With the surge strategy in Iraq showing progress, the number of horror stories for the NY Times to put on the front page has been severely reduced. However, the liberal media struck gold this week with another rehashing and repackaging of the “Bush lied about Iraq” story.

It’s been common practice in recent years during unfortunate periods of reduced violence in Iraq, for the media to find a fresh way to rekindle the “Bush lied, People died” argument.

That argument is continuously repackaged and trotted out to an eager left-wing press like it’s a brand new story, and the AP appears to be the first news organization in 2008 to tell that story again.

The latest reincarnation of the story comes to us in the form of a “study” conducted by two “non-partisan journalism organizations.”

The Center For Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism found (to their shock and horror) 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.”

They even give the exact number of “false statements” allegedly made by the administration.

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.

Which inevitably led to the “Fund for Independence liberals in Journalism” to conclude:

“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.”

The part of this story you aren’t supposed to know is the one Texas Rainmaker is already out in front of. The two so-called “non-partisan” groups responsible for this story are both funded by anti-American as*hole George Soros.

Which makes those groups many things, but “non-partisan” damn sure isn’t one of them.

The Center for Public Integrity is funded by The Open Society Institute… yes, the same Open Society Institute founded by George Soros.

And the Fund for Independence in Journalism’s self-described primary purpose is “providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups.”

The last Soros funded piece of propaganda was the now debunked study that claimed 650,000 civilians had been killed in Iraq since the invasion.

Just exposing the fact that George Soros funded this latest study automatically gives it zero credibility, but putting that aside for a moment let’s instead focus on the substance of the piece.

The mantra radiating from the left has always been that Bush knew Iraq had no WMD, so the administration manipulated the intelligence to fool the public into supporting a war.

There’s no question that we did get it wrong on Iraq. We always assumed that Saddam never really destroyed his stockpiles after the 1991 Gulf war like he was supposed to, but we were wrong.

We know now from debriefing Saddam after his capture that he was bluffing Bush into believing he had WMD, to avoid looking weak to his old nemesis Iran.

Saddam had been lobbying the U.N. privately for more than a year to lift the decade old sanctions against Iraq, and was within months of achieving that goal.

He wrongly calculated that if he could stall and bluff Bush long enough, the sanctions would be lifted and he would once again be on easy street.

He was so confident that Bush wouldn’t really invade that only a few weeks before “shock and awe” began, Saddam hadn’t even started on a war plan.

You can read all about what Saddam’s life was like after his capture all the way up to his execution in Ronald Kessler’s book “The Terrorist Watch.” Kessler talks with the FBI agent who spent nearly a year talking with Saddam for 8 hours a day 7-days a week.

Saddam literally told the agent he was bluffing Bush about the weapons. So this nonsense about the Administration fabricating things is total bullsh*t.

Saddam convinced intelligence agencies from around the world including China, Russia, Britain, Israel, Australia, Egypt, Jordan, Italy, France, and Germany, that Iraq still possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. There was also anecdotal evidence to suggest that Saddam was at least interested in reconstituting his nuclear program again.

So Bush had the premier intelligence agencies of the world telling him that Saddam had weapons, and U.S. intelligence agreed with that assessment. Was he supposed to do nothing? He should have just ignored all that intelligence warning of a potential danger after the horrors of 9/11?

Let’s also take a look at what leading opponents of the war were saying about Iraq all through the 1990’s right up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This fantastic compilation comes from lawhawk at A Blog For All.

-Chris Jones
The Hot Joints

Be Sociable, Share!