Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion

Sure. Your first clue should have been on the Center for Public Integrity website that the link took you to. On there is an ad for a t-shirt that shows Bush and Cheney behind bars that says "jail to the chief".
As for the support of my statement---there are way too many sites to list but if you Google "Center for Public Integrity is a Liberal George Soros" and you will find numerous results.

 

This is old news. We all know these statements. Besides, the proof lies in the fact that they found absolutely nothing in Iraq.

This is no different than the Heritage Foundation, AEI, etc. Or is it only biased when it's left leaning? If you can demonstrate where anything is untrue on the site, then by all means show us.

Additionally, the Drudge Report would fail your t-shirt test, as there is quite often a GOP t-shirt for sale (with a blonde model wearing it) somewhere on the page.

As of the time of this post, most of the "results" for your Google search were right-wing bloggers. Michelle Malkin (pause...... :laugh was in the top five.


Regards,
BiR

 

I suppose you don't know that Soros also funded one of Bush's oil businesses, Harken Oil, do you?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=196#

 

One thing is for sure: if anyone on this board were a corporate insider and sold their stock ahead of bad news, they would be in serious trouble......

 

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx?act=funders
Foundation Support

Annenberg Foundation
Around Foundation
Attias Family Foundation
The Brodie Price Fund of the Jewish Community Foundation
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Compton Foundation, Inc.
Deer Creek Foundation
Domitila Barrios de Chungara Fund at Peninsula Community Foundation
Dudley Foundation
Educational Foundation of America
Everett Philanthropic Fund at the New York Community Trust
Ford Foundation
David B. Gold Foundation
Daniel J. Goldman Foundation
Gunzenhauser-Chapin Fund
Haas Charitable Trusts
Hafif Family Foundation
The Heinz Endowments
Honeybee Foundation
The Inge Foundation
JEHT Foundation
The Lawrence Foundation
Liberty Hill Foundation
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Maloney Family Fund
The Robert & Bethany Millard Charitable Foundation
Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust
Nell Williams Family Foundation
New York Community Trust
John & Florence Newman Foundation
Park Foundation, Inc.
Karen & Christopher Payne Foundation
Popplestone Foundation
Lynn R. & Karl E. Prickett Fund
Princeton University Class of 1969
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Shelley and Donald Rubin Foundation
Scherman Foundation, Inc.
The Joan Shorenstein Center
Streisand Foundation
John & Donna Sussman Foundation
The Fund for Independence in Journalism Mainly funded by Soros
Town Creek Foundation, Inc.
Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
The Elmaleh Fund at the New York Community Trust
Wallace Global Fund


A veritable who's who list of bush hating leberals.

The Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism are the handtools of liberals.

They have no integrity and there is nothing independent about them.


But marketing the "jail to the Chief" tee shirts really says it all.

 

Okay, so it's only bias when it's a site with left-wing support. Hmm....

Perhaps you could show us something that proves that the quotes listed on the site are wrong, citing proof which is conclusive to that point.

So we now have a t-shirt test for websites? Interesting. I would be more interested in any proof that indicates that the report is wrong.

 

The administration was hell bent on invasion of Iraq.

CLICK HERE

 

I would be interested in any proof that it is right.

 

The ball is in your court, carpro.
If you are claiming that there is anything in the report that is false, then by all means show us the errors/fallacies. From what I have seen, they have done a considerable amount of research. I would be curious to see what you offer to refute their claims, other than simply attacking the messenger as you have done thus far.

 

No problem.

The report is a complete fallacy. Just read it and you have your proof.

Now, before you ask some stupid question and start chasing me for an answer, would you like to take a stab at proving any of the 900 odd alledged lies were, in fact , lies?

It should be simple. All you really have to prove is that believing and repeating faulty intelligence is a deliberate lie.

That is , after all, the only criteria for a lie in this so called report.

 

Ah, how convenient for you that you can simply accuse and offer absolutely nothing as proof.

One big glaring detail is that we have found nothing in Iraq. But as usual, you won't allow yourself to get bogged down with the facts.

Thanks for clearing that up though.

 

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=methodology&id=953


"False Statements" — Definitions

In press briefings, interviews, and other question-and-answer venues, each answer was categorized for purposes of this study as a distinct statement. In speeches or briefings, only when one statement clearly ends was the next statement considered, and then only if a "buffer" of at least 50 words separated the statements.

Direct false statements.

False statements by the eight Bush administration officials were counted as "direct"—and included in the total count of false statements—when they specifically linked Iraq to Al Qaeda or referenced Iraq's contemporaneous possession, possible possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons). In addition, any use of the verb "disarm" was categorized as a direct statement because of the literal meaning of the word. (Example: "Saddam Hussein has got a choice, and that is, he can disarm.") These false statements can be found within the passages that are highlighted in yellow in the project database.


Indirect false statements.

Statements were classified as "indirect" if they did not specifically link Iraq to Al Qaeda but alleged, for example, that Iraq supported or sponsored terrorism or terrorist organizations, or if they referred to Iraq's former possession of weapons of mass destruction or used such general phrases, for example, as "dangerous weapons." These indirect false statements are not included in the total count of 935.

:laugh:
What a joke!!!

 

I already read this.
Where is the proof for your claim, carpro?

 

The chase has begun. :laugh:

 

A lack of WMD's only proves the intelligence was incorrect. To go beyond that without any other evidence and use it to prove someone lied is obviously in error.

Those who made the allegations that a lie was told bears the responsibility of providing proof. And that has not been done.

 

Isn't it amazing, carpro? You seemingly feel as if you can simply make statements with absolutely no proof to support your contention, and not be called on it. Once again, I really am embarrassed for you. Most people would not be so brazen in their foolishness......

So, since you offer nothing in the way of proof (other than providing us with verbiage we have already read from the website - which proves nothing), your claim is once again wholly and completely without merit.
:tonofbricks:

 

Considering that Soros spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush through various 527 groups, and since Soros bankrolled this study, it can hardly be considered unbiased.

Well, to quote your earlier comment concerning Democrat's WMD statements, "This is old news. We all know these statements."

That should be good enough huh?


And here's one more -

"This is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed." - Hillary Clinton