SC Newspaper "The State" Endorses Barack Obama

The State editorial board's Democratic presidential primary endorsement

THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in South Carolina this year offers voters an unusual choice. Earlier votes have winnowed out the most experienced candidates, leaving a field with fewer accomplishments and differences on policy, but including two candidates who come with the promise to make history just because of who they are.

Looking at the remaining field: Rep. Dennis Kucinich offers a bold plan on health care, but his platform is an odd fit for us and for many in South Carolina. John Edwards has morphed away from the optimist who won South Carolina in 2004. The candidate who stayed mostly above the fray four years ago is angry now, and pushing hard to turn working-class angst into political opportunity. He also has tried to one-up the other top Democrats with the least prudent plan for withdrawing from Iraq.

On positions from Iraq to health care, the policy differences between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are minute. Much of the debate between them has involved making these molehills look mountainous or clashing over who-shifted-when.

The one most significant difference between them can be found in how they would approach the presidency - and how the nation might respond.

Hillary Clinton has been a policy wonk most of her life, a trait she has carried into the U.S. Senate. As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state’s issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines.

But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.

Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.

Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.

Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.

He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America’s moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.

Despite America’s bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.

And America certainly has things to get done.

From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.

He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary.

read more | digg story

McCain: Vladimir Putin is the President of Germany

And he wants to be the President of the USA ?

read more | digg story

Do Limbaugh's Followers Share His Despair For The GOP?

Conservative talk radio pundit Rush Limbaugh has been finding it easier to identify candidates he dislikes in the Republican presidential primaries than anyone he might support.

Some analysts even believe that Mike Huckabee's disappointing third-place finish in the Michigan primary was a result of Limbaugh's constant claims that Huckabee is not a true conservative and that his nomination could destroy the Republican Party.

Now Limbaugh has gone a step further, telling his listeners that he's not too fond of McCain either and that "I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee" because "you don't have a genuine down-the-list conservative."

A political blog at the Los Angeles Times found reason for merriment in Limbaugh's admission. Blogger Andrew Malcolm wrote, "Across the country, people were dropping their coffee cups, choking on sandwiches, fainting and driving off the road. The king of conservative talk-radio not supporting the Republican nominee? ... 'And I never thought that I would say that in my life. This stuff is very tough.' No kidding. Who'd a thought? It's tough enough just listening to him go through this, let alone live it like he is."

However, Limbaugh's actual followers seemed far less fazed by his confession than liberals might have imagined. One conservative blogger wrote approvingly of Limbaugh's position, saying, "It’s heartening to know that such a prominent conservative is willing to stand on principle and not act as a cheerleader for whoever the eventual GOP nominee is.

A pro-Romney blogger agreed with Limbaugh that both McCain and Huckabee "are trying to redefine Republican and Conservatism" and was delighted by Limbaugh's statement that "it's easier for me to support a Romney than a McCain, for example. Because I believe his conversion is genuine."

Even a blogger who took issue with Limbaugh's position did so in temperate terms, merely complaining that "One doesn’t have to pretend Romney or McCain or whomever is the second coming of Ronald Reagan to decide you’d rather have him running the executive branch than Hillary Clinton."

Limbaugh himself was not enthusiastic about any of the Republican candidates, even Romney, concluding that "it's going to come down to which guy do we dislike the least."

read more | digg story

The Clintons are lying about Obama's remarks on Reagan

Why stop short? The Clintons are lying about Obama's remarks on Reagan

(Barack) Obama stopped just short of calling (Hillary) Clinton and her husband liars... from the Swamp's live blog of last night's Democratic debate.

Hmm. I see no reason to stop short. Bill and Hillary Clinton have lied brazenly about Obama's recent statement about Ronald Reagan.

Let's look at the transcripts (emphasis added):

Hillary Clinton, Jan 18:

My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years.

Bill Clinton, Jan 18:

(My wife's) principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks.

Well, yes he is. The key, inflammatory words in the Clintons' quotes are better and good, and I invite you, reader, to find it in these transcripts of what Obama has actually said:

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980's were different.

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.

I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful.

And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out.

I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

Read it all again if you want, you won't find "better" or "good" in there, or synonyms or implications along those lines.

When the Clintons used "better" and "good" in alluding the Obama's remarks, they weren't paraphrasing, they weren't misremembering, they weren't distorting. They were simply lying.

Obama's observations -- self-serving as they certainly were -- focused on the ability of a leader with overarching vision and good communication skills to lead and inspire the country; the importance of "ideas" as opposed to 10-point programs for presidents who want to bring about real change.

Reagan frustrates and angers many on the left to this day because all these years later we still can't believe that an amiable, genial movie actor was able to sell his version of reality to a majority of the American public. The Clintons seem to be hoping they can tap into that lingering anger and frustration by lying about Obama's views on Reagan.

Can they not help themselves? Do they not know that not to understand Reagan, not to learn from him and not to emulate him in some ways is a path to political defeat?

In conclusion, let me ask you to take my little quiz, which I've put together with the help of archival quotes supplied by the Obama campaign. Which of the four statements below is Obama's, and which are the Clintons'?

1. [Reagan was] a child of the Depression, so he understood [economic pressures on the working and middle class]. When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.

2 When I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways...And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, “You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important.” And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.

3. [I feel Reagan's] unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people.... I am confident that we will again make the right choices for America, that we will take up where President Reagan left off -- to lead freedom's march boldly into the 21st century.

4. The Democratic presidential candidate who has tried to differentiate [herself/himself] by tacking to the center on some key issues, said yesterday that former president Ronald Reagan's defense buildup had hastened the collapse of Soviet communism. Breaking with the widespread position of liberals that Reagan's military program had little to do with the Soviet system's collapse, the candidate also praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back." {The candidate} was careful to add that the Reagan military program included "a lot of wasted money and unnecessary expenditure." Still, {the candidate} said, Reagan deserved credit for "the idea that he wanted to stand up to {Communism}"

Answers

1. Hillary Clinton, quoted in Tom Brokaw's book "Boom," page 404.

2. Barack Obama on "Meet the Press" in October of 2006

3. Bill Clinton Dedication of Reagan Library, 5/5/98]

4. Bill Clinton as paraphrased by the Washington Post on 10/17/91 Washington Post

MORE:

Jake Tapper of ABC news blogs on the above: What's factually not accurate is what President Bill Clinton said. I know he wants his wife to beat Obama. And it seems that unleashing the Big Dog seems to be working for the Clinton campaign. Perhaps some voters are even touched by his passion. But let's be clear -- Bill Clinton is spreading demonstrably false information. There's winning ugly, and there's winning with honor.

read more | digg story

Firefighter: Giuliani 'ran like a coward on 9/11'

Families of firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center rallied in Orlando Tuesday in anticipation of the state's upcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately for Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, the firefighters are not in his corner.

"We want America to know that [the Giuliani campaign] is lying to America and to the American pubic," said Jim Riches, a deputy chief in the New York Fire Department, "telling all of Florida that the New York City Fire Department backs him, when that's another lie."

Firefighters and their families vowed to dog the former New York mayor at all of his Florida campaign stops because the state figures prominently in Giuliani's big-state primary strategy. The protesters think that Giuliani was aware that firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attack were carrying defective radios and did not hear the order to evacuate.

"He didn't prepare us before, during, or after," says Riches.

Giuliani has campaigned strongly on his leadership during the attacks on New York, claiming he is the best suited to prevent an "Islamic terrorist war against us." But the firefighters were quick to question that courage.

"Yeah, the decision he made was, which direction he was going to run," says Riches. "And he ran north, and that's all he did."

The Giuliani campaign labeled the display a misleading, partisan attack. The former mayor is also emphasizing his ability to deal with the economy, distancing himself from the 9/11 pitch.

This video is from CNN.com, broadcast January 22, 2008.

read more | digg story

Eliminate Income Tax and Govt has Same Revenue as 10 yrs Ago

"If you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago."

Ron Paul on Sunday, December 23rd, 2007 in a Meet the Press interview

It would be close to the same revenue

Ron Paul said in December 2007 that if the government stopped collecting income tax, we would have about the same level of funding that we did 10 years ago. “And the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago,” concluded Paul, who advocates limited government.

It made us wonder: Do today’s tax collections, minus the income tax, really equal the tax collections of 10 years ago?

We asked Paul's campaign what numbers he used to arrive at that conclusion, but we didn’t hear back. So we dug into IRS statistics ourselves.

The most recent detailed data available on income tax collected in the United States is for 2005. Besides income tax, the IRS collects corporate taxes, employment taxes, estate and gift taxes, and excise taxes.

After issuing refunds, the IRS collected $880-billion in individual income tax in 2005. Subtract that from total tax collections for 2005 – which equaled close to $2-trillion – and you get $1.12-trillion.

By comparison, total tax collections in 1995 were about $1.27-trillion.

Those are two big numbers that sound close. But take out the calculator: The difference between the two numbers comes to about 12 percent, and when you’re talking about the federal government, that’s a chunk of change – about $150-billion. To put that in perspective, it would pay for almost a year and half of the war in Iraq. Adjust for inflation, and the gap widens to a roughly 30 percent shortfall.

We’ll concede that it’s possible Paul could reduce the budget by that much, based on some of the positions he advocates. Paul has said he’d like to slash the defense budget by pulling back all U.S. troops on foreign soil, zeroing out foreign aid and reducing the size of the active military. He also advocates abolishing other federal functions, like the Department of Education.

Whether he makes up that 12 percent difference or not will have to wait for a Paul presidency. Meanwhile, we find his statement that ending the income tax would roll back revenues 10 years to be Mostly True.

read more | digg story

42 Reasons We Won't Miss President Bush [QUOTES and PICS]

Would you believe it’s possible to narrow the reasons we won’t miss Bush down to 42? No, but it’s a start. We all know the penalty for forgetting history - after all, we’ve been through two Bushes! To get things started, here is a particularly infamous quote for each year of his presidency, from the sadly hilarious to the infuriatingly tragic:

2000: “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

2001: “You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.”

2002: “There’s only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I’ve got an additional responsibility to hug and that’s me and I know what it’s like.”

2003: “As you know, these are open forums, you’re able to come and listen to what I have to say.”

2004: “And so during these holiday seasons, we thank our blessings.”

2005: “It’s a myth to think I don’t know what’s going on. It’s a myth to think that I’m not aware that there’s opinions that don’t agree with mine, because I’m fully aware of that.”

2006: “Make no mistake about it: I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die.”

2007: “I don’t particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it.”

2008: “There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say: Victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world.” –George W. Bush, addressing U.S. troops at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, Jan. 12, 2008

Mission … what? OK, to be fair, the White House disclaimed responsibility for this particularly controversial snafu by indicating they were referring to the ‘invasion’ and not the ‘liberation’ of Iraq. Still, in the speech he gave under said banner Bush clearly stated that “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed” Though the claim has been contested, one analyst has asserted that the White House later sought to erase the banner from videos of the speech and thus from history.

So OK, Iraq got off on the wrong track so you’d think the president would be better prepared for a new crises, particularly one on American soil, right? Well, as it turns out, while Katrina was devastating families the president was playing guitar and eating cake.

These Photoshopped images might be a bit extreme, but they do show the curious juxtaposition of what Bush was doing while others suffered simultaneously in New Orleans. And really: anyone who has seen Bush in action could almost imagine these being real.

The infamous Sydney hand wave. One has to wonder: is this his idea of non-conformity or just another classic display of Bush’s idiocy? With this president either seems possible, really, though the have-hearted manner in which he is lifting his hand and the mildly furrowed eyebrows suggest he genuinely might have confused right for left (which might explain his inability to work with either side of the political spectrum). The caught-on-camera moments are just too frustrating to end with, so here are some more classic Bushisms and quotes to round things out:

2001: “We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease.”

“I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport.”

“I couldn’t imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah.”

“For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It’s just unacceptable. And we’re going to do something about it.”

2002: “I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn’t here.”

“I don’t know why you’re talking about Sweden. They’re the neutral one. They don’t have an army.”

2003: “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.”

“The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.”

“Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”

“I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.”

“I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.”

“I’m the master of low expectations.”

2004: “Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean, you’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.”

“I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It’s pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future.”

2005: “Americans should be prudent in their use of energy during the course of the next few weeks. Don’t buy gas if you don’t need it.”

2006: “The Patriot Act has increased the flow of information within our government and it has helped break up terrorist cells in the United States of America. And the United States Congress was right to renew the terrorist act — the Patriot Act.”

2007: “I heard somebody say, ‘Where’s (Nelson) Mandela?’ Well, Mandela’s dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas.”

Finally, Letterman’s top 10 Bush moments. Enjoy!

read more | digg story

Obama: Clintons will 'say anything' for Political Gain

By Mike Dorning

GREENVILLE, SC—After a fiercely personal debate last night, the barbs continued back and forth between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton today.

Hillary Clinton kicked off the day with a press conference this morning in which she dismissed Obama as a “very frustrated” candidate and repeated criticism of his legal work for “slumlord” Tony Rezko, an Obama campaign contributor who has since been indicted on unrelated corruption charges.

Shortly afterward, Obama was again charging that Clinton and her husband have been duplicitous in campaign trail attacks on his record, suggesting that the Clintons have shown a willingness to “fudge the truth” and will “say anything to get a political or tactical advantage.”

Obama was asked about Clinton’s morning press conference in a brief conference call with reporters to announce an endorsement from Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.)

"When it comes to Senator Clinton's remarks, I think it's very clear that Senator Clinton has and President Clinton have been spending the last month attacking me in ways that are not accurate,” Obama responded.

He went on to refer to a comment Hillary made just as the presidential campaign was heating up in Iowa in December that the “fun part” of the campaign had begun.

“Senator Clinton announced while we were still in Iowa that this was going to be her strategy and called it the fun part of campaigning. And, you know, I don't think it's the fun part to fudge the truth," he said. "The necessary part of this campaign is to make sure that we're getting accurate information to voters about people's respective records."

"If you get the kind of looseness with the facts that Senator Clinton's displayed and you're willing to say anything to get a political or tactical advantage — that erodes people's trust in government,” he continued. “It makes them cynical. It's part of the perpetual campaign that is how Washington all too often operates these days and it keeps us from solving problems."

Obama has charged the both Clintons have distorted comments Obama made describing Reagan as a transformational figure to wrongly suggest that Obama is an admirer to Reagan’s policies, which are anathema to the Democratic faithful who dominate the party’s primaries.

Bill Clinton also has derided Obama’s claim he consistently opposed the Iraq War was a “fairy tale.”

Obama spoke out against the Iraq war as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2002 when Congress approved the war authorization but he did not vote on the resolution because he was not a member at the time. Hillary Clinton and Edwards voted for the resolution. But Obama voted for troop funding for several years, although he has recently voted against the funds because they do not include a timetable for withdrawal.

read more | digg story

How does Obama really stand on the issue of Choice?

Check out these videos featuring Lorna Brett Howard, the former President of Chicago NOW (National Organization of Women).

In this video, Lorna describes why she went from being a Clinton supporter to a strong Obama supporter, in the wake of Clinton's misleading attacks on Obama's record on choice...

In this video, Lorna describes how Senator Obama was a critical advocate in the fight to preserve choice in South Dakota...

For more on Obama's strong record on women's rights, check out Women.BarackObama.com.

read more | digg story

Study Shows 900+ Bush Crime Family LIES to start WAR

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/

Source: AP News

read more | digg story

Study confirms Bush Administration lied prior to Iraq war

WASHINGTON - 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.

read more | digg story