House of a thousand lies

January 23, 2008 6:32 AM

While it may be old news the US was drawn into the Iraq War under false pretenses, a new report by the Center for Public Integrity documents 935 specific falsehoods in public statements by eight white house officials: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Fleischer and McClellan.

At the center of the report is a database of 380000 words of testimony on Iraq. A search for the phrase "aluminum tubes," for example, shows that there was an immediate negative reaction inside the government to Rice's claim (Sept. 2002) that these tubes were "only suited" for making nuclear weapons. Within a week, objections from the International Atomic Energy Agency, DOE, and the Oak Ridge labs, were raised both privately and publicly. Despite the expert rebuttal, in the summer of 2003, Rice was still claiming "a consensus" of scientists supported the claim.

Sadly, this report also serves to document why lying works and why Bush and others continue to use it. The press acts as an "echo chamber" for anything that high administration officials say. Anyone who disagrees is cast as a "critic" and an outsider. The fact that it took nearly five years after the start of the war to compile this database shows how much time the propaganda machine has to operate without an effective counter.

posted by CheeseDigestsAll (71 comments total)

Thanks for posting this, Cheese. I almost posted it myself. Considering the tens to hundreds of thousands of people who have died as as result of these lies, documentation of every one of them is crucial.
posted by digaman at 6:36 AM on January 23

I'm sure we'll have an apologist in here soon saying that "nobody could have known" WMDs weren't there. So I'd like to pre-empt that with first a raised eyebrow and sardonic laugh and then by also noting this: If I had made these claims and then it turned out I'd killed thousands of people and wasted billions of dollars on a mistake, I'd have resigned.

It's really down to evil or incompetent (or both).
posted by DU at 6:49 AM on January 23

"echo chamber" is a crucial concept. Once something is in print, it becomes reality. It's self-referential. There are no footnotes or citations in newspapers - maybe there should be. But even then you end up with a Wikipedia situation where just about anything can be said, so long as it is cited; but citations don't make something right or true, they just give the appearance of authority. It all comes back to the editors and the reporters doing a good job - there were a few reporters who got it right in 2003, but not many.
posted by stbalbach at 6:50 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]

There are no conspiracies of silence, only conspiracies of noise.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:51 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]

It's really down to evil or incompetent (or both).

It always has been with this bunch.
posted by notyou at 6:56 AM on January 23

yeah, but Clinton was impeached and Bush won't
posted by matteo at 6:59 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]

Running the Center for Public Integrity must feel akin engaging in chivalric re-enactment these days; a homage to a bygone code of ethics.
posted by Abiezer at 7:01 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]

If only the press had put as much effort into investigating these falsehoods at the time as they have in reporting the results of this study...the barn doors, they are open, and the horses, they are long gone.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:12 AM on January 23

There are no conspiracies of silence, only conspiracies of noise.

Sounds cute but in fact is utterly wrong.

For example, in the Tompkins Square police riot in New York City, there are videos of police covering their badges with tape before beating up random individuals who were just passing by. The police department claims that they are completely unable to identify any of these individuals, even though you can see their faces extremely clearly, even though some of them have been identified individually by non-police sources.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:19 AM on January 23

With all the press its getting the website appears overloaded.
posted by caddis at 7:26 AM on January 23

Ya'll do realize that after 9/11 much of America was insane right? Like a grieving parent who's child had been murdered, we (meaning the nation as a whole, not individuals) wanted to do something, we had to do something. We wanted the world, especially after such a tragedy to fit inside a nice, neat little box and dammit, if it didn't, we were going to make it.

So we did.

Now, 5 years later, we realize we've made a big mess that someone has to fix, that most of what we thought about the world was just plain wrong and sadly, yes, the kid is still dead and we're not even going to get the emotional high of delivering justice.

So now we want to crawl into bed for a while and sleep. Yeah, the house is a mess, the bills are piling up, we know ok, WE KNOW, quit bugging us about it. First we need a night of good, solid sleep after we finish eating this stick of cookie dough and we'll get started on that stuff first thing in the morning.

.....

What, what's that, global markets are crashing, based on what we're doing? Dammit, didn't we tell you we need rest?! How can we sleep if you're waking us up every 2 hours to tell us about the ramifications of our actions?! Christ, it'll be there in morning, just let us catch up on our sleep, ok?

Say, is there anymore cookie dough left?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:32 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]

For an overview of the Bush approach to policy, see this.

(Found by homunculus.)
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:36 AM on January 23

I wrote: The police department claims that they are completely unable to identify any of these individuals... ARG, it should be any of these officers.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:48 AM on January 23

One more thing. I actually know a few people who are still Bush supporters, and my reading of these people is that they really don't care if Bush lied. They believe Bush was "right," by definition, and as President had every right to lie to get people to do as he wants. They don't believe that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives are at all significant, and they think that the only reason the rest of the world pretends to care about these things is that we are crazed with hatred and envy for their great leader and would use any pretext to attack him.

In short, Bush and many of his supporters are psychopaths.

Boy, I'm interested to see this film.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:58 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]

Ah, I was just about to post this too.

The most jarring factoid of the numbers here: of these 935 lies, over half of them (532) were related specifically to Iraq's WMDs and/or Al-Aqeda connections... neither of which, to this day, have been found. And all of those 532 lies came from at least one of only four people: Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.

I said this kind of mockingly a while back but I really seriously believe it again after reading this... a generation from now kids are going to read about the Bush White House in history books and think it's a typo.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:12 AM on January 23

BRANDON BLACHTER WROTE: Ya'll do realize that after 9/11 much of America was insane right? Like a grieving parent who's child had been murdered, we (meaning the nation as a whole, not individuals) wanted to do something, we had to do something. We wanted the world, especially after such a tragedy to fit inside a nice, neat little box and dammit, if it didn't, we were going to make it.

So we did.

Actually, that's the trouble. WE didn't. The administration DID.
posted by SPUTNIK at 8:14 AM on January 23

The CPI is financed by George Soros. Who, of course, has no agenda whatever.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:51 AM on January 23

WE didn't. The administration DID.

With a lot of help and support of the populace.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:51 AM on January 23

Would non-support have changed their plans?
posted by agregoli at 8:57 AM on January 23

The CPI is financed by George Soros. Who, of course, has no agenda whatever.

This comment was brought to you by Steven C. Den Beste. Who, of course, has no counter-argument whatever.
posted by Skot at 9:00 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]

And all of those 532 lies came from at least one of only four people: Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.

What's awesome is that none of those four will ever be held truly accountable for what they did and said. They all apparently sleep pretty well at night, too. Bush and Cheney will have roads, schools, libraries, etc. named after them. Rice may very well run for President one day and have a real shot at landing in the Oval Office. No wonder people lust for power -- you really can do whatever you want once you have it.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:00 AM on January 23

Counter-argument.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:03 AM on January 23

This is my surprised face.
posted by Rangeboy at 9:03 AM on January 23

Nice design work on that link, SCDB. Looks like a quality package all around.

The Center for Public Integrity has been an equal-opportunity watchdog against corruption on the part of politicos and public servants of every ideological stripe for many, many years. But more to the point, this database does nothing more than collect actual statements made on the public record. We were all there, doofus--most of us remember these lies. Casting vaguely paranoid aspersions about the CPI being part of the Great Soros Conspiracy(tm) as is so fashionable in certain increasingly narrow political circles these days doesn't erase our collective memories about what happened in the run up to the war. We were there. These lies are a matter of public record and can be demonstrated and verified with supporting evidence. No amount of stirring is going to muddy the waters up enough to make us forget that.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:09 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]

Any counter-argument that contains the word 'elite media' does not involve actual critical thought.
posted by Malor at 9:14 AM on January 23

sigh. words.
posted by Malor at 9:14 AM on January 23

I actually want to thank SCDB for that link. Much like that global warming point/counterpoint site a few days back where the site was desperately trying to suggest there's an "equal argument" on the subject, it's a perfect example of how the right wing thinks on this.

In what I can imagine was at least a somewhat focused search, Steve found to offer as a rebuttal to a highly-researched, well-presented, intensely-backed study about Bush's lies an angry weblog, who's first trackback is another popular weblog who tries to use the George Soros demagogue as a defense.

So, thanks, Steve. Very often in moments like these we ask if that's really the best the right can do, and it's very helpful when you go ahead and confirm it for us.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:15 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]

Would non-support have changed their plans?

"Es kann ein ganzes Volk nicht emmigrieren", eh? But that was disproved by ein ganzes Volk walking through The Wall. We need to walk through the Wall too. Orange Revolution anyone?
posted by nax at 9:16 AM on January 23

The information speaks for itself, regardless of who was behind the people gathering it.
posted by furtive at 9:18 AM on January 23

Not so much of a counter-argument as a Clintonesque legalistic hedge on the lines of "it depends on what the definition of a lie is."

To say that Rumsfeld's "Sure" was simply an affirmation of fact rather than intent to deceive is willful blindness. Just as Bush's SOTU "the British have learned..." was legalistically true, the intent was clearly to subvert the truth.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:20 AM on January 23

SCDB, are you fucking kidding? That "counter-argument" is about as asinine as someone disputing that the 'e' key isn't 'next to' the 'r' key because it's to the right of it, when you turn your keyboard upside down.
posted by notsnot at 9:21 AM on January 23

SCDB's link is not a counter-argument. It's the same old equivocation. "He said "links" not "direct cooperation" therefore it's not a lie." Never mind the bald-faced implications of those assertions in context.
posted by effwerd at 9:23 AM on January 23

Why is this news? I knew that they were lying when they said it five years ago. Anyone could have seen that they were lying, I remember having conversations with friends and family members in 2002 and everyone I know thought that Bush and co. were bending the truth to drum up support for the war. The German inspection team at the time was saying that there were no weapons in Iraq. I was pretty shocked at the time at people actually bought into that bullcrap.
posted by octothorpe at 9:25 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]

Why is this news?

The scope and accessibility of the database.
posted by effwerd at 9:30 AM on January 23

Sorry nax, have no idea what you're talking about or getting at.
posted by agregoli at 9:30 AM on January 23

Rice may very well run for President one day and have a real shot at landing in the Oval Office.

"Umm...I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States.'"
posted by kirkaracha at 9:31 AM on January 23

Andrew Bacevich's latest piece:

Surge to Nowhere: Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it.
posted by homunculus at 9:37 AM on January 23

Believing that a glib set of comments on some schmuck's blog outweighs a research study is the problem, and has been since before the beginning of this war.
posted by digaman at 9:41 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]

Here's the sad bit: no one seems to care.
posted by chuckdarwin at 9:46 AM on January 23

Why is this news?

It's not so much news, as it is something like the beginnings of a Truth and Reconciliation Committee.

It's important to document the evils of the past, to perhaps learn something from it, to try to document the failings of our media, as well as to give hope to rational, decent Americans who never abided the sinister Republican ideology these past eight years.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:48 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]

It's no accident Bush said "terror", "terrorism", or "terrorist" 35 times in his first public speech outlining the "Iraqi threat."

In that speech, Bush also used the word "nuclear" 20 times, "chemical" 13 times, and "biological" 9 times.

Parse that, SCDB.
posted by edverb at 9:56 AM on January 23

Casting vaguely paranoid aspersions about the CPI being part of the Great Soros Conspiracy(tm) as is so fashionable in certain increasingly narrow political circles these days doesn't erase our collective memories about what happened in the run up to the war.

The warmongers who got us into Iraq are blaming everyone but themselves for the humanitarian disaster they created.
posted by homunculus at 10:05 AM on January 23

Considering the tens to hundreds of thousands of people who have died as as result of these lies

That would bring the death toll into the millions, no? I haven't seen anything to corroborate that. Got a source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html
posted by HotPatatta at 10:14 AM on January 23

In short, Bush and many of his supporters are psychopaths.

I couldn't have said it better myself.
posted by malaprohibita at 10:19 AM on January 23

No, Hot -- as I said, "tens to hundreds of thousands." What's your amplifying variable?
posted by digaman at 10:21 AM on January 23

Surely this...
posted by Ynoxas at 10:26 AM on January 23

I have to admit, I keep going back to that link of SCDB's just to read the comments. The actual argument they're having is about the "way the report was worded." Think about that for a moment.

If there's some kind of super-death that relates to being even more dead than dead, that's the type of death that they're applying to irony on this. Truly, utterly astounding.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:28 AM on January 23

You know, when a three year old tells another three year old that there is, in fact, a Santa Claus, is he telling a lie? He believes there is a Santa Claus because thats what people older and wiser than he have told him.

Now, when Bush told us there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quada...
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:33 AM on January 23

Sorry nax, have no idea what you're talking about or getting at.

No, my apologies. I thought it would be more commonly known than it is. "Es kann ein ganzes Volk nicht emigrieren": An entire people cannot emigrate. This was a common post war excuse for why the German people did nothing in the face of the slaughter that they knew was coming. I heard it so much when I was living in Austria that I just assumed it was some sort of common saying, but perhaps not. I've been hunting for the source and can't find one.

The statement was utterly refuted on the day that more or less the entire population of East Berlin decided they'd had enough and simply walked across the border, taking their country back. In fact, an entire people CAN "emigrate" or by extension declare "enough" and do something about an impossible political situation.

I bring it up here in response to agregoll's implication that the American people could not have stopped this whether they supported it or not. In fact, if the repressed population of East Berlin could stop the repression, than the purportely free people of America could certainly stop the bastards.

First I guess we all have to stop being stupid. Oh. I see the problem.
posted by nax at 11:11 AM on January 23

I hear that France might be supplying Iraq with nuclear weapons.
posted by Avenger at 11:18 AM on January 23

I hear that France might be supplying Iraq with nuclear weapons.

I can corroborate this. I have also heard that Iran is planning to purchase the whole of Kinshasa and ship the population to Texas as a diversionary tactic during the delivery of the French weapons. Iran will then be paid by Iraq using the crushed shells of certain colorful beetles, which is popular among the elites of Qom as a form of eyeliner.

For a few hundred thousand dollars, I can supply detailed information about all of the foregoing, including ship manifests. I just need a couple of weeks to....uhm....contact my sources.

For future reference, I would prefer that my CIA codename be something cryptic and vaguely macho, like "Buck Wyld" and not something vaguely insulting like "Curveball".
posted by aramaic at 11:32 AM on January 23

These are the threads that send me screaming into the bomb shelter. My country, the whole damn place, has collectively lost its motherfucking mind. We're done, toast, stick-a-fork-in-our-ass-and-turn-us-over. It's not just the lying -- it's the apathy and the sanctimony and the whole fiddling-while-Rome-burns thing. It's the horse-race coverage and the stupid blinkered ideology. It's the fact that while the fucking world burns around our ears we're still fighting the last generation's battles. I give up. Darkness, come quickly.

I should not read these threads. It is too early in the day to start drinking.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:33 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]

The CPI is financed by George Soros. Who, of course, has no agenda whatever.

Written by the man of whom Kevin Drum of Poltical Animal once wrote

when they write the dictionary definition of wingnuttery there's going to be a picture of Steven Den Beste beside the entry. So, since this is my contest, I hereby present SDB with a special judges award for lifetime achievement in transnational wingnuttery. They just don't make 'em like that anymore.

So cosndiere the source.
posted by y2karl at 11:58 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]

or consider the consigliere, for that matter
posted by y2karl at 11:58 AM on January 23

Thanks, nax for the explanation. I would agree, except that the entire American people don't agree enough about anything to march Washington and demand clear goals. Also - as passionately as I feel about this, I do not want to be killed, hurt, or arrested for terrorism by doing something similar. I think many Americans feel the same way as right or wrong as that may be.
posted by agregoli at 12:23 PM on January 23

I would like to know how many of these statements were repeated or corroborated by Democrats, including President Clinton (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton).

Because much of my support for the war was based on that.
posted by dhartung at 12:50 PM on January 23

Say it isn't so! Politicians have lied?!?
posted by tadellin at 1:04 PM on January 23

lupus_yonderboy: I actually know a few people who are still Bush supporters, and my reading of these people is that they really don't care if Bush lied. They believe Bush was "right," by definition,

When I mentioned to my electrician that Bush lied about WMD, he insisted that "Saddam DID have WMD. He had chlorine gas. Don't you know he used it on the Kurds?" He had a particular perspective ("President Bush is right!") that he found comfy and reassuring and righteous, and by God he was never ever going to question it. Or let anybody else question it either.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 2:06 PM on January 23

When you have spent much of the last nearly 5 years supporting enthusiastically one of the biggest foreign intervention disasters this country has experienced, it is difficult to simply roll over and admit the utter, breathtaking folly that you have enabled. Those of us paying attention without ideological filters on knew from the beginning that BushCheneyRicePowellRunsfeldWolfowitzInc were drumming up support by cleverly wording "truths" to be lies, twisting the arms of professional intelligence gatherers and senior state department staff, and planting stories to echo back as "support" for their position. The transparency of this activity to those who were paying attention is the source for the belief that those who were paying attention but supported the misadventure are disingenuous, to say the least. Those same disingenues (to coin a term) are now trapped in their own mire and must point to the "truth" of what the BCRPRWI were saying, like some embarrassed chief executive explaining his cover-up of an oval office indiscretion.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:41 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]

Y’know what’s a crucial concept? "echo chamber." Once something is in print, it becomes reality. It's self-referential.

We were insane after 9/11. What’s our excuse for not seeking redress now?

“Counter-argument.”
posted by Steven C. Den Beste

Ah, the Elwood Blues defense.
The government is financed by the people. Doesn’t look like they listen to what they’re telling them to do all that much.
But look son, you can’t expect to throw down a challenge like that without expecting a confrontation. You gotta bring either the brains or the balls. Doesn’t look like you’re holding up your end.

“Say it isn't so! Politicians have lied?!?”

This isn’t some piss-ant city councilman or senator lie about how much he loves Jesus and how he’s going to cut everyone’s taxes forever and we’ll all live on Big Rock Candy mountain.
This led to blood being spilled and destruction being wrought. Whether one cares about folks in a foreign land or not it’s American blood being spilled as well. A lot of it. And a lot of other things not being done. Not to mention the amount of money we - that is you and me, all of us, - personally have spent on the Iraq war.

Seems to me the word “lie” is a bit lacking as to what that is.

But this isn’t about ‘Bush’ this is about government. And too many fucking people are too fucking stupid to see that. Hell, you can love Bush all you want but why is it ok when he spills lots of blood and blows all our money but when someone else does it, it’s wrong?

Look, these people are saying “this happened - here’s the evidence.” Ok. Well, if it can happen under him, it can happen the same way under someone else. Maybe worse.

But no, some folks can’t admit a lie, or even a mistake, by “my side” even if it kills everyone elses’ sons and daughters. Let the young bodies hit the floor because my politics must always be right.
I, myself, am not going to let more and more people die to preserve a lie.

I supported the war solely because some voices I trusted said certain things I strongly suspected (and had seen for myself) were wrong only a short time before.
That trust was not only in those people but in the accountability of the things said.
If someone makes a claim - even here on Metafilter - that is easily checkable and refutable (If I claimed to be Matt Haughey and said I was going to ban someone f’rinstance) and we all know it, I’d tend to believe that claim (given a certain ambiguity of course) because of the likelyhood of its discovery and potential consequences. I go around telling people I’m Matt trying to keep them from saying something I don’t like it soon becomes obvious (’cause I can’t, in fact, ban anyone) and maybe I get banned myself.

In this case my trust was in the American people, or more precisely, in the system of redress available to the people.
And yeah, that didn’t work out either.

But asshats keep going on with: stay the course So we have even less recourse when Hillary Clinton orders federal troops to storm the homes of gun owners? (to appease the left)
Then, after the outrage gets Jeb Bush elected, suspension of the freedom of the press, assembly, etc (to appease the right).
Then maybe with the next guy we get a whole slew of property confiscations (to piss off the righties again and appease the left) but at some point either political parties get abolished or we keep playing this game forever but either way the individual is whittled away.

Because that’s what lies say: What you know isn’t as important as what the powerful think.
Lickspittling. What a wonderful philosophy.
(I’ll be out back cleaning my weapons)
posted by Smedleyman at 4:40 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher Re the "we all went a little crazy" line.

No, we didn't. Bush's War took place about a year and a half after the September 11 terrorist attack. It wasn't the result of us in the US being a bit crazy in the aftermath of a terrible event.

At the time of Bush's invasion of Iraq close to 50% of the population was opposed to the war and there were massive protests against his lunatic scheme.

Your post had nice narrative and good imagery, but it describes a fantasy.
posted by sotonohito at 6:14 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]

Interview with the founder of CPI.
posted by homunculus at 2:29 PM on January 24

You know what really stings--other than the fact that so many deaths have taken place because of the lies of these maniacs--that no one is going to be held responsible for any of it. No one is going to be made to stand up and say--yes, I'm sorry--we did this.
posted by hadjiboy at 5:19 AM on January 25 [2 favorites]

hadjiboy You'd settle for an appology? From my POV unless and until every single one of those evil thugs is in prison its proof that the US system of justice is a joke.
posted by sotonohito at 9:36 AM on January 25

Are we better off now than we were seven years ago?
posted by caddis at 12:14 PM on January 25

Economists Predicted [before the war] That A Prolonged U.S. Presence In Iraq Could Lead To A Recession
posted by caddis at 12:21 PM on January 25

hadjiboy You'd settle for an appology?

It'd be a good place to start.
posted by hadjiboy at 8:39 PM on January 25

President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.
posted by homunculus at 9:48 AM on January 26

Well, it would just be Bush's word and after he was out what would require the next president to abide by the agreement?
posted by caddis at 3:04 PM on January 26

Now woudlnt' that make a fine 'Zap List'
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Fleischer and McClellan.

I'm sure the world would be at least a slightly better place if these 8 were to take a bullet in the head.
posted by mary8nne at 7:59 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

Is the administration pretending that by not using the word "treaty" they avoid the constitutional requirements? Is it like torture in that way, as long as we don't use the word it isn't torture? We're through the looking glass, folks.

I guess it depends upon what the meaning of the word "treaty" is.

Compare with

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - W. J. Clinton

posted by Mental Wimp at 10:38 AM on January 28