POST SCRIPTS

Jack, I saw this report too and found it interesting on several levels. The study, from my perspective, is useful for future presidents and news outlets as a means for critical examination, something everyone and every institution must do in order to learn from past mistakes.

Having said that, I'm clear this is another "political" piece. I wonder how many statements by democrats were charted and included as part of this study (zip) yet if the purpose was to support those who lead to do a better job (an honorable purpose) it would have included what all persons and entities in positions of power and influence were saying. It did not.

The study, if it were honorabe and purposeful, might also include the positives that have resulted regarding the decisions that were made...regardless of mistakes.

Instead there seems to be a single purpose:

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.

What, no specific news outlets? No congress persons? NO DEMOCRATS?

They did issue a warning to news outlets...don't you dare report positively on leadership decisions in republican administrations or we will come down on you.

"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.

Massive!!! Just imagine...the media "creating an almost impenetrable din..." Like they've never done that before:

Iran Contra...Oliver North...Clarence Thomas...Scooter Libby...pick a republican "scandal in the making" and you will find a media "creating an almost impenetrable din...".

The only difference is that in these cases the target, if you will, was the opposition party, fellow Americans...not an enemy that has demonstrated by fire an intention to destroy the United States of America.

I don't know who the "Center for Public Integrity" and the "Fund for Independence in Journalism" are but I will find out. Rush just suggested it was the Clinton machine...no kidding!

I'll get back to ya.

Those are leftist propaganda outlets, financed by George Soros.

Good work Dan! The following on the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal will shed some further light:

Just Some Center

(Scroll down to find the title)

Nowhere in the entire dispatch does the AP tell us anything more about the two groups than that they are "nonprofit journalism organizations." In fact, the Center for Public Integrity is a liberal-left group that has taken money from George Soros, who has compared contemporary America to Nazi Germany. The Fund for Independence in Journalism seems to be but a spinoff; its Web site says its "primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support" for the center.

The director of the center has worked in public radio:

Bill Buzenberg is the Center's fourth Executive Director, joining us in December 2006. He has been a journalist and news executive at newspapers and in public radio for more than 35 years. Most recently, as Senior Vice President of News at American Public Media / Minnesota Public Radio, Buzenberg launched such programming initiatives as American RadioWorks, public radio's major documentary and investigative journalism unit, and Speaking of Faith, public radio’s signature program on religion.

The excellent rebuttal information is exactly why we need to examine things like that critical article from time to time.

It's why I titled it as an "allegation" instead of something more factual or conclusive.

When you read things from diverse perspectives you get an opportunity to understand how people might think the way they do.

When you read things from diverse perspectives you get an opportunity to understand how people might think the way they do.

Over time it becomes easier to notice patterns and associations too. Good work Jack.

Well aren't we just so very gracious ... four freakin' years (and untold traumatic brain injuries) too late!

I told you ... didn't I tell you ... the man was full of S**t! I told you repeatedly the man was full of S**t.

Now we have the Pentagon's Iranian Incident, and while the rest of the world is chortling ... it did occur to me to wonder if you all had bought it ... as usual ... hook, line and sinker ... truly sinker.

You haven't, have you? I mean, talk about your "patterns and associations".

Great to hear from you again Libby.

Lots of people were full of "it" in 2001...almost the entire democrat congress for instance.

One of the biggest culprits was, of course, Saddam himself who lied repeatedly to the UN inspectors and the world.

It's so very "nice' of you to worry about brain injuries while diparaging the good work and sacrifice of wounded veterans most of whom are proud of the work they have done. The depth of your understanding and compassion is decidedly measurable.

Common Libby...the purpose of this study is quite clear...and it ain't patriotism or the law.

In speeches, briefings and interviews, President Bush and other officials stated “unequivocally” on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had links to al-Qaeda, or had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to get them.

“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaeda,” wrote the study’s authors Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith.

“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.”

The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.

The study, released Tuesday, says Powell had the second-highest number of false statements, with 244 about weapons and 10 about Iraq and al Qaeda.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer each made 109 false statements, it says. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made 85, Rice made 56, Cheney made 48 and Scott McLellan, also a press secretary, made 14, the study says.

It doesn't matter if this was echoed by every liberal democrat in the USA or every other free nation in the world; we still have a duty and a responsibility to get it right before we go to war.

If Bush made those incorrect declarations or allowed their release by his staff then he must be held accountable. This is not to let Saddam Hussein, Iran, al Qaeda, the CIA, or anyone else involved off the hook! They all have their parts in this and they should all be accountable.

Bush, he was the leader and he can't duck responsibility for critical mistakes and what happened after he gave the orders to invade Iraq. As the former President Harry S. Truman said, "The buck stops here."

Libby was right.

The entire world knows, even without "studies" made by pointy-headed smear tanks, that the president and others made statements that were LATER found to be false. ALL presidents and staff have to deal with the information at hand when making decisions. Members of Congress saw the same intellegence and used it to come to the same decision...they voted for the war.

The difference is that the president DOES take responsibility for his decision and has since determined to make the best possible outcome for the people of Iraq as he possibly can from the decision. He hasn't wasted time and effort trying to cover his tracks, make tearful excuses for the cameras, or blame the world wide intel community.

Too bad most democrats in congress don't have a similar attitude. The things they have done have been damaging to the effort and delayed a positive outcome. They have made the job more difficult than it needed to be and in a few cases their actions and words bordered on treason: they gave damaging information to our enemies and at times aid and comfort.

These same members of Congress refuse to take responsibility for their own decisions to go to war. They are now lying about the intellegence they saw and also, at the time, believed to be true. Instead of shouldering the burden they have postured and lied about it and determined not only to "pass the buck" but to take political advantage of the situation to try to unseat the president and seek conviction of him and his staff members. Even if they do not succeed in convicting anyone they know the press will help to damage this president and his party for what amounts to their turning a very bad situation into a positive and completing a very difficult mission.

Libby's colorful language can be applied liberally...and so what?