Bush told hundreds of lies

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.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration’s position that the world community viewed Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

“The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “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.”

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.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

“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.

“Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq,” it said.


On the Net:

Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/


  1. Sandra Price

    Old Curmudgeon. I listed a dozen books that I had read that exposed Bush. The forums chose not to read them so I wandered off to find people who take the time and make the effort to learn the truth. Maybe I should have written a song and gone on American Idol to get somebody’s attention.

    After Bush was elected for the second time, I wrote a commentary asking people why they voted for him. 99% of my letters said it was because he was a Christian. I wrote an article called “Family Values” that had put Bush back in. I was not on this site as I had been busted for my rude remarks about Bush. But the commentary was picked up from my website to over 30 other sites. I insisted that my email be included as I needed input from the voters. They came back the same. Christian Values….

    Apparently it is getting nasty here at CHB. If you don’t like my points of view, don’t read them. America is in a lot of trouble and I will not mince words for any reason. I started out on the internet trying to be polite and it didn’t last because of the utter foolishness that I read. Most of you believe we have time for corrections…But if we cannot point out the problems, we have no way to fix them.

    WE all should be trying to take our fixes on the road. I have done this for years and I get my fixes from this forum and others. Hell yes, I’m criticized but I am running out of time and do not have time for politeness. The election in November will set the stage for how America survives. If McCain or Rudy is the candidate, nothing will change as neither one will make an improvement. If any of the three Democrats wins, we are in for Socialism.

    Choose your poison.

  2. pollchecker

    Sandra — I believe the next president will be chosen on their vision of America and how they convey it to the voters.

    As to how that will all play out in the real world, will be determinded by what happens in Congress. There are those who advocate that Congress be controlled by the party not in the WH. There are those who advocate for Congress being controlled by the party in the WH.

    Please don’t feel I am attacking you because you and I share like views on several issues but I really must politely disagree with your assessment of our future under any of the Democratic candidates.

    The problem I have is that in my lifetime, with the exception of LBJ, we have seen the highest deficit spending done by Republican presidents. So to say something like if we get the Dems in the WH we will have socialism is a bit of a stretch for me.

    And wasn’t it the tax policies of Reagan and Bush that created the infrastructure problems that our country is now having to address?

    And under GWB’s leadership we have come closer to corporate facism than perhaps any other country has since Germany embraced it in the 1920’s.

    The GOP has been casting the Democrats as socialists and big spenders for decades. But I must point out that our country did not become socialistic or communistic under President Kennedy, Carter or Clinton. However, some of the biggest infringements to America citizens came under Nixon and Bush.

    There are plenty of choices out there for everyone. Unfortunately there can only be one winner.

    Too bad America can’t be that winner in that the Congress could put aside their petty politics and do what is right for their country instead of their party.

  3. Pablo

    Democratic presidency = socialism?

    Helping those survive who have been left behind in a system based on corporate greed, where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor is hardly what I would call socialism. And what would be wrong with a world where people are no longer rewarded without limits for their greed, and that everybody could live without the stress of not knowing if they or thier children would be able to survive in the months or years to come? Easy for people like lady Sandra, who have never had to work at a job like the rest of us to simplify reality and stereotype all poor people as lazy ones who have made bad decisions so should be therefore condemned to poverty. And yes, they have been stereotyped repeatedly in past postings; it is sickening. Oh and I suppose we should let the children of those who have made bad decisions suffer too, huh? Any poster who complains about a nation caring for its people has no respect from me, especially when that person is wealthy and has never had to work for income! Some, like myself, might consider those commentaries greedy and hateful. I hope I am not the only one tired of hearing the rhetoric against the poor. As long as we allow the rich to amass huge fortunes, we need to have social programs to help those who get a smaller slice of the pie. Period.

  4. SEAL

    Sandy: Your passion leads you to make eroneous statements and that is what people take exception to. Your “everyone” is a classic example. In the first place Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and, If you believe the official results, he barely garnered more than 50% in 2004. Therefore, only half the people believed in him – not “everyone.”

    Myself and others do not deserve to be accused of being cowards simply because we do not use our given names on the Internet. There are many valid reasons why some people cannot do that. Knowing what you have been told about my history you should realize it would be dangerous for me to post my real name.

    Flying off the handle with accusations like “cowards” angers people and discredits anything else you may have to say. If you want people to listen to you, get your facts straight and stop insulting them.

  5. SEAL

    Calling equal access to proper medical care socialism is wrong. Anyone who does not consider proper medical care the inalienable right of all people does not understand the difference.

  6. DejaVuAllOver

    This fiasco we’re in is merely war number 3,128 driven by God’s Chosen Israelites and their fundamentalist Christian backers. The rest is just details. Sure, they found plenty of ways to mislead, distract and lie to us. But never underestimate the power of fundamentalist religions to wreak Hell on Earth.
    And yeah, I too knew Satanboy was evil from the git-go, and got thrown off of plenty of forums for saying as much.

  7. ekaton

    “I will not mince words for any reason.”

    Sandra, as you know, I sometimes agree with you and sometimes we disagree. But I would never resort to calling you names.

    How dare you assume that we are all cowards? What is the matter with you?

    — Kent Shaw

  8. Carl Nemo

    So what else is new…? “We the People” and our traitorous reps have known this for some time, but George W. Bush and Richard Cheney are still occupying the Whitehouse…!?

    It surely doesn’t say much about the quality of the electorate nor their values if any. The citizenry has become just as corrupt as their leaders through their inaction to address this ongoing criminality in high places.

    “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” …Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Carl Nemo **==

  9. ekaton

    “Easy for people like lady Sandra, who have never had to work at a job like the rest of us to simplify reality and stereotype all poor people as lazy ones who have made bad decisions so should be therefore condemned to poverty. And yes, they have been stereotyped repeatedly in past postings; it is sickening.”

    Sandra may or may not be guilty of some of that for which you accuse her. But, she has previously on CHB narrated the story of her life, and it was a story of hard hard work, scrimping and saving the whole way.

    Sandra, I think you should find that narrative and repost it here today.

    Fair is fair.

    — Kent Shaw

  10. pollchecker

    “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” …Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Isn’t this the same president that warned against the rising growth of the Military Industrial Complex in America about half a century ago?”

    The same Military Industrial Complex that fueled the very lies that this thread is orginally about.

    The same Military Industrial complex that will in the long run benefit immensely from Iraq due to equipment replacement.

    The same Military Industrial Complex that rivals Halliburton in the funding they are receiving from this administration’s policies.

    Why is it that we never take action in America until it is too late and then the only action we take is a reaction fueled by some special interest groups pocketbooks?

  11. Rick Fuller

    I too initially thought the “war” was about showing up old man Bush, or at least a vendetta against Saddam – but mostly feeling the “war” was about the oil, given that Bush and Cheney are “oil men.”

    I was wrong.

    Bush and Cheney are oil men, but they are first disciples of Milton Friedman. Iraq is nothing but a free-market enthusiasts’ wet dream: Money, money, money

    All of the Bush Administrators, who have left, have profited from “Disaster Economics” – even “Heck-of-a-job” Brownie. All of them are now in the “Disaster” business in one form or another.

    You CHB’ers need to see the WIDER PICTURE. All of the Bush Administrators are disciples of Milton Friedman: Rumsfeld, Wolfwoitz, Cheney, Bremer, Ashcroft, ‘Brownie’ – and where are these people now?

    They are all in the “Disaster Business” and making huge, huge mega-millions.

    Iraq was the only country that was suited to continue the Friedman experiment first initiated in Chilè on September 11, 1973 – the overthrow of National business in favor of corporate multi-national companies. This experiment soon spread to other South American nations (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay) then to Central America (Nicaragua), then to England, Poland, South Africa, former Eastern Bloc, The Soviet Union, Mexico in the early 90s, Asia in the late 90s and now Iraq.

    What do all of these geo-political overthrows have in common? The corporatization of the country.

    Iraq is corporatism to the extreme – it’s the first privatized war! The American army is only supplying the soldiers – corporate America is supplying everything else! The military, unwittingly, had to be there to disguise the true intentions of the Bush Administration: New open free markets.

    VP Cheney has made an obscene amount of wealth from his Halliburton stocks by Haliburton receiving government contracts-plus (cost of service + a guaranteed profit) steered to Haliburton in the form of no-bid contracts by Dick Cheney.

    ‘Heck-of-a-job’ Brownie has made millions in the company that he set up after his stint as FEMA director.

    What these former Bush Administrators have done is hung onto the job for awhile and made enough contacts with private industry which now they help steer government contracts to.

    THIS is what the lie about Iraq was: Corporitization and profits – positioning one self to be able to take advantage of newly created open markets.

    From NW Ponderer over at Reader Rant:

    “Milton Friedman’s style of economic policy is based upon the old premise that “desperate times call for desperate measures.” Because his ultra-market oriented policies are desperate, it requires desperate conditions for them to take root. Friedman, like Marx before him, was economist who had more faith in himself than in the merits of his “system.” Like Marx he sought to manipulate conditions to support his theories, with similarly disastrous results for the people who were subjected to them. In both cases the impact on individuals was ignored, and the realities were ignored in favor of the theory. Anything that seemed to support the supposition is trumpeted, and any trends which show its failures are ignored. “

  12. old_curmudgeon

    But underlying idea that the corporitization will create new markets, or more likely consolidate markets is the bugaboo of energy. In order for the market to continue and prosper you must have the energy to drive the market. Now there are some who do not believe in Peak Oil, I do. New drilling in the US basically stopped around 1975 or so. Please don’t quote me, my memory is not what is used to be. The oil benefits from ANWR are going to prove minimal and very expensive. Since Bush took office our oil imports have risen from 50% to 60%, roughtly. Iraq sits upon the largest field of oil left in the world. China and India consumption of oil has skyrocketed as their economies have blossomed into worldwide powers. Wonder why cement has become so costly here in the states? China. I heard an ungodly number last summer regarding the amount of infrastructure building China is doing DAILY compared to the US.

    So, back to the oil. When it becomes an incontrovertible fact and people accept the consequences as fact, he who owns the oil will have an undeniable advantage. Imagine, if you will, the situation if it had been China sitting now in Iraq, or Russia, or Iran! I’m not advocating “better us than them but just imagine. When the energy crunch becomes and energy shortage because there just isn’t any more oil out there who sets the price? Well, that would be he who owns the oil. If we look at the current situation, Bush has stated that he sees the US being in Iraq for the long term (long term for these people is on the order of 50 years or so). Why so long? Because that is how long the analysts predict that the oil reserves in the ground under Iraq will continue to produce.

    If, when things begin to fall into place regarding the lack of oil, a nation that requires oil to continue to grow, or survive, starts to make militaristic noises, the oil flow stops. Patton proved that the Army runs on fuel. If the tanks can’t get fuel, they are dead. If a nation can’t get the fuel it requires to function, it dies – or it does things that are generally not good for everyone else.

    In order for the Friedman theory to work they must have energy for without the energy there is no production and without production there are no markets. We can’t eat ideas.

    But, that’s just this old curmudgeon’s opinion…

  13. Sandra Price

    Many of you make it sound as if my not wanting Socialism in our government makes me somehow lazy, greedy and opinionated. Yes, I was born into money and turned away from the wealth of my father when I realized he did not want to claim the marriage to my mother as legal. He had another woman and an annulment making me illegimite. He died when I was 15 and I refused to sue his estate for my share. I felt the SOB didn’t want me in his life and I could do without anything from him.

    Yes I have followed a Fiscal Conservative political point of view and left the GOP when they threw this agenda away. When it came to my own kids, I taught much of their academics at home. The schools took care of math, literature, grammar, sports and I supplemented art, music and the Constitution. I was designing and making costumes at home and had the time to spend with the kids. The kids had the finest theater training under the Geer family and have been able to conquer other languages. WE lived in an unheated cabin in Topanga for 18 years but I saved the money for the University for the kids.

    I despise the Republican Party and I realize that the academics in our schools have caused a division of education in many sections of America. I want that division fixed! Most teachers know how to teach reading and writing but their time in the classroom is spent trying to get the attention of their students. So we decide to hand them handouts instead of fixing the problems that are generational.

    The government should stay the hell out of the education of the kids and Board of Education should earn their money. I learned how to read and write phonically and I learned how to diagram a sentence in 3rd grade. I saw to it that my kids had a school that used the same technique, and by 9th grade they were bilingual. They are now tri-lingual due to their love of language.

    The fix for what ails us is not to hand money to people who don’t work from people who do work. Carter designed the Department of Education and not one damn kid learned to read or write with the government programs and mandates.

    Yes, every Democratic candidate has plans to take over our mortgage companies, our schools, our hospitals, our corporations and run them through the Congress. This is nothing but Socialism and it will kill the system. But apparently I’m not supposed to say so.

    If you want the medical system like Canada, be ready to be rationed in your care. If you want what Great Britain has, talk to a Brit first. If you like the fact that our kids graduate from high school with the reading skills of a 5th grader, then by all means get the government involved.

    If you want a redistribution of wealth, then vote for a Democrat. If you want on-going wars then vote for a Republican. We are in a no win situation with nobody coming up with a fix. We can’t even discuss what we want.

    You are quick to tell me when I’m wrong but offer no other point of view. The government under Bush or any Democrat cannot fix our problems. We are in too phucking deep in debt to keep our dollar at even it’s current value. It is not who we elect but when will we rise up for what we know to be correct?

    I was waiting for my daughter’s interview at Cavuto’s show this afternoon and Ron Paul was interviewed by Cavuto on the subject of the value of the dollar. He’s got the economics absolutely right and wants all the problems to fix themselves. Putting bandaids on a severed artery will not save the nation. The most unkind thing we can do is offer financial help to those who might lose their homes. I lost a home and survived. I lost a wealthy father and survived. I lost my investment in a commercial building and I’m surviving, but just barely.

  14. Pablo

    Is anybody out there aware of any countries out there, besides perhaps Somalia, which stays the hell out of the education of their children? As flawed and in need of repair as our system is, I shudder to think of how things would be if we didn’t have a public system of education. Besides teaching everybody the basics, it is, just like the welfare system, a way of assuring that the basic needs of all children are met, regardless of the shortcomings of their parents. Imagine we rid ourselves of all government schools as Sandra proposes; what is to become of the millions of children with intelligence and potential whose parents don’t have a clue or even care? Do the children deserve to suffer a life of poverty and illiteracy because they had bad parents or parents that just weren’t decent teachers? And now that we have created a stressful economic system where both parents have to work full-time to make ends meet, where will the parents find the time to provide adequate education? Repairing the system is noble, but elimination of our public education system is even more insane than pulling our country out of the United Nations, another crazy libertarian idea. I often wonder if fiscal right wingers want to rid our nation of social and educational programs so that there is less competition for the economic pie, as that would be the result of their half-baked ideas of government elimination.

    The problems are not the government entitlement programs or educational systems themselves causing the extreme social problems we are facing today, nor government itself, however how things are being run and by whom. Plus, there are too many tax loopholes for the rich. If somebody wants the privilege of greedily earning tens to hundreds of times more than they could ever spend, then they belong in a very high percentage tax bracket without loopholes; then it would be no big deal to help out the poor. Plus, if we’d quit spending gazillions murdering people overseas, we’d have plenty of money to provide basic necessities for a functional society.

    My god, we elect politicians based on who can raise the most corporate and private campaign contributions, and in addition, permit bribery of our politicians by lobbyists, then wonder why the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle classes! And we wonder why our education system is so poor! Geeeesssshhh! The solution is quite simple, and the solution is not to put the screws to the less fortunate: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. Hey, I suspect that nobody’s listening, but I’ve said it again. First of all we must outlaw the lobbying of politicians with money. That is bribery and bribery is wrong. Then we must outlaw the use of private or corporate $ in campaigns. All campaigns need to be strictly financed with tax dollars, which would be used to finance public debates, where ALL (not just the “frontrunners”) candidates get equal access. The dollars would also be used to put listings in the newspapers stating the stances on all issues, with of course, equal access to all candidates. Anybody obtaining a threshold number of signatures would be eligible as a candidate.

    The solution is so simple is it not? With public financing of elections, people who just wanted to do good for their country would be attracted to public service as politicians. People who cared about repairing our educational system, and doing good things that would capacitate people and break the cycle of poverty would run for office. As is now, the system attracts those who will do anything to get more money; that is their main, and too often, only motive. And who has the money? (Hint: not those with the best interests of the majority in mind) The campaign financers don’t care about educating poor children. They don’t care about making sure people can obtain decent-paying jobs. They don’t care about preserving resources for future generations. Etc etc etc…

    We will just continue on the same path down the tube until we attack the root of all our problems: a very sick electoral and political process.

  15. Warren

    This is very stale news. The issue, for several years, has not been “Is Bush lying?”, but rather, “What are we going to do about it?” The answer has been a resounding “Nothing”.

  16. pollchecker

    You are right Warren. But some of us like seeing it in black & white for all the world to read regardless.(gggg)

  17. ekaton

    Bush is a domestic enemy of the American people. The generals and admirals have all sworn an oath to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is their duty to arrest the military’s commander-in-chief and try him for treason according to the UCMJ and if found guilty to execute him. Same for Cheney. Same for many current and former cabinet members. If they fail to carry out their duties then they too are guilty of treason. Nancy Pelosi, having failed to allow impeachment is also a domestic enemy, and she should face the same procedure.


    * The Vice President Dick Cheney
    * Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
    President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd
    * Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
    Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
    Attorney General Michael Mukasey
    Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
    Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Conner
    Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez
    Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
    Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
    Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters
    Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
    Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake
    * Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

    * These people should all face military courts martial because they all potentially could hold the office of President.

    This would leave us with Robert Byrd as President of the United States, a senator who has raged against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from Day One.

    This would not be a military coup, as the military would only be executing its constitutionally mandated duty, and a new president would take office after proceedings are complete.

    I believe this is our only hope. Otherwise everything will be business as usual.

    — Kent Shaw

  18. Sandra Price

    The best and most efficient government is the one that is local where people are forced into paying attention to what they want.

    If you go back to the early days of America, there were no schools! Americans would keep their kids educated at home or in small groups. Of course there was no radio or television or the crappy music we force on our young kids.

    This attitude of asking the federal government to bow to your financial whims is exactly what is wrong with America. I can’t stop it or even take the time to explain why keeping our laws on a local level is essential to our culture. I’m a relic when it comes to government and I have seen our values watered down by big government and our politicians elected by their false promises.

    It sounds as if most of you want out from under the decision making and simply turn your daily lives and kids over to big daddy. In 25 years you will see the results of your not taking control of your own values. The sixties set the standards for government control and we see our generations failing to stand on their own two feet. We have been told that only a handful of people can see to their own decisions. This is the republican reaction to the socialism from JFK and LBJ.

    I give up!

  19. Pablo

    If one goes back to the early days of America, blacks were either slaves or treated as inferior, women weren’t allowed to vote, children were forced into sweatshop situations, and many lived in extreme poverty; of course most of us wouldn’t want to go back to that either! Therefore, your example of the good old days is only valid for the white, the male and the rich. Your reflection on the past make it look like federal intervention has done wonders for our country! Let me reiterate: the problem is not government, however, who is in control and how our election process is conducted!
    Sandra, you have totally failed to address the severe shortcomings I outlined regarding elimination of our system of education; this makes me wonder if you have considered any of this in your mind, or perhaps you think because something worked out for you it works for everybody. That is definitely a simplification of reality. I’d seriously suggest walking in some other people’s shoes before suggesting the government turn its back on the people!

  20. SEAL

    SANDY: you see too many things as either black or white. That’s a shame because you are so right about so many issues. You see everything political either conservative or socialism. But there is a rapidly rising “Progressive” philosophy that may very well turn into a third political party. Surely you have seen it because it’s primary advocate is MoveOn.org.

    The progressive’s seek just about everything you and I do in a moderate way. They want to fix the education system to make it work the way it used to. But they aren’t going to do it with radical means like throwing out the fed system, they will change it. We must have a good uniform educational system that teaches kids at school because very few parents have the time or ability to teach their children at home. That means we must return to the teachers the authority over their students they had when you and I went to school. And students must be required to learn.

    Progressives want the government to get our military out of other countrys unless it is absolutely necessary [like Korea] for us to be there. That means at least 100 military bases would be closed and the Iraq war shut down. What most people do not know is that most of our military bases around the world only serve to aid the economy of those countrys. There is no military necessity for them to be there. It costs a tremendous amount of money to maintain all those bases. Apply that to the deficit. That and shuting down the war would put a big dent in the trillions we owe.

    Progressives want the government to invest in things like fixing the infastructure that would produce decent paying jobs for americans. They want to fix the trade deficit and limit the amount of goods that can be imported. That should include automobiles. That would require corporations to trickle down and create jobs in america. They want a fair tax system. The list goes on.

    My point is that you should consider that those who do not see everything as black or white are not necessarily wrong. They may want the same things you do but only have a different method of achieving it.

  21. Pablo

    Well said SEAL!

    And I, like you, agree with many, if not most of what Sandy says. I just get a little disturbed about some comments regarding how we deal with inequities in our society. And inequities do exist! We DON’T all have equal opportunities, and I would argue that many are in a pretty screwed up situation from the start, and that disturbs me. I got lucky in some ways and got out of an ugly rut. Unfortunately, not all of us get lucky and it makes me sad. I think we would be a much better society if we cared for one another a little more.

    I was a ward of the state at 18 due to an abusive family and applied for Pell grants. Unlike many of my friends who were from low-income backgrounds, I got grants, I suspect because I was a ward of the state. It took me time to get through, and even at 29 years old I still got grants. God knows where I would be now without that government assistance and I’d like to think that society is better off for having helped me. Hell, I even got food stamps for a stint when I was young, clueless and very hungry. Sure, I made some stupid mistakes (as many young people do) and was in that predicament partly for my own fault but I am so glad I at least was able to get food. Anyway, after I graduated, I served my country in the Peace Corps (during the Clinton era), then went on to get an assistantship (plus the help with government-subsidized student loans) to get my MS degree, which would have never happened without obtaining my Bachelors degree with the aid of Pell grants. Now I have an important position working with sustainable use of our natural resources. I believe I am a prime example of how government assistance is an asset, a wise investment in our society. As is now, assistance for college is very hard to obtain. Foolish, short-sighted society in my opinion.

    Anyway, didn’t intend on carrying on about myself, rather just making the point that government caring about the people is NOT a bad thing, and can be a very wise investment. Perhaps much of the problem, besides the wrong people running the show due to a screwed up, money-based election process is that we don’t invest in and capacitate people near as much as we should. That would be a good thing.

    Good day!

  22. Sandra Price

    I think everyone in America including the Press felt that Bush 43, a self-claimed Christian, could be trusted. The Clintons may have been good in some things but they were notorious liars. They lied to the courts, the American people and when they were gone, we all felt a sense of relief.

    For many voters, Bush was an angel sent from heaven to put us all on the right track. Anyone who dared to question his qualities were thrown off the forums. We got what we paid for and the media catered to their advertisers and went along with the myth.

    Many of us read the books written after 9/11 as we knew what Bush had planned. But the voters could not focus on anything other than television shows did battle for their new President. They allowed the lies and looked the other way and to this day they still do.

    Now after 7 years of the lies and manipulations most of us doubt his words on any subject. The whole 9/11 mess should be questioned before Bush heads to South America where he has set up a home. We can thank the Constitution for not allowing this monster to stay in the White House a day longer than necessary but it still could happen;if we are attacked again and the election is cancelled.

    The link at the end of the commentary is a good one but way too slow and we should be able to read their site more quickly. I signed up for the news releases so that I do not have to wait. They are correct in blaming a lazy media for not doing the research.

  23. pollchecker

    “I think everyone in America including the Press felt that Bush 43, a self-claimed Christian, could be trusted.”

    Speak for yourself. I told people from the get go that he was an arrogant, spoiled lying SOB! And people didn’t listen…..TWICE!

    Iraq has been and ALWAYS was about Bush’s personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein!

  24. Charlie Couser

    Saying today’s media is “lazy” is being far to kind. Most of today’s media niether seeks the truth nor would recognize it if it were staring them in the face! In actual fact, most of today’s media of today is bought and sold by big business and big government!

    Thank God for the few exceptions such as Doug Thompson and Lou Dobbs!

    Charlie Couser

  25. Sandra Price

    Where were you here in 2000 when I stood alone against Bush’s campaign. I was literally thrown out of a dozen discussion forums when I came after him on his record in Texas. When his agenda was discovered I was unable to post anywhere.

  26. pollchecker

    I was either ahead of you or behind you on the same blogs. I got flamed as well. Nobody wanted to hear the truth.

    What do you expect from a narcissitic jock who has screwed up EVERYTHING he has ever been a part of? And I am being kind.

  27. Pablo


    This study, which is just another in a long list of smoking guns, will be ignored. Just ask nancy “impeachment is off the table” pelosi. This study no doubt reveals nothing every one of those dishonest, treasonous, cowardly senators and representatives, like myself, doesn’t already know. I have lost all hope for justice. bush will soon be rewarded with a retirement in Paraguay. We’ve set a very bad example for all future presidents–if we had a prayer, I’d suggest just praying that future presidents are nice to us, because we’ve clearly demonstrated that there is zero accountability for high-ranking officials in this country, unless they lie about their sex lives.

  28. pollchecker

    You know Cindy Sheehan (remember her? the mom who stood up to GW after losing her son?) is running against Nancy Pelosi for her seat in Congress!

    Perhaps all of us who support impeachment proceedings should support Cindy’s INDEPENDENT campaign (vbg). That would be at the very least a starting point to send a very loud message.

  29. old_curmudgeon

    As Pollchecker states so eloquently, “Speak for yourself!!”
    I’ll go even farther tho as I believe that on a personal level for Bush yes, it was about saving face and proving to the old man that HE was a man and not afraid of anything. But the underlying and more driven reason (by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice (the oil people) it was all about the strategic oil reserves because in the very near future he who sits on the oil will be King!! But there was another reason…the neocons…other than pure ethnic hatred and a lingering desire to complete the zionist hegemony of the entire middle east I don’t understand why they were involved. They obviously were not prudent or capable military planners.

    But back on topic…it really torques me when someone makes blanket statements that irrationally include me in their thinking. If you need to include “everyone in America” then you best get off your butt and check with “everyone in America” before opening your mouth. The tactic of convincing people that if they weren’t part of “everyone” then they were “anti” everyone else was used handily by Rove and Bush to get the gullible to follow.

    As for the media, they were complicit in the ruse. Not only were they “bought and sold by big business and big government” as Charlie states but they were owned. We’ve allowed the independence of our media to be trampled under the rush to consolidate media sources. I don’t know the numbers offhand but I bet with consolidation more than half of independent sources have disappeared over the past decade. All the major media sources are corporate owned now. And the consolidation continues. So, whether the reporters (rather than investigators) were individually complicit they were atleast being guided by the people who pay their salaries.

    But that’s just this old curmudgeon’s opinion. (That means I’m speaking for myself and no one else!!)

  30. keith

    It would now appear that Mr. Bush (along with his ignorant, arrogant and lying minions) are now beginning to fully understand that, while spreading their lies and deceit that ultimately led our nation into a needless war, they were ALSO patently ignoring one of military history’s hard lessons gleaned from thousands of years of warfare.

    The lesson is that CONQUEST is relatively easy. But, CONTROLLING what you have conquered is always infinitely more difficult.

    Fortunately, Mr. Bush’s (and his PNAC handler’s) agendas for world domination have now collapsed down around their ears. As I’ve said in several other posts here on Capitol Hill Blue, it would appear that Mr. Bush and his cronies have now finally realized the full consequences of arrogantly ignoring such critically important lessons from military history.

    James Madison (our 4th President) once said, “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

    But, no matter what a tyrannical government may do to a person physically or mentally, they simply can’t completely control people’s hearts and minds. Sooner or later, oppressed people will always figure out ways to eventually break free of such tyranny. It has been happening for thousands of years.

    And, fortunately, it is happening again in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as right here in the United States of America.

    By firmly and continuously speaking out against Mr. Bush’s meglomanic plans to rule the world, we, the US voters are now putting him, his handlers, and our totally corrupt US Congress on notice that we no longer believe ANY of their “stay the course” and “wars of liberation” dogma! What’s more, it would now appear that the rest of the world is no longer buying any of their BS either!

    For, despite our President’s warped belief that the Constitution of the United States is just another “goddamned piece of paper”, we are still a nation of laws. And, Mr. Bush’s increasingly tyrannical assertions about our Constitution as well as his totally irrational accusations against true patriots (like General Colin Powell, for example) along with many others, both in and out of uniform, is simply more evidence of his ever-more-desperate attempts to salvage a deeply flawed foreign policy…a policy that’s had overt world domination as its centerpiece from day one.

    At times like these, I’m also reminded of a quote from that crusty old (now deceased) former arch conservative US Senator Barry Goldwater who said that, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!”

    Fortunately…for all of us…Mr. Bush’s imperialist foreign policy (and the domestic tyranny that he’s put in place in the name of “homeland security” to enforce it at home) now lies largely in ruins.

    That’s because more and more people whose character is beyond reproach are now beginning to also realize (and publicly state) just how many liberties we’ve exchanged in the name of “security”…and how “transparent” our “Emperor’s new clothes” really are!

  31. Sandra Price

    Well Old Curmudgeon, I did stand alone on easily a dozen forums screaming for people to read the books and articles that I had taken the time to read. You can’t even imagine the names I was called as most of them would be banned from CHB. I listed book after book for people who gave a damn to read and not one damn poster or writer took the trouble to learn the truth about the Bush Administration.

    Apparently you find fault with my words and sir, I don’t give an itshay. It is difficult when someone tries to make valid points as to the criminal actions of our government. It is difficult when most of my readers use false names. When I write I use my legal name which is all over Google for verification. I’ve made a lot of enemies on these forums and many cowards simply change their names and attack on a different level.

    Most of you are cowards and will never use a name that can be traced. When you stand up for who you are, I might take you more seriously. I mentally delete you as I do all those horrible emails worrying about my penis size.

  32. old_curmudgeon

    Dear Lady, your “valid ” points may not be valid to others. In fact, they may be viewed as ludicrous or even treasonous. The point is not everyone may agree with your “valid” points. Just stating them without substance to back them requires your reader to “trust” you. That is what was done to the American people by those in authority. “Trust us, we know what is good for you.” So, trust is based on a value judgement we individually make.

    As for the use of a pen name…we all have reasons for doing what we do. I wonder if Mark Twain would have prospered if the reading public felt the way you do about pen names. The name is not important. Would you feel better if I used “Joe Smith” – which would be no closer to the truth than Old Curmudgeon. If you can’t get by your problem with my use of what I prefer to call myself, then fine. I participate to share ideas and sometimes clarify glaring misuse of words – which was the point. I am not like “everyone” and I’m sure that most people would agree that they also are not like “everyone” – whoever “everyone is.

    And since you don’t know me I doubt very much that you have the authority to make comments about my being a coward. Truly ugly comment which reflects only on the writer.

    But, that’s just this old curmudgeon’s opinion…

  33. ekaton

    “I think everyone in America including the Press felt that Bush 43, a self-claimed Christian, could be trusted.”

    I think the above sentence is the one for which people are mostly taking exception. “everyone in America” paints with a rather broad brush.

    I have never thought, including prior to 2000, that Bush was anything but an intellectual lightweight, a bully, and that as president would be a total horror show. I have been proven right.

    And now you resort to invective and name-calling.

    Just another coward,

    Douglas Kent Shaw
    Mechanicsburg PA
    I’m in the telephone book.

    — aka Kent Shaw, as I have explained several times previously, to prevent confusion when people write, “Doug said this, or Doug said that.

  34. JerryG

    Bush a liar? So what!

    Let’s assume for the moment the 2 “think tanks” which collarborated on the report are independent and non-partisan. The simple fact of the matter is the results of their study are completely and totally irrelevant. Why? Because the results will have no weight in pushing Congress any closer to impeachment.

    You will not see any increase in public outrage. You will not see any change of heart in those who are part of the “Bush wall”. The wall being those in Congress and the Supreme Court who will protect this President regardless of the circumstances or the law.

    All this study does is validate, in document form, what most of us already knew and provide a detailed record for the historians.

  35. pollchecker

    “All this study does is validate, in document form, what most of us already knew and provide a detailed record for the historians.”

    Amen to this! But honestly, it is nice to be validated by the truth after 9 long years of Bushie propaganda (vbg).

    What I believe is the real question we should be asking here is ….. “when did it become acceptable for our President to lie? especially when people’s lives are on the line?”

  36. Cobaltkid


    You make a very good point, i.e. “…when did it become acceptable for our President to lie?” Does this statement include former Presidents?

    I had forgotten some of the reasons I couldn’t stand Bill Clinton but lately I have been reminded in spades. Why are we being tortured by having to listen to the Bill and Hillary act ad nauseum.

    Enough is enough!

  37. ekaton


    — Kent Shaw

  38. pollchecker

    My question addresses all presidents.

    In the past, president’s who lied suffered consequences for those lies…or at least lying publicly.

    I use Nixon, Reagan and Clinton as examples. (Remember Watergate, Iran Contra, Monicagate?)

    However, all of those men suffered consequences of some form or kind for their actions.

    As far as I can see, GW has shielded himself from these consequences. Guess that means Dick & Karl learned their lessons well during Tricky Dick’s administration.

    And in this case there are actual lives that have been forfeited for these lies. That might be considered murder in some courts of law.

    Perhaps someone should in fact sue GW for the loss of their child in Iraq due to fraud and negligence. Hitting them in the pocket book and publicly humiliating them is at this time perhaps the only consequence they will suffer.