/23/2008 5:58:48 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Well which is it? Is Pres Bush so smart he can organize a huge conspiracy to bring down WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11, in 7 months and requiring hundreds of people to keep quiet? Or is he so dumb that he can’t say ‘nuclear’, or figure out that after he lied about the WMD’s, he could have just buried a few stockpiles out in the desert?
8 posted on 01/23/2008 6:00:18 AM PST by petercooper (It's called subprime for a reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/01/ap-willful-accomplice-in-run-up-to.html


9 posted on 01/23/2008 6:00:47 AM PST by pookie18 (Of course I'm voting for the Republican nominee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

10 posted on 01/23/2008 6:02:21 AM PST by listenhillary (A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

Sluggy!


11 posted on 01/23/2008 6:02:24 AM PST by EarthBound (Ex Deo,gratia. Ex astris,scientia (Time to get behind Mitt. RIP Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jdm

FR Study Says Soros is a Crackpot


12 posted on 01/23/2008 6:03:22 AM PST by Democracy In Iraq (When a soldier dies, a protester gloats, a family cries, an Iraqi votes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Soros lied people died.

This bastard will live forever.

How come Evil lives a long time?

13 posted on 01/23/2008 6:04:04 AM PST by angcat (President Romney or President Rodham the choice is yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Soros is in Davos, Switzerland today. He has enough money and power to affect the current instability in our economy...sort of the butterfly effect. The Big Money People are all collaborating on what to do about global markets and the subprime/credit losses, banks in trouble, etc. Soros said something about mortgage defaults and foreclosures on TV, something else about banks who are big enough will not close. He and some former treasury secretary were saying that all these bundled funds are "in the dark", because no one knows where the really bad, worthless components are in these bundles, and someone needs to "turn on the light". Soros blamed banks and ratings agencies for not understanding what can and can't be done in the market.

I suspect he wants to keep fears of recessions and meltdowns and bank runs going until there's a Democrat in the WH, at which point the seas will calm.

14 posted on 01/23/2008 6:06:22 AM PST by Sender (I've been chicken franchised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
And in other (equally credible) news:

A study funded by NORMAAL shows that heavy marijuana use increases alertness and cognitive ability.

A study funded by NAMBLA shows that preadolescence males sexually molested by adult males grow up to experience fewer mental problems than those that were not molested.

A study funded by the National Tobacco Institute shows that smoking not only gives you fresher breath, but that it increases lung capacity and gives you more endurance.

A study funded by the National Distillers Association says they have a study that shows that the health benefits of moderate drinking increase with the amount of alcohol consumed.

A study financed by the DNC shows that voters that vote for Democrats are saner than those that vote for Republicans.

A study financed by the RNC shows that voters that vote for Republicans are saner than those that vote for Democrats.

A study funded by Al Gore claims anthropomorphic global warming is real.

A study funded by the National Grindstone Manufacturers Association shows that individuals and organizations with an axe to grind are likely to fund studies that reinforce and underscore the positions they espouse.

15 posted on 01/23/2008 6:11:48 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

I’m shocked!

“A hit piece during an election year by a democratic supporting disingenious clown group. Soros study2.0.”
posted on 01/23/2008 5:58:04 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele ‘08)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1958041/posts?page=48#48

SOMEONE HAS TO OUT THIS PROPAGANDIST!!!! WE NEED A FULL MEDIA CAMPAIGN SHOWING HE IS FUNDING THESE STUDIES!!!! HE PAID 30M FOR THE WHITEHOUSE LAST ELECTION CYCLE, HE MUST BE NEUTRALIZED!!!!


16 posted on 01/23/2008 6:13:03 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Everyone needs to drop fox a line to run this...
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,324753,00.html


17 posted on 01/23/2008 6:14:21 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Next, let’s tackle the mass graves and genocide in Kosovo, then on to the Aspirin Factory!


18 posted on 01/23/2008 6:15:32 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
"Joe Wilson's own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger's Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999."

And don't forget,in May of 2004, the IAEA refused to let the United States remove 500 Tons of Uranium in Iraq!

19 posted on 01/23/2008 6:19:36 AM PST by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

CHECK OUT THE YAHOO PAGE RIGHT NOW!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

Study: False statements preceded war By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

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:


20 posted on 01/23/2008 6:20:26 AM PST by angcat (President Romney or President Rodham the choice is yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jdm
George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Imagine that... lol
21 posted on 01/23/2008 6:21:26 AM PST by Rick.Donaldson (http://www.transasianaxis.com - Visit for lastest on DPRK/Russia/China/Etc --Fred Thompson for Prez.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angcat

And he funds Hillary.


22 posted on 01/23/2008 6:21:55 AM PST by JaneNC (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jdm

This is what passes for news on AP/Yahoo today. I smelled this stink from a mile away.


23 posted on 01/23/2008 6:22:46 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JaneNC
I wish I had this AP ass holes email address. I am steaming right now. Most Americans are stupid and believe this.

Is BUSH running again. They are back to the WAR I see.

24 posted on 01/23/2008 6:23:27 AM PST by angcat (President Romney or President Rodham the choice is yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Poor George Soros, all that Money and this is the best he could buy

That and some half-baked Propaganda. Soros= Greed, lies, hate, anger.

25 posted on 01/23/2008 6:24:01 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JaneNC

He funds Obama.


26 posted on 01/23/2008 6:24:09 AM PST by texastoo ((((((USA)))))((((((, USA))))))((((((. USA))))))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: angcat

” How come Evil lives a long time?”

And he wears his soul on his face - a face that personifies liberalism.


27 posted on 01/23/2008 6:28:51 AM PST by Let's Roll (As usual, following a shooting spree, libs want to take guns away from those who DIDN'T do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

“A study financed by the RNC shows that voters that vote for Republicans are saner than those that vote for Democrats.”

of all those listed sarcasticly by you this would be the most credible as being close to the truth...


28 posted on 01/23/2008 6:31:35 AM PST by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Soros-funded, AP-approved, and lamestream media-blessed....


29 posted on 01/23/2008 6:38:09 AM PST by gunservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Study already being debunked

January 23, 2008
How to Lie About Lying
Iraq Matters , Media Madness
Hatched by Dafydd
This one is simply befuddling:
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.”
Now, would any disinterested party read the above — and not think the study authors were accusing President Bush and his administration of deliberately lying us into war? Surely this subtextual implication must have crept in because of bad writing; I can’t imagine that the elite media would be so intentionally partisan.
Here are the specific charges:
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.”
One notes that “Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members” — isn’t that a lovely grammatical construct? — do not deny that Iraq was “trying to... obtain” WMD, even though they appear to include such claims under the category of “false statements.”
Nor do they deny the administration’s claim that Iraq had “links” with al-Qaeda. They merely dispute the meaningfulness of those links... and dub that another “false statement” by the president and his administration.
Here is that section from the report itself, from their database of “false statements;” it’s a perfect primer on the anatomy of a falsehood:
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.”
This one is instructive to deconstruct:
1. What they say: “In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: ‘Sure.’”
What they mean: Rumsfeld asserts that relationships exist between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
2. What they say: “[A]n assessment... found an absence of ‘compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.’”
What they mean: The later assessment found that there were relationships, but they did not rise to the level of military alliances.
3. What they say: “[A]n earlier DIA assessment said that ‘the nature of the regime’s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.’”
What they mean: Before we found out the nature of the relationships, we did not know the nature of the relationships.
If you can find that Rumsfeld’s statement (1) — which evidently consisted of the single word “Sure” — is falsified by either (2) of (3), please take to the comments and explain it to the rest of us... because to me, laboring under the disadvantage of having been intensely trained only in the lesser rhetorical art of mathematical logic, they appear to be able to exist in the same ‘hood without bothering each other.
Here is another “false statement” (we are meant to understand “obvious lie”) that the Center discovered, after digging deeply into the substrata of hidden rhetorical diplospeak. I must admit, this one was a marvel of original research that all by itself may justify the report — if only to bring this one hidden, obscure falsehood to the light of day:
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
This is such an out of the blue, never before seen accusation that I haven’t had time to formulate a response. He has me there!
Thus the massive database of dishonesty and mountain of mendacity they unearthed, dutifully reported by the Associated Press... with but a single effort to elicit a general response from the administration — and no attempt whatsoever to delve into these alleged “false statements” to see whether there is even a contradiction between what the administration said and what the Center for Pubic Integrity said. Yet there is also this unanswered (unasked) question that seems somewhat pertinent, at least to me:
How many of these “false statements” were, in fact, believed true by virtually everybody, Republican and Democrat alike, when they were made? How many were parroted by Democrats, including those on the House and Senate Permanent Select Intelligence Committees, who thereby had access to the same intelligence as la Casablanca? The Center doesn’t tell, and the incurious media elites don’t ask.
This is as close as they come in their executive summary:
Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.
On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials [Eric Shinseki? Weasely Clark? Bill Clinton?], have publicly — and in some cases vociferously [”rabidly” would be the better word choice] — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence.
A growing number of critics! Well, who could argue with that?
Here are a couple of inconvenient truths the AP story neglects to tell us:
o “A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations...”
The Fund for Independence in Journalism says its “primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups.” Eight of the eleven members of the Fund’s board of directors are either on the BoD of the Center for Public Integrity, or else are on the Center’s Advisory Board. Thus these “two” organizations are actually joined at the hip.
o “Fund for Independence in Journalism...”
The Center is heavily funded by George Soros. It has also received funding from Bill Moyers, though some of that money might have actually been from Soros, laundered through Moyers via the Open Society Foundation.
Other funders include the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts (used to be conservative, but in 1987 they veered sharply to the left, and are now a dyed-in-the-wool “progressive” funder), the Los Angeles Times Foundation, and so forth. The Center is a far-left organization funded by far-left millionaires, billionaires, and trusts.
Even the New York Times, in their “me too” article on the data dump, admits that there is nothing new in this release... just a jumble of statements, some of which later turned out to have been erroneous, others which just constitute heresy within the liberal catechism:
There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope, and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard M. Nixon used to dismissively call “wallowing in Watergate.”
By “wallowing,” the Times means those in the terminal stage of BDS can search for phrases like “mushroom cloud” or “yellowcake” and be rewarded by screens and screens of shrill denunciation of the Bush administration... just as Watergate junkies used to do (without the benefit of computers) in the early 1970s. (Mediocre science-fiction author and liberal “paleotruther” Isaac Asimov called this, evidently without realizing the irony, “getting my Watergate fix.”)
The Nixon reference appears to have been suggested by the report itself; the executive summary ends:
Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?
I’m certain it’s sheer coincidence that this nonsense was spewed across the news sockets during the peak of the election primary season... and right before the primary in Florida, of all states. Had anyone at AP or the Times realized how this might affect the election, I know their independent journalistic integrity would have suggested they hold this non-time-constrained story until afterwards. Say, they could even have used the time to consider whether “Iraq and al-Qaeda had a relationship” and “the relationship didn’t amount to direct cooperation” contradict each other.
A less charitable person than I might imagine this “database” was nothing but a mechanical tool to allow good liberals easier access to a tasty “two-minutes hate.”
But realizing that the elite media has only our best interests at heart, my only possible conclusion is that, despite the multiple layers of editorial input that must occur at these venues, several important facts just slipped through the cracks:
o The fact that the Center for Public Integrity is a Left-funded, leftist, activist organization with a serious hatchet to grind with the Bush administration;
o The fact that the Fund for Independence in Journalism is neither independent, nor is it engaged in journalism (it’s a front group of mostly the same people whose purpose is to shield the Center from lawsuits);
o And the fact that the vast majority of the supposed “false statements” are in fact simply positions with which liberals disagree, or else statements widely accepted at the time that later investigation (after deposing Saddam Hussein) showed to be inaccurate.
I must assume that these self-evident facts must simply have been honestly missed by the gimlet-eyed reporters and editors at AP and the NYT. Heck, even Pinch nods.
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/01/how_to_lie_abou.html

Shouldn’t be too hard, after all this is a Soros project
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1958158/posts
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kathleen-mckinley/2008/01/09/study-lies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951183/posts


30 posted on 01/23/2008 6:39:56 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Uh huh, somehow I knew that this pile of dung was funded by Soros.


31 posted on 01/23/2008 6:43:41 AM PST by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch; PhilDragoo; ntnychik; MeekOneGOP; Seadog Bytes; jdm; FARS; Alamo-Girl; ...




32 posted on 01/23/2008 6:47:24 AM PST by devolve (---- - Hey Boone! - My bonus check is late again! -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Iraq was islamist. Letting them have it was perfectly justified.

Saudi Arabia should have been first, but should definitely be on the list.

33 posted on 01/23/2008 6:54:28 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

‘“A study financed by the RNC shows that voters that vote for Republicans are saner than those that vote for Democrats.”

of all those listed sarcasticly by you this would be the most credible as being close to the truth...’

Never ascribe to insanity that which can better be ascribed to stupidity. You don’t have to be nuts to vote for a Democrat — just stupid.


34 posted on 01/23/2008 6:55:25 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Did they include these “false statements” in the article?

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Didn’t think so.


35 posted on 01/23/2008 6:55:39 AM PST by mpreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

IMHO...one would be both...insane and stupid to vote for a Dem, but I see your point.


36 posted on 01/23/2008 6:57:30 AM PST by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
You really wonder what the point of conducting such a study might be. Oh, I can understand why the researchers might be in favor of it. They get paid to do what they do best—nothing. It’s a mystery to me why Soros or anyone else would fund it though.

To create a media echo chamber. Entities like the Center for Public Integrity and Fund for Independence in Journalism cite "credible" news sources in their studies, and those news sources then cite these "independent think tanks" in their news stories. After all, who could challenge the credibility of groups with names like "Center for Public Integrity" and "Fund for Independence in Journalism"?

37 posted on 01/23/2008 7:15:51 AM PST by randog (What the...?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jdm

BS exposed

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/01/how_to_lie_abou.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/01/bushs_iraq_war_lies_were_untrue/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/01/22/biased-report-on-administration-statements-on-pre-war-iraq/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1958158/posts


38 posted on 01/23/2008 7:19:01 AM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

“soros funded study says bush lied.”

mr. soros, who is slated for liberal sainthood, with eternal status of superior comrade, hero of the masses and intellectually superior, global-warming crusader, stated that mr. bush is the person of this world who has told the most lies in the smallest period of time; the results are 5,768 lies in ten seconds. this beats the record of mr. reagan who lied 5,763 times in eleven seconds.


39 posted on 01/23/2008 7:22:47 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
I just wrote a letter to the Dallas Morning News asking them that if they are truly nonpartisan news reporters and investigators then they should include their own study of how many times the Clinton Administration made “false statements” about Iraq’s WMD and ties to terrorism. I gave them a couple examples for a head start.
40 posted on 01/23/2008 7:24:59 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Can you post the letter please.
41 posted on 01/23/2008 7:28:04 AM PST by angcat (President Romney or President Rodham the choice is yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: angcat
It was through Internet form and not through my mail box. Here’s a snippet though. Feb 17, 1998, Clinton,”It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them”.
If my letter get’s responded to I’ll post my letter and the response.
42 posted on 01/23/2008 7:34:19 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Thanks


43 posted on 01/23/2008 7:36:11 AM PST by angcat (President Romney or President Rodham the choice is yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Sure it qualifies as news, if the Old Grey Lady says it is.


44 posted on 01/23/2008 7:51:13 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

This “study” is just a Charles Lewis smear of Bush & the Republicans. Lewis claims to be non-partisan, but as the Weekly Standard wryly noted a few years ago:

“Charles Lewis... runs a scrupulously nonpartisan shop, you understand, and his donor list represents the full spectrum of American viewpoints, from the Gaia Fund to the Streisand Foundation and everything in between.”

Funny stuff. However, there is apparently one strange exception to the left/liberal lineup backing Lewis. One of his web sites says that Paul Volker wrote him a check, too: http://www.tfij.org/about/donors/

As for the “study” itself, it is easily refuted. To shoot down the “Bush lied, people died” con artists, you can find many quotes from prominent DEMOCRATS, during both Clinton and Bush administrations, warning of Saddam’s WMDs, here:

http://www.mooregop.org/WMDs_the_rest_of_the_story.html

A couple of years ago the Chicago Tribune noted:

“Assertions that the Bush administration strong-armed intelligence analysts in 2002 and 2003, or misled the nation in making its nuclear case for war, challenge logic. During and after Clinton’s presidency, the intelligence community repeatedly warned the White House that Iraq was one cache of fissile material and one year short of wielding a nuclear bomb. If the White House manipulated or exaggerated that intelligence before the war in order to paint a more-menacing portrait of Saddam Hussein, it’s difficult to imagine why. For five years, the official and oft-delivered alarms from the U.S. intelligence community had been menacing enough.”
- Chicago Tribune, Nov. 30, 2005 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-051130roadtowar2,0,6361891,print.story

-Dave


45 posted on 01/23/2008 8:50:57 AM PST by ncdave4life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Who lied (who lied?), who died (who died?), who pays (who pays?), who profi-its?


46 posted on 01/23/2008 8:52:26 AM PST by ichabod1 ("Self defense is not only our right, it is our duty." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Of course Bill Clinton was tried and found guilty of perjury, but that was just peachy.

The old double standard at work.

47 posted on 01/23/2008 8:52:27 AM PST by capt. norm (Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Philly Nomad

I’ll take that as a rhetorical question.


48 posted on 01/23/2008 10:35:50 AM PST by Delta 21 ( MKC USCG - ret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Whenever I hear of an organization in the news that I am unfamiliar with, I take a few seconds to google it. It is absolutely amazing what one can find out when one uses the Internet to go to the actual organization’s website! I guess all those journalism schools out there, along with the AP, Fox News, and the rest of the MSM don’t know about this valuable source of information. They appear surprisingly ignorant of Algore’s most wonderful invention!
49 posted on 01/23/2008 10:44:16 AM PST by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devolve

Excellent post devolve!


50 posted on 01/23/2008 11:45:19 AM PST by potlatch ("Kindness is more important than wisdom, the recognition of this is the beginning of wisdom" - Rubin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson