935 FALSE STATEMENTS on IRAQ- Why was I not suprised anymore?

[jaystarr]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 9:24am

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

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.

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."

Updated On: 1/23/08 at 09:24 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 10:59am

Look for a lot more of this kind of analysis as the Bush regime ends. Once he's out of office, this will become public opinion and historical record. His legacy will be worse than Nixon's, even if he and Cheney escape impeachment.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 11:02am

But will there be endless refrains of "everybody had the same information" and that'll be the end of it. Again?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 11:20am

Actually. I think it's going to get quite ugly for the Bushies when the Democrats take over, especially if it's Hillary. Obama could conceivably set a Gerald Ford-like tone of "let's forgive and move on," but in a Clinton administration, there will be investigations and indictments galore.

[nygrl23]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 11:26am

Once his regime ends? Politicians and analysts have been saying this stuff about King George even before the invasion began.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 11:48am

Yes, but there was no "public appetite" for investigation or prosecution.

That will change.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 11:53am

oh, i dunno, pj. i don't see the mccain administration as being particularly investigative.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 12:04pm

Your pundits better get behind McCain. He's your only hope.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 1:33pm

somebody's behind him, he's beating giuliani...in ny and nj!

Updated On: 1/23/08 at 01:33 PM

[Liverpool]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 2:56pm

yeah that's not that big of news anymore papa. Paul beat Giulliani 5 out of 6 times so far.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 2:59pm

hey, rudy was still polling 20 points ahead of him last month in ny/nj so it is...oh man...yeah, paul. whew. k.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 3:02pm

I believe in the last poll, I'm even beating Giuliani in New York

And I'm not even on the ballot.

Also, these "wins" that McCain is seeing--isn't the sum total of the votes cast for him approximately 50% of the votes cast for him last time around?

It's all about the turnout.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 3:17pm

PJ, out of curiosity, why would a Hillary administration be more investigative? Last I looked it was Obama who spoke out against the war all those years, and Hillary who was openly supportive (and hasn't apologized for it yet)... and probably wants to just sweep the whole affair under the table.

I'm actually with Papa on this one. If it comes down to McCain vs. Hillary, McCain will probably win. The primaries are one thing but once the general comes along, we'll be seeing a different fight.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 3:55pm

The Watergate investigation created a generation of Republicans hell-bent on revenge. They considered it a witch hunt that went far beyond whatever crimes committed. Many of the people on the Republican side who pushed the initial Travelgate and Whitewater investigations were dedicated Nixonians who saw Bill Clinton as the punching bag on which they could get even for the crucifixion of Richard Nixon. Lucianne Goldberg, who put Linda Tripp up to trapping Monica Lewinsky was and old Nixon Dirty Trickster. Dick Cheney got his start in the Nixon administration and still resents that Nixon was forced to resign.

Everyone in Washington knows that if Bush and Cheney were to be investigated, impeached or convicted for any of a number of possible impeachable offenses, the resulting division in the country would divide the American people for 2 or 3 generations to come.

This is part of the reason Pelosi has steadfastly declared impeachment off the table: If it were on the table now, nothing else would be. And the public could easily end up siding with the Republicans, even though it's patently obvious that Cheney, if not Bush, has committed more than one "impeachable offense." Would 51% of the House vote to impeach? Possibly not. If they did, would 67% of the Senate vote to convict? Probably not.

Faced with choice between allowing a demoralizing prosecution of the previous regime or crafting a positive upbeat agenda of his own, I think Obama would opt for presidential pardon or declaring, as Pelosi did, that investigation and prosecution are off the table. I can't see him allowing his first 100 days to be co-opted by revenge.

[wickedfiyeroofoz]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 4:19pm

Impeach! Now!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 4:36pm

no, it was 63%. there was a 25% dropoff in voters from 2000 most of which was due to weather and the fact that there was not a concurrent democratic primary...plus the fact that there's still like 7 candidates and republicans like things a bit neater than that. oh and karl wasn't there to robo-call around warning folks that mike huckabee has a squirrel baby.

don't worry, pj, the prospect of president clinton re-dux will drag even the most recalcitrant of gop'ers to the polls.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/23/08 at 5:35pm

Not anymore.