Skip Nav
Netflix
17 Sex-Filled Films to Stream on Netflix
Women
17 Celebrities Get Real About When (and How) They Lost Their Virginity
Relationships
17 Reasons Steph and Ayesha Curry Are Your Ultimate Relationship Goals

Database of Statements Leading to Iraq War

Check This: Database of Statements Leading to Iraq War

As part of its latest report — Iraq: The War Card— the Center for Public Integrity created a False Statements Database, which allows the public to search 380,000 words of Iraq-related statements made by Bush administration officials. The overall report concludes that President Bush and seven of his top officials made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, regarding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The report states:

"An exhaustive examination of the record shows 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."

Each false statement is highlighted in the searchable interviews, press conferences, etc. Whether or not the Bush Administration intentionally misled the public, this manifestation of incorrect information promulgated throughout the media scares me. Years later, thousands of soldiers and civilians face the horrors of war in Iraq.

Search the database yourself for a solemn walk down memory lane. And to find out what came up when I searched "mushroom cloud"

.

September 8, 2002
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Interview on CNN's Late Edition

Wolf Blitzer: Based on what you know right now, how close is Saddam Hussein's government—how close is that government to developing a nuclear capability?

Condoleezza Rice: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance—into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Around The Web
US Presidents Insult David Letterman During His Last Show
Briefing Book! Obama Gave Bush an Iraq Courtesy Call
Jennie Garth on 90210

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
Jinx Jinx 8 years
So why did the US attack Iraq. I thought it was because of weapons of mass destrustion, that, oops, were never found. Was there another reason?
The-City-Girl The-City-Girl 8 years
Exactly Brandy!
nyaradzom2001 nyaradzom2001 8 years
Brandy good point!!!
BRANDYNICOLE730 BRANDYNICOLE730 8 years
The Iraq war was NOT in response to 9-11, so please stop using that as an argument. If we wanted to attack the people who were responsible for 9-11, we should have attacked the country that was the home to 98% of the hi-jackers, Saudi Arabia. Can anyone tell me why we did not so much as give them a slap on wrist, meanwhile we began invading countries that had nothing to do with 9-11. I believe that if this were in the history books, America under the Bush administration will be looked at as a power hungry conquerer. 2 down, the rest of the middle east to go. Cheney and Bush had a preset date to attack Iraq long before 9-11 occured. What does the Middle East have a lot of, that feeds the pockets of Cheney and Bush? I'll leave that question as open-ended.
nyaradzom2001 nyaradzom2001 8 years
citygirl AMEN
The-City-Girl The-City-Girl 8 years
"Our nation was attacked, multiple times, both abroad and here on our soil. WE WERE ATTACKED! WE WERE PROVOKED! This wasn't us marching into random countries just for the hell of it." Yes, but IRAQ did not attack us. What we took was a pre-emptive strike, therefore this argument cannot be applied in defense of the Iraq war. It was EXACTLY "marching into random countries" (ie Iraq) "for the hell of it!" This simplification is my primary issue with this administration. Those perceived as 'against us' are then just lumped us as 'bad guys' without consideration to all the intricate dynamics and dfferences among these groups. Saying, 'oh well they're the Bad Guys' (never mind that they had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11!) then justifies the destruction of an entire countries' hierarchy and the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people. But don't you SEE that these views are on the different sides of the SAME coin? Mymellowman writes, "Sadly, in any war, there are innocent people's who's [sic] lives are taken away." The Al Qaeda sees THEIR cause as a war too, a holy war: "jihad." Therefore you share the SAME opinion--that it's sad innocent people must die, but it is war. Mymellowman further writes, "While it saddens me that more innocent people have lost their lives, it is the responsibility of the United States Federal Government to protect it's [sic] people." Wow, I have heard this same exact quote from multiple jihadists who have been interviewed. They argue that they are protecting their way of life from the infidels of the west. Do you really want to share the same beliefs as these terrorists? I don't think these views were justified in the planning and carrying-out of 9/11, and by that same token, I don't think we are justified in being in Iraq, since it is NOT a legitimate reponse to those attacks.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
And attacking Clarke alone doesn't resolve the credibility issues of the Bush Administration. There have been so many people from inside the adminstration that have spoken out and/or proved to be lying. Plus, Clarke has been serving for a very long time on both Republican and Democratic Administrations. He seems to be very credible to me.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
"The Clinton Administration took a fairly passive stance on the extremist attacks." Clinton had scheduled armed drones to bomb Al Queda in June after Bush was sworn in (when the technology was available). Bush cancelled this.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
Bush didn't stand up to an attack on the US. He went to Iraq, who DIDN'T attack us. We should have never taken the focus off Afganistan. Remember, Iraq was not Al Queda or the Taliban.
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
liliblu: I do remember the document indeed. Here is a link that addresses the issues that had arisen with David Clarke. http://www.nationalreview.com/document/clarke200403221131.asp
Jinx Jinx 8 years
As an outsider, this is no secret. GWB was determined to go to war no matter what, and did. Good Riddence George, nice mess you're leaving behind for someone else to clean up.
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
I never said GWB is a great President. I have many issues with how he has run his cabinet and feel he has let the conservative values of the republican party fall to the way side in many areas.But I regress...."So the US needed protection from the Iraqi people who died in this conflict seriously???"Sadly, in any war, there are innocent people's who's lives are taken away. There were American lives lost on our soil from a foreign attack. While it saddens me that more innocent people have lost their lives, it is the responsibility of the United States Federal Government to protect it's people. "It's that single minded way of thinking, that America's safety above all else and above all other nations that is dangerous."Our nation was attacked, multiple times, both abroad and here on our soil. WE WERE ATTACKED! WE WERE PROVOKED! This wasn't us marching into random countries just for the hell of it."And I wouldn't think that the fact that there hasn't been an attack on the US since 9/11 is a sign that administration has created safety for Americans if anything I'd be worried that one day soon they will try and do something even bigger"The Clinton Administration took a fairly passive stance on the extremist attacks. Did the extremists go away? No. What did they do? They tried and succeeded at doing something even bigger than was done before.The current administration has taken an offensive stance and we have not been attacked since. Could they possibly be attempting something bigger? Yes, but the difference we are not sitting idly by and letting hit happen. The Federal government has taken a pro-active stance to stopping further tragedies similar to 9-11, and yes, this does make me feel safer than letting extremists run wide.
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
I never said GWB is a great President. I have many issues with how he has run his cabinet and feel he has let the conservative values of the republican party fall to the way side in many areas. But I regress.... "So the US needed protection from the Iraqi people who died in this conflict seriously???" Sadly, in any war, there are innocent people's who's lives are taken away. There were American lives lost on our soil from a foreign attack. While it saddens me that more innocent people have lost their lives, it is the responsibility of the United States Federal Government to protect it's people. "It's that single minded way of thinking, that America's safety above all else and above all other nations that is dangerous." Our nation was attacked, multiple times, both abroad and here on our soil. WE WERE ATTACKED! WE WERE PROVOKED! This wasn't us marching into random countries just for the hell of it. "And I wouldn't think that the fact that there hasn't been an attack on the US since 9/11 is a sign that administration has created safety for Americans if anything I'd be worried that one day soon they will try and do something even bigger" The Clinton Administration took a fairly passive stance on the extremist attacks. Did the extremists go away? No. What did they do? They tried and succeeded at doing something even bigger than was done before. The current administration has taken an offensive stance and we have not been attacked since. Could they possibly be attempting something bigger? Yes, but the difference we are not sitting idly by and letting hit happen. The Federal government has taken a pro-active stance to stopping further tragedies similar to 9-11, and yes, this does make me feel safer than letting extremists run wide.
liliblu liliblu 8 years
The Clinton administration did go after Bin Laden and was critized by Republicans in Congress for doing so. When the Bush administration took over they were told by the out going administration the Bin Laden and Al Queda was America's biggest threat. This information was ignored because it didn't fit into their agenda. Does any one remember the memo from August 2001. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0518-04.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3617289.stm
liliblu liliblu 8 years
The Clinton administration did go after Bin Laden and was critized by Republicans in Congress for doing so. When the Bush administration took over they were told by the out going administration the Bin Laden and Al Queda was America's biggest threat. This information was ignored because it didn't fit into their agenda. Does any one remember the memo from August 2001. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0518-04.htmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3617289.stm
nyaradzom2001 nyaradzom2001 8 years
So the US needed protection from the Iraqi people who died in this conflict seriously??? And I wouldn't think that the fact that there hasn't been an attack on the US since 9/11 is a sign that administration has created safety for Americans if anything I'd be worried that one day soon they will try and do something even bigger and if America's being safe involves invading many countries then God help us all, people will have to be sacrificed to protect all the Americans. If the rest of the world thought like that wouldn't it be dandy, invasions every other day and what not. It's that single minded way of thinking, that America's safety above all else and above all other nations that is dangerous. I think we'll agree to disagree. I will NEVER ever think GWB was a good president by any stretch of the imagination while you think he was great. I will always believe that they lied to their citizens and the world and until something else is brought to light I will never be swayed.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
I think I love you mymellowman.
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
"but the war in Iraq has tarnished America's image internationally and created more problems than it has solved"It is the President and the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the United States. There has not been another attack on the United States to the degree of 9-11 since we have involved ourselves overseas. Thus, the Federal government has lived up to the Constitution, which is far more important to how and what governs the United States than how any foreign power "feels" about us."and this has all happened under one administration, the Bush administration."If the Clinton Administration had done something themselves, than this wouldn't have happened under one administration. Leaving a problem for another to deal with does not absolve the first person of their responsibilities.
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
"but the war in Iraq has tarnished America's image internationally and created more problems than it has solved" It is the President and the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the United States. There has not been another attack on the United States to the degree of 9-11 since we have involved ourselves overseas. Thus, the Federal government has lived up to the Constitution, which is far more important to how and what governs the United States than how any foreign power "feels" about us. "and this has all happened under one administration, the Bush administration." If the Clinton Administration had done something themselves, than this wouldn't have happened under one administration. Leaving a problem for another to deal with does not absolve the first person of their responsibilities.
piper23 piper23 8 years
We went to war under the Bush administration because we finally got a president with the testicular fortitude to stand up to an attack on the American people.
CaterpillarGirl CaterpillarGirl 8 years
the people who researched and created this website are obsessed, and need help. I am not going to argue points that have been asked and answered and finished, all i have to say is that i take offense to my president being compared to Nazi war criminals.
JovianSkies JovianSkies 8 years
I agree with much of what mymellowman has said. I too, would rather our country be hated and safe from terrorist attacks, and I believe that because of the terrorist attack on 9/11, we had every right to go into the Middle East. I have family in the Middle East, and know a few soldiers who've stationed (or are stationed) there. They would never say that we shouldn't be there. Their perception of being there is that most people are happy to see the US troops, because they can't defend themselves against terrorists. I would take the words of my friends and family over what anyone in America has to say, anyday.
JovianSkies JovianSkies 8 years
I agree with much of what mymellowman has said. I too, would rather our country be hated and safe from terrorist attacks, and I believe that because of the terrorist attack on 9/11, we had every right to go into the Middle East. I have family in the Middle East, and know a few soldiers who've stationed (or are stationed) there. They would never say that we shouldn't be there. Their perception of being there is that most people are happy to see the US troops, because they can't defend themselves against terrorists. I would take the words of my friends and family over what anyone in America has to say, anyday.
nyaradzom2001 nyaradzom2001 8 years
and this has all happened under one administration, the Bush administration.
Latest Love
X