debgeisler: (Default)
[personal profile] debgeisler
...but we were lied to. Not once, not twice...but hundreds of times. This piece in the San Francisco Examiner cites a study posted at the Center for Public Integrity about the lies, damned lies, and statistics issued by the White House and leading up to the Iraq War.

Most damning is the study's conclusion that the lying was deliberate and orchestrated.
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.
Anyone who thinks we're hearing the truth from the administration now had best get their head examined.

on 2008-01-23 03:48 pm (UTC)
madfilkentist: Carl in Window (CarlWindow)
Posted by [personal profile] madfilkentist
Does that article really add any new information to the bad intelligence vs. deliberate lies debate?

on 2008-01-23 03:52 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] debgeisler.livejournal.com
The article does not itself...but the work by the Center for Public Integrity is the first in-depth study of the chain of lies. I believe that bringing journalistic (and academic) rigor to examining the arrogance and dishonesty of this administration is important, not just for now, but to ensure that people are more demanding of future administrations.

on 2008-01-23 04:43 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] stevemb.livejournal.com
A proper in-depth study might reveal whether or not there is a definite pattern pointing to deception rather than honest error.

Example: A is asserted. Facts surface which cast doubt on A. B is asserted. B bolsters A and/or undercuts the evidence against A. B later turns out to be equally suspect. If this sort of thing keeps happening, it's either an amazing coincidence in just what particular mistakes were made or a pattern (whether deliberate or the result of unconsious confirmation bias) of distortion and cover-up.

on 2008-01-23 05:15 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] richardthe23rd.livejournal.com
I am shocked, shocked I say.

on 2008-01-23 05:25 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] renegade500.livejournal.com
Hahaha, this was exactly what I was going to say!

Profile

debgeisler: (Default)
debgeisler

March 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728 2930
31      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 17th, 2026 07:19 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios