Media Finally Clues Into Bush And Cheney's False Statements 
Monday, January 28th, 2008

Stop the presses!!  No, wait...restart them!  Two nonprofit journalism groups just released a study regarding the accuracy of statements made by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the two years after 9/11, and according to their study, Bush and his top aides made 935 false statements to the public about the actual security risk posed by Iraq.  The most shocking part of this is that the mass media is actually reporting on it.

The Center for Public Integrity and The Fund For Independence In Journalism posted the study, entitled, "Iraq: The War Card: Orchestrated Deception On The Path To War."

"Following 9/11," the study says, "President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

(Hey, we told you that, but it took you all a while to start listening to us!)

"Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows 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."

For anyone who is unclear on what this means, let us provide you with the definition of the word orchestrate.

or - ches - trate

-verb To arrange or manipulate, especially by means of clever or thorough planning or maneuvering

"On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interview, testimony, and the like)," the report continued, "Bush and these three key officials, along with the Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both.  This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war."

con - cert - ed

-adjective Contrived or arranged by agreement; planned or devised together or in cooperation

Their full report is available to read here.

Not going to lie - we were somewhat shocked when we found it on CNN, in Yahoo! News, Reuters.  These are the things ConnieTalk and other bloggers have been publishing for year(s), but these days, it seems the mainstream media's role has been to deceive you.

The sad conclusion to this, though, is that the mass media will not follow this up with what they should.  Which is this:  how the Senate - including those who are presidential candidates right now - allowed this to happen.

Barack Obama has continuously voted for war and war-related funding that supported the current administration's agenda to stay in Iraq.

Perhaps he just "pressed the wrong button?"

Nope, he knows that he did that.  "I have been very clear even as a candidate," Barack has said, "That, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could."

Once we were in?  Not "if we went in?"  Was Barack informed about the above-mentioned orchestration?  And what is the message here?  That two wrongs make a right?  That if something wrong, something intentional, takes place - make the best out of it?

This is why I cannot support either of the media's darlings:  neither Barack, nor Hillary.

There is no question that Hillary Clinton has voted for the Iraq War - she openly admits it gives in to questioning.

"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now," Clinton said in an e-mail to her supporters in 2005, "We never would have agreed."

Just the year before, she told CNN that she was not sorry that she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq.

But then, in 2007, she told the New York Times that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraq weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.  Yet she followed it up with:

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

Sounds to us like:  I don't need your vote if you're going to analyze what I actually do.

Both of the two Democratic front-runners - both media darlings who have the same giant corporate monopoly supporters - have not only allowed, but contributed to this war by their allocation of funds.

Are you okay with that?  Were you not physically enraged over the administration's deflection of our anger towards Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to a completely different country?

We repeat:  the only two candidates who have consistently and unwaveringly voted against the Iraq War are Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

And after being drowned by the mass media ignoring him, Dennis Kucinich dropped out.

Who is left...?  The other candidate who the mass media has tried and tried and tried and tried to drown out (yes, those are 4 separate links; corruption runs deep)...but who has the support of the people.

Comments > >

Wait!  There's more!
More News >>