I read the article you're linking to, and I don't see any allegations that the 900+ false statements were known to be false by the administration at the time[1]. This particular article certainly doesn't meet my standard for "[showing conclusively] that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that that they lied a lot". Perhaps that evidence exists in another form, but I think you strengthen the GPs argument by presenting this as definitive evidence when it's not.
Addendum: The money quote from the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism run study is this: "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 use of the word erroneous here is problematic. It doesn't imply intention. If they had used a word that implied intention, then they would essentially be saying that the administration intentionally propagandized with information that they knew to be false toward the goal of leading the US into war with Iraq. But they don't go that far. They use the word erroneous. IF the administration was unaware of the eroneousness of the information, then there's no reason that "methodically propagating" it is immoral, I mean, this is called "consciousness raising" in other contexts. Perhaps the authors are just being cagey so as not to paint themselves into a corner, but this is not a clear statement that the administration lied.
[1] Perhaps my reading skills aren't up to par, and I missed it. If so, let me know.
Downing street memos, Rumsfeld memos, the Project for a New American Century Report, Hans Blix assertions that there were no WMDs, historical acts of aggression in other countries, subsequent acts of aggression in other countries, and post-hoc assertions that WMDs were not the main reason for invasion, among other evidence all show that the invasion of Iraq was geo-strategic and not primarily based on disarming Iraq of WMDs, though some senior officials were led to believe that.
Biases matter. My first impression reading your link was that this is a crazed rant, not a rational, methodical weighing of the available evidence. These sort of organizations exist to continually whip up a froth of partisan furor, and so are always suspect. This is not a good source if your goal is to do anything other than preach to your own choir. This is the type of "proof" that keeps ideological opponents talking past each other.
Honestly, I lean liberal, but I make a concerted effort not to get frothed up by liberal media. I think that on balance those sources cause more harm than good. And really, life just doesn't fit into nice little outrage inducing narratives, but you would never know it if you only consumed these sort of news sources.
[edit 3:27 CDT to add the commentary, i.e. everything other than the link]
You responded to a criticism of source usage with a much, much worse source. You also rattled off a bunch of assertions as if they were unquestionably true without providing citation. Whatever your intention, you didn't really address my criticism in a constructive way that was likely to bring anyone to your way of thinking that wasn't already there.
The Rumsfeld memo was reported by MSNBC but after review, prompted by your criticism, I am not satisfied with the credibility of the document.
The Downing Street Memo was widely reported in major newspapers and contained among other things the passage "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Eh, there's no way that Rumsfeld memo is "How to start a war". Note that the first reason depends on Saddam attacking the Kurds - not very actionable for the US!
It literally says "How start", but does not literally say "how to start". "How start" could also be "How [would it] start". Don't let MSNBC do your thinking for you!
>Arming and supporting the Kurds to conduct instigating attacks or incursions is just one way.
Then it would have said something like: "Kurds provoke", not "Saddam attacks". In any event, we wouldn't have stepped in just based on a Kurd attack. The response would still be dependent upon Saddam.
Addendum: The money quote from the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism run study is this: "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 use of the word erroneous here is problematic. It doesn't imply intention. If they had used a word that implied intention, then they would essentially be saying that the administration intentionally propagandized with information that they knew to be false toward the goal of leading the US into war with Iraq. But they don't go that far. They use the word erroneous. IF the administration was unaware of the eroneousness of the information, then there's no reason that "methodically propagating" it is immoral, I mean, this is called "consciousness raising" in other contexts. Perhaps the authors are just being cagey so as not to paint themselves into a corner, but this is not a clear statement that the administration lied.
[1] Perhaps my reading skills aren't up to par, and I missed it. If so, let me know.
[edit 11:06 CDT to add addendum]