Iraq on the Record

March 16, 2004 12:57 PM

Iraq on the Record A full compilation of the Bush administration's misleading statements on Iraq was comissioned by rep. Henry Waxman. It is now available as a pdf report and as a database searchable by name of speaker or keyword. Did this sort of framework for accountability exist before the Web, and can it be effective now?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly (20 comments total)

You're just a Bush hater Ignatius and therefore anything you post and say can be conveniently ignored.

Bush was divinely appointed and can do no wrong so just get over it.

Liar!

Prove it!

I know you are but what am I?

BushFilter!

/standard canned replies

Now that we've got those out of the way, how about that extensive list of lies and deceptions?
Good to see honor and integrity restored, isn't it?
Yup, I'm expecting any day now to hear confessions and apologies from the entire bunch.
posted by nofundy at 1:21 PM on March 16, 2004

I read most of the report and it is pretty damning... especially considering Rummie's rant on TV last weekend that he never said that Iraq posed an immanent threat.

Seems like they don't just lie to the public, they must do a fair amount of lying to themselves. It is just so juvenile to make these proclomations and then to pretend like you didn't. I like the graph of misleading comments plotted by month. You can tell a lot from examining it against a chronology of events.

The worst part is that this report only convers this kind of bullshitting about Iraq. What about all the lies about the economy and the myriad of other issues. It's disgusting.
posted by n9 at 1:27 PM on March 16, 2004

I've been told by more than one conservotard that lying to the public about such matters is alright, because the public just doesn't understand and our (republican) elected officials know what's good for us.
And I'm supposed to take these people seriously and hand over the keys to my country? Ain't gonna happen.
posted by 2sheets at 1:32 PM on March 16, 2004

It looks like the technology for greater transparency and accountability in politics exists, but that neither the leadership nor the public really knows that yet. It's as if most people simply underestimate their own ability to slog through shit and make up their own minds.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:40 PM on March 16, 2004

How sad is it really that there's so many of these statements that we've actually merited the need for a database to organize them?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:55 PM on March 16, 2004

Yup, I'm expecting any day now to hear confessions and apologies from the entire bunch.
I'm expecting to see impeachment and criminal convictions for the entire bunch, but realize that won't happen (or, at least won't happen til we get the Senate back)

That Rumsfeld thing was astonishing the other day...I don't know how these people can sleep at night.
posted by amberglow at 1:56 PM on March 16, 2004

This just solidifies my belief that the Bush Administration has a contemptuous view of all Americans and they think that we are all a bunch of idiots.
posted by plemeljr at 2:40 PM on March 16, 2004

YA!
posted by clavdivs at 2:53 PM on March 16, 2004

Echo!.......echo.......echo.......(couldn't resist) "Did this sort of framework for accountability exist before the Web, and can it be effective now?"

Answer - 1) only in private databases. 2) damn right, it can.

Truth will out.
posted by troutfishing at 5:43 PM on March 16, 2004

but realize that won't happen (or, at least won't happen til we get the Senate back)

We? Who is this we? Does all of metafilter belong? Just 99 percent? Are you running for the senate?

So many questions.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 5:44 PM on March 16, 2004

We? Who is this we? Does all of metafilter belong? Just 99 percent? Are you running for the senate?
We is Democrats...all of metafilter does not belong...not even 99 percent...no, i'm not, but many fine Democrats are, including this guy in Illinois who won tonight.

next questions? : >
posted by amberglow at 6:22 PM on March 16, 2004

This just solidifies my belief that the Bush Administration has a contemptuous view of all Americans and they think that we are all a bunch of idiots.

Well, even if you forgive the electorate for the 2000 fiasco (it shouldn't have even been close), we did both elect and subsequently re-elect Ronald Reagan. I think Bush might be on to something...
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:26 PM on March 16, 2004

Reagan was never as bad as this bunch...Panama and Grenada do not compare to Iraq and our failures in Afghanistan, by a long shot.
posted by amberglow at 6:32 PM on March 16, 2004

Bush Administration has a contemptuous view of all Americans and they think that we are all a bunch of idiots.

Is that so wrong?
posted by deadcowdan at 6:45 PM on March 16, 2004

Civil_Disobedient - Yeah, I think Bush is onto some fat right wing think tank and advertising payrolls.
posted by troutfishing at 6:47 PM on March 16, 2004

But seriously, I think that the trail of lies that this post demonstrates are going to hurt Bush et al. more than they realize right now. I live in an area well known for being a Republican stronghold, and many of the people I talk to who would ordinarily be reliable Rep. voters are less than happy about being lied to. Well, the thoughtful ones, anyway.
posted by deadcowdan at 6:52 PM on March 16, 2004

deadcowdan - Wouldn't those thoughtful ones tend to be opinion leaders?
posted by troutfishing at 7:19 PM on March 16, 2004

Did this sort of framework for accountability exist before the Web, and can it be effective now?

Ah, memories of youth: I'll Never Lie to You, a crank "instant-publishing" book about the campaign promises of Jimmy Carter, indexed and dated -- released in the summer of 1976 (!). It didn't seem to be effective then, either, judging by subsequent events.

In those days reporters always had the same information at their fingertips, if they were organized enough -- except the medium would have been 3x5 cards. A good interviewer would have had a good supply of such cards. Of course, the computer makes it all that much easier.

One is also reminded of AskSam and Iran-contra. AskSam is a free-form database optimized for text searches. They basically dumped the e-mail files [rescued from backup tapes!] from North, Poindexter, et al into it and Congressional staffers used it during the hearings.
posted by dhartung at 8:53 PM on March 16, 2004

Reagan was never as bad as this bunch

Give me a break. The man almost single-handidly drove our economy into the ground. "Oh, but the 80's were great for some people!" goes the argument. Bullshit. Manufacturing left America on his watch. Foriegn competition (and our inability to do anything about crap like dumping [no pun intended]) gave entire industries away so a couple ass-wipes could look cool while they snorted coke on the dash of their Jag. "But communism fell because of his forward-thinking! He forced the Russians into an arms race they couldn't afford, thus bankrupting Communism! Genius!" Bah! -- he shaved off a few years of what would have been an inevitability, anyway. Big deal.

But let's ignore all that for a moment and put some things in perspective: it was Reagan who started this whole Iraq-shit in the first place.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:36 PM on March 16, 2004

Reagan sucked bigtime, but this crowd is still much worse, both domestically and internationally. (You also left out AIDS negligence and ketchup is a vegetable, among other things) Interesting thing on Iraq and Madrid and US in NYNewsday today:
Voters here might wonder why it's a good idea to have 130,000 American troops in Iraq - while our own borders are sparsely monitored and our own rail system is wide open to terror bombing. And why does the Bush administration wish to spend $200 billion to "liberate" Iraq, but just $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security this year?

Finally, Americans might ask themselves the most basic question of all: Has the invasion of Iraq really made the United States safer?
posted by amberglow at 5:17 AM on March 17, 2004