digg

Join DiggAbout

Buried Interview Proves Bush Planned Iraq War Before 9/11 watch!

youtube.com — buried 60 minutes interview. Just watch.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Epetrone, on 10/18/2007, -13/+199Great video...We need a clear, new policy that is, "America will remain steadfast to the Constitution and free. No terrorist will ever change that."

    We do not need our current policy of, "We create new laws that infringe upon your rights, and limit your freedoms."
    • noahhoward, on 10/22/2007, -1/+67Start voting for people based on merit rather than party affiliation and soundbytes then,
      • floatingpoints, on 10/16/2007, -9/+6...and how else do you expect to create awareness? Door-to-door flyers?

        Get real. You know that the majority of people don't care, which is why we have a problem.

        There's a tool here to spread the word about someone who is saying they can fix it, so why not use it?
        • LeeSoong, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3So what? All this video shows is that Saddam was a pain in the neck to the U.S.A. for decades, since the first Gulf War when the USA told Mr. Saddam they would not object to his invasion of Kuwait, and then wiped out all of his forces in Kuwait.

          The plan to take out Iraq and Iran date back to before the U.S. Hostage Crisis in Iran, when the CIA wanted to install the U.S. backed government in Iran - but big surprise, the people of Iran didn't want to do what the USA told them to do.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis


          So After that came the U.S. backed Iraq / Iran war. Every kill on both sides was a win for the USA. A war of attrition between two states the American Government did not want to exist.
          http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming ...


          So finally Iraq and Iran stopped fighting, after a lot of deaths. Iraq wanted to grab Kuwait in part to gain more revenue and resources to pay off some of that massive war debt. The USA took that opportunity to paint Saddam as Hitler grabbing Poland, and kicked Iraq out of Kuwait - with great success. Iraq suffered huge losses of military hardware and troops. The USA barely lost anything.

          George Bush Senior knew taking the fight out of Kuwait and into Iraq would have been expensive, time consuming, and result in heavy American losses. So they stopped at the Iraq border, more or less.

          Now Junior has bogged down the USA in Viet-raq, with the conflict dragging on until the job is done there and Iran is next in the cross hairs.

          9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. The USA's loathing of Iraq and Iran goes back to the 1950s.
          It is convienent to say we are 'taking the fight to the enemy.' It is also true, because as long as militant fighters are focusing their attention on Iraq, they are staying out of New York City and Los Angeles and Austin.

          I don't see the USA stopping this pogrom that has been in play since the 1953, maybe a troop reduction when the number of targets runs low - going back to constant daily air strikes like before, but the USA is in Iraq to stay - forever.

          Maybe the USA will pull out of the area by 2053, the Iraq / Iran populations will be sufficiently subdued, and the oil reserves have been completely drained. After 100 years of aggression, the region will no longer be of value to the USA.
        • chijim70, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I don't think it is that people don't care as a majority. I think it is that the only time they have between surviving in a debt based society and making time for friends and family that all they hear is sound bytes and government corrupted mainstream media. Most people unlike lots of us nerds (myself included) don't have nor take the time to investigate the truth of matters themselves.
          I've found that I can at least help fight that by forwarding the big issues and things I find out about them to friends who don't have the time via e-mails. At least it is a small way to help wake up those who might otherwise be sheeple.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/15/2007, -6/+5That would then, by default mean a straight Democratic ticket.

        The Republican party has always been a group dedicated to government for the few -- and what programs they can't get rid of they sabotage. Anyone in politics who doesn't understand what their "team" is about isn't going to be a good statesman anyway.

        But I get your point; people need to research their candidates a bit more and avoid the speeches and debates -- which are only useful to get an idea of who to NOT vote for.
        • noahhoward, on 10/15/2007, -4/+4Well that, sort of, is the way it was to start with. There shouldn't be more than one party, they are there to govern a nation, not bicker over their differences. I don't like any of them at the moment. Too many politicians not enough americans.
        • chijim70, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1The republican party wasn't always bad... Lincoln for instance. Research a bit more before making blanket statements.
      • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/15/2007, -2/+3The exit polls say we did.
      • 7righthandedmen, on 10/17/2007, -2/+6http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
      • 5urr3al5am, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1Damn that's a crappy video.. I get tired of seeing that authors 'concerned' face after seeing it for 2 seconds
    • Encablossa, on 10/17/2007, -44/+10Que the Ron Paul spam
      • xister, on 10/17/2007, -1/+26That's "cue"...(for future reference)
      • DestroyFascism, on 10/17/2007, -6/+13Ron Paul Ron Paul.....(Cheerleaders Jump) ....Ron Paul (Cameras Flash) ,,,,,,,,,Bang....
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/17/2007, -0/+32¿Que?
    • Sovereigndk, on 10/17/2007, -43/+6You need to learn what sovereignty is, and live it.
      'Man law' means nothing... God's Law Rules
      All these distractions while the NWO enslaves all those with wool pulled over their eyes.
      Everything is planned, 911, Iraq, Iran...
      • zybch, on 10/17/2007, -11/+13***** off with your stupid 'god' *****!
      • noahhoward, on 10/17/2007, -9/+17God's law is what is ***** us up in the first place. Tell your god to quit talking to Bushie and his friends.
      • blubberlump, on 10/17/2007, -5/+11Somebody is craaaazzzzzyyyyy
      • Godlike, on 10/16/2007, -11/+3Try reading that post again, but instead wherever you see the word "God" replace it with "Any ***** thing I can come up with" and it's actually pretty funny.
        • therightclique, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3no. it isn't. and he only said god once, just like you do, every time you post.
    • crweaks23, on 10/17/2007, -8/+17"Abolish Federal Systems" is what turns me off about Ron Paul. I've yet to get an explanation as to how this could possibly be a good idea. I've come to the conclusion that the reason for this is simple... the majority of the people cheering for Ron Paul have no idea what this means or even how it could be achieved. And that's not meant to be an insult, either. Without some serious academic credentials, there is no possible way the general public could know the intricacies of all the major federal systems in place, which also means they could not possible realize the consequences of removing them.

      That said, It's uplifting to see so many people get behind a "small-government" candidate, who is actually attempting to be fiscally responsible. I just have a problem with how radical the proposed changes are, and how little most of the supporters know about them.

      It's just not enough for me to see a video that says "Abolish Federal Systems = Saves money." No federal reserve? Really? PLEASE explain how this could work, because I'll be the first to get in line behind you if you can. These systems were put into place to fix things that weren't working. Maybe some of these systems are no longer doing their job, I agree with that. But that doesn't mean remove the system... it means fix it.
      • Memitim, on 10/16/2007, -2/+9Yeah, I'm a Paul supporter but I think that "minimize" would be a much better word. Government is a necessary evil, and as such should only be used when absolutely necessary and to the minimum extent possible.
      • saahmed, on 10/16/2007, -1/+4Well keep in mind that we have a system of checks and balances in place. Ron Paul won't be able to achieve these goals. I stand by him in these views, but I understand the fear people have and it is because we have become so used to the government taking care of everything instead of putting responsibility upon ourselves. Vote for Paul's principles and integrity rather then every specific view he has. If you agree with his fundamental beliefs then you should vote for him. None of his "radical changes" will come to fruition unless the majority of people agree with it, and that probably will not happen unless people begin to change their thinking on the role of the federal government.

        As far as abolishing the Federal Reserve. Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about this but do you realize that the Fed Res. simply prints money out of thin air? When the government needs more money, the Fed Res just prints more. If it keeps printing money it leads to too much money in circulation causing inflation. I understand that much, but Ron Paul seems to be the most knowledgeable of any candidate running on monetary policy, so I trust him above the others. And at least he is making a move towards correcting the issue and suggesting changes, the other candidates have said nothing regarding this issue.
        • mrjit, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Watch the zeitgeitmovie.com, you'll learn quite a bit about the Fed Reserve.
      • mrboratsagdiev, on 10/16/2007, -2/+7The more power you centralize into one area, the more tempting it is for a leader to abuse and/or use it for their own agenda or means.
      • drouk1556, on 10/16/2007, -5/+1Seriously. "Abolish Federal Systems" makes it sound like Ron's an anarchist.
        • LeeSoong, on 10/16/2007, -3/+3500 bureaucrats in the department of education - you pay for them.

          But most likely, at your local school volunteer parents help underpaid teachers with your children's education.
        • mrjit, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3I'm 23, so I've been out of highschool a few years, but I don't recall any "volunteer parents" helping with education. I do recall teachers being equated to babysitters, though, which is completely the opposite.
      • mrgreenjeans, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2This video is one part of four from a C-SPAN interview that may help answer your question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARmhqED_An0&mode=re ...
      • abooth413, on 10/16/2007, -1/+0As stated.. "minimize" is a better word probably.. privatizing and localizing is the key... People are so quick to say that their opinion is meaningless in our system because it is. The disconnect of the people with those at the top that have final say on the decision.. ("I'll just veto it") is ridiculous.

        Encourage your local and state governments to take some decision making into their own hands.. we are so concerned with people in St. Paul, MN following the EXACT day-to-day life as someone in Miami or Los Angeles... which.. why would we think that is going to change.. we have expanded that mentality to think people in OTHER countries with THEIR OWN governments should practice our form of governement... and OUR form of religion is right behind it.

        Just in case we are ever attacked by another planet... it is important that our ENTIRE planet be run by 1 governing body.. actually.. let's just make it 1 person.
    • W00DR0W, on 10/16/2007, -3/+9Yeah but I could've done without the Ron Paul commercial, nothing against the guy but it really cheapens digg to have campaign commercials all the time.
    • notque, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4Noam Chomsky talked about all of this at the time it was happening, and remains on the edge of what is happening.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3Looks like Ron Paul made this video back in the days of Beverly Hills Cop 2... when he was in his 60s
    • thebrawl, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1That's a very old policy and a good one. Now getting the average ignorant flag-waving pompous yet easily frightened American to understand it is the challenge.
    • m3mn0n, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1This would have been a great video if it were made without the RP stuff at the end. I mean, what the hell? Seriously, digging this should be about spreading that information not promoting RP for president.

      This is blatant spam.
    • Lotharman, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0INVESTIGATE 911
  • Shigatsu, on 10/25/2007, -21/+112We can't give up now. Make noise people. The more noise made, the higher the chance we bring these ***** down. I hope this hits front page, it could use some publicity and dialog.
    • noahhoward, on 10/15/2007, -19/+11At the moment you are upset about them planning a war... with no logical reason to be upset. When you go to war you plan. Under the Iraq Liberation Act (a but but but Clinton policy) the US announced its intention to overthrow Hussein. Why is it so surprising that someone would do it?
      • TubaTechno, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5Evidently, anything referencing Clinton is just passed over by the liberals as a "..but..but..Clinton" argument. Yet they ignore all the evidence that suggests a regime change was all Bush's idea. The Senate UNANIMOUSLY vote for this ACT which states it's purpose:
        "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

        This Act did everything but authorize force against Iraq except in the training of their military. If you think Bush started this whole thing, then think again.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1I actually typed wrote up there. "Yet they ignore all the evidence that suggests a regime change WASN'T all Bush's idea."
        • thecorruptor, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2Remember Bush is just a puppet, he twitches to papa bush, darth vader, et al.
    • KMye, on 10/16/2007, -5/+8What do you mean we can't give up now?? It's a year until he's out. Moreover, this is nothing new! This interview was never buried, and the Suskind (excellent author, btw) book referenced is a Pulitzer Prize-winning book. While I'm sure there's 25% of the American public who refuses to believe it, by now it's common knowledge that the Bush administration was waiting for an excuse to go into Iraq, for a variety of reasons. Though just because this was the case does not mean they were behind 9/11. This worthless Ron Paul spam is getting so very old.
      • gbro, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1Yep. I think this was mentioned in the doco "The world according to Bush". Its probably on youtube or something.
      • chijim70, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1I just got done trying to get through All the kings men" a Pulitzer prize winning piece of trash. It spent an entire paragraph describing a mans lips... not even mentioning that it has the "N" word throughout. To me it was an insufferable long winded piece of trash that I can't even believe i got halfway through... So... Pulitzer prize winning means little to me personally.
        Just my 2 cents. Not saying the book you're speaking of is bad.
    • MonkeyHugger, on 10/16/2007, -3/+4Because digg can save the world!
    • angedinoir, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Nah, the sound of users clamoring on their keyboards will do nothing. Real action requires that all of you fat-asses step away from your computer and do something ;)
      • chijim70, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Until you specify what that is... you are saying nothing. Attend what revolt? march? e-mail or letter campaign? I agree with you but... what are we to do but bring attention and send e-mails and attend protests? i do that and I am not skinny... so what?
        A crap load of people worldwide read digg... it does do something by making people including myself aware of things they might not know about. I've learned TONS from digg AND acted on it.
    • ronpaul20008, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1make some noise???? that's it? oh yeah, that's the answer... actually blogging makes no noise at all... and you think george ***** king bush gives a ***** if you make noise????? he's got all the justices in his pocket. he IS the law... you think he's worrying.... oh no!!! they are going to YELL at me..... i must stop.. i don't wan't to get yelled at cause that would make me feel bad... you think he gives a *****? bro... the war is on. he's got all the resources at his command. $50 billion now!!! yes sir, yes, sir.. don't get angry sir! I spent that $50 billion, $100 more billion! have to support the troops! oh, 30,000 are wounded or dead?? send in more troups!! dude this guy is UNSTOPPABLE. get used to it and stop whining, it doesn't work. you protest in the streets... guess what buddy... you are the terrorist. tase him! lock him up.. hell they are detaining people for reading the ***** constitution in public... Make some noise???????? especially on the internet bro.. and people are too lazy and too scared to be out in the streets. this war is on... Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan.... ONWARD! more troops! more money! we must win with honor! The king will have saudi arabia, eau, kuwait, iraq, iran, afghanistan, and probably pakistan.... israel will get jordan, syria lebanon. the remaining people that have not been killed will be slaves running the pipelines under sharia law & lots of weapons. that's your middle east peace treaty. nice, huh.?
  • Roads01, on 11/11/2007, -14/+291What's up with that sound effect? Very Annoying.
    • Garmonbozzia, on 10/22/2007, -4/+18Agreed. It made me turn it off. What, like I'm some mouth breathing simpleton that can't stay focused long enough to watch your video? No digg for you.
    • diggggggggggg, on 10/22/2007, -2/+116Without the ridiculous editing:

      Part 1:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk
      Part 2:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-D1jCZ31Uw
    • fuzzynyanko, on 10/22/2007, -2/+32Thank you for posting the links. The chime and extra 'IT'S A CONSPIRACY" text was annoying. It was kinda like an "Achievement unlocked: you watched this for 2 minutes" signal or something.
    • tyywebb, on 10/18/2007, -0/+13dee da doo dongggggg!!!
    • civdis24, on 10/16/2007, -1/+20I'm all for Ron Paul but the commentary and sound effects/music on this video were terrible and essentially ruined this video's integrity.
    • iamanonymous, on 10/16/2007, -2/+2The Alan Parsons Project - Voyager. Duh.
      • iamanonymous, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1No Alan Parsons fans, I take it. Alright, alright.
        • obliviousfool, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I liked the music, but didn't know what it was. I figured it was some unknown Pink Floyd offshoot. Not a bad guess.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3without captions or effects, entire clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk
    • vheissu, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3We're too stupid to figure out the important parts, duh
    • stigma15, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1In case you don't know what to be angry about, listen for the clip from the "Weekend @ Bernie's" soundtrack.
    • timjim31, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1I think it added a bit of drama too the clip
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Why do I need to be spoon fed an opinion from the editor just to watch the damn interview?
      Horrendous I turned it off 3 secs into the video. Ill watch the unedited copy.
    • liquidcola, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I laughed out loud every time the sound effect and captions showed up. "OIL!" (de da do doooooo)... hahahaha
  • kaelyiesta, on 10/16/2007, -2/+56Anyone that already knows about PNAC will find this news a bit late to the party. Still, worth watching for this mans particular specific... if you can bear the sound effects.
    • pintomp3, on 10/17/2007, -3/+7don't give PNAC all the credit, they couldn't have done it without AIPAC.
    • ninjasteeve, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1lets not forget JIZZPACK on this one! They're definitely involved
    • rarson, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4PNAC, Trilateral Commission, CFR, Bilderberg... they're all closed-door meetings of world elites that dictate the direction world policy takes, and they all pretty much seek to give more money and power to corporations and submit the working class to a lifetime of work to actually run the damn thing, while corporate heads reap all the benefits and live in the lap of luxury without having to do anything.
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I harp on PNAC a lot since it is easy to point out a lot of the things they have done with readily available sources to back up facts, but you are right, they aren't the only player in this sideshow called politics.
  • ConradDanger, on 10/16/2007, -62/+20RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL!
    • Jesse, on 10/15/2007, -5/+11You guys really have got to think up a catchier slogan to win undecideds like myself.
      • m3t00, on 10/15/2007, -4/+9Just do what Fox News tells you. The winner will be wearing a flag pin.
        I have to clean my guns now.
      • simpleid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3go watch the google talk with ron paul.
    • ivandir, on 10/16/2007, -2/+2How does: "NO FED INC TAX" sound?
      • khail250, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1interesting, how bout no roads and bridges, military??? no fed tax- no country, ron pauls a moron, no this no that no nothing!!!!
    • simpleid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1bury me, hurry! before it's too late!
  • HUKI365, on 10/17/2007, -62/+21Hang on, Saddam WAS the biggest threat in the world before people got sidetracked by 9/11 and Afghanistan. People and Presidents and the UN had been talking about going back into Iraq ever since 1991 "ended".
    • exomni, on 10/16/2007, -14/+20No, the Bush administration was (and is).
      • obxjdt, on 10/16/2007, -5/+6Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions....Never mind, you need to learn the history behind this war.....
    • eplawless, on 10/16/2007, -10/+23That's nice, but not relevant to the fact that the US' motives were lied about and that we were deliberately misled from the beginning.
      • obxjdt, on 10/15/2007, -4/+6That's just not true. The whole world thought Iraq had WMD, not just Bush. Saddam could have stopped this war by just letting the weapons inspectors do their job from 1992-2001, and shown the world that his WMD stock pile was destroyed. He chose not to do that, and kicked out the inspectors. We still don't know what happened to the WMD. We know he had them, he used them on his own people & Iran. Where did they go???
      • 5urr3al5am, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1ya.. dont forget that he also kept the inspectors hostage more than once while Clinton was in office... I guess it was all a big joke then
    • jessehadden, on 10/17/2007, -9/+15If President Hussein really was the biggest "threat" in the world, then war should have ended once-and-for-all in 1991.
      • ChronicColonic, on 10/17/2007, -3/+8I agree. We should not have listened to the U.N. and pulled back when we forced Saddam's army out of Kuwait. We should have ignored the U.N. and finished the job.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Why is the UN full of such liberal pussies? Oh .. wait.. France, Germany, Russia.. all were in bed with Sadam.. food for oil... nm
    • nycmac247, on 10/16/2007, -9/+18S was secular AND we put him into power. How about we mind our own business and help out our own populace?
    • Kinkistyle, on 10/16/2007, -9/+10What made Saddam Hussein the biggest threat? His non-ability to do ANY damage to ANYBODY in the world, never mind the country with most powerful military in the world, the U.S.?

      And yeah, Afghanistan was the biggest threat in world, and should have been a MAINTRACK from day one, not a sidetrack.
      • AntBing, on 10/15/2007, -4/+6I imagine the Kurds would disagree with your statement about his "non-ability to do ANY damage to ANYBODY in the world." He killed thousands, maybe hundred of thousands, most for ridiculous reasons. He needed to be removed, just not the way we did it.
        • card51short, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3i think he meant to other countries
        • kageki, on 10/15/2007, -2/+4Oh please with the Kurds. Iran and Turkey also consider them a threat since they seek to make an independent Kurdistan. These are the same people that continue to practice honor killing you hear in the news today. Let alone the fact that most of those killings occurred during a WAR.

          As the poster above mentions you well know that Bush said Saddam was a threat to the US national security and not just his "people" even though that doesn't really hold up when you consider who the Kurds are.
          • AntBing, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1The U.S. was also a threat to England when we wanted our independence. If you want a better example I could have used Kuwait.
          • kageki, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1So shouldn't England have been dealt with according to your logic? They haven't changed much at all since.

            Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq and refused to stop drilling even when Saddam confronted them about it. It wasn't just a random act of violence if that's what you are suggesting. There are reasons for everything.

            So by your logic why don't we do something about the problem in Burma, China, N. Korea and why did the US actually support Suharto in Indonesia?

            Nevermind that the US has about a million innocent Iraqi blood on their hands in this war right now.
    • AllenAllen, on 10/16/2007, -4/+11Not to pile on HUK but no, that simply wasn't the fact. But even if it was. Most have the crazy idea that we're in Iraq to get the bastards that caused 911. THAT is the point. You are talking about something entirely different. We are talking about a President who took advantage of people's fear and having Cheney push the Al Quida connection on the ignorant. Officers in Iraq show the burning twin towers to their troops as "inspiration." The CRAZY think is that Al Quida HATED the Bath Party and had even tried to assasinate key people in Sadam's government! But as to your (what I see unrealted) Point:
      The first gulf war decimated his army. There was a "no fly zone" bisecting Iraq. The country was forced to allow inspectors, even in Sadam's palaces. They were defeated militarily and recall that this was after their long, long war with Iraq. That story that people are telling you, is non-nonsensical. That still leaves "secret" WMD programs. If you talked to people at the highest levels at that time, they too would have repeated the same fears. However, what we're now discovering is that it appears (I certainly can't prove) that that was made up by a small circle of folks at the top. They took studies that said "it is possible (anything is possible)" and told key Senators and others it WAS. Their main source, if I have this right, was code named "curveball" and he turned out to be someone who knew that if he kept telling THEM what they wanted to hear, the money would keep coming in. Recently, senators described private meetings where they were shown photos of drone planes the "could" carry nukes from a program that Sadam "could" have. That scared the senators into voting certain ways... problem is.... Sadam had no such facilities in drones or of course nukes... the photos? Photos of OUR drones. Google that stuff and you'll find quotes and you can even write the senators involved. Check it out. It was all PUSHED by Cheney/Rummy for purposes we as outsiders can only speculate on.
      My perhaps totally wrong assessment is this: I think the problem of Sadam's threat to start a spot oil market in Euros currency and the courting by the French (who stuck with Sadam if you recall) for a scarce resource was key. There is always the fear over oil getting tied up in competing markets -- the big fear is China. We need to lock it up and if we can't do that, we need to keep it from competitors.
    • m3t00, on 10/16/2007, -4/+3Iraq was being squeezed about WMD and genocide through the UN. We were enforcing no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq. Sadam had been thumbing his nose at being told how to run his affairs much the same way Iran is now. Funny how these little dictatorships will watch all their people suffer just to avoid looking weak. Humiliation drives much of the terrorism and hatred for the West. We are some arrogant greedy bastards. Like kids in a schoolyard. Pink Floyd's Final Cut has the situation pegged. "Get Your Filthy Hands Off My Desert" for starters.
    • drakethegreat, on 10/16/2007, -4/+4Is the ***** in your ass telling you this or the propaganda coming in to your left and/or right ear(s)?
    • Louie510, on 10/16/2007, -1/+9Saddam was NOT a threat. 1 the US CIA backed Saddam for many years, and 2 due to sanctions after the 1st Gulf War(which there were few US casualties) Saddam was unable to rebuild his armed forces. That's the reason why it only took 2 weeks to topple Saddams defenses and the Iraqi government. Biggest threat indeed.
    • sealhands, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1now he's dead, soooo the war should be over. props to drakethegreat.
    • throop77, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1"The biggest threat in the world" ... and yet the longest range missile in his arsenal could only travel 90 miles... run!
  • BillDoE, on 10/17/2007, -14/+77Great job with cheesy tilting and bad sound effects...NOT
    • Jesse, on 10/17/2007, -4/+50Holy *****, a real life "NOT" joke. In this day and age.

      Thank you for making me feel 13 again.
    • eplawless, on 10/15/2007, -3/+19Not jokes? ...really?
      • innocentsinner, on 10/17/2007, -1/+40I thought it was pretty funny....PSYCHE!
    • uziko, on 10/15/2007, -13/+6The shirt is black.......................ok your supposed to say not "NOOOOOOOOOT". The shirt is blacknot. The shirt is not black.
    • uziko, on 10/15/2007, -11/+1I like sex it's NICE.
    • jwiesenborn, on 10/16/2007, -9/+3Just try to imagine it in a Borat voice.
    • izzybr, on 10/16/2007, -9/+3I think the only way to reply to this is to say "1992 called, and they want their 'not' jokes back" ...PSYCH!!
  • SiNN4R, on 10/17/2007, -31/+6I haven't watched this video but clearly its proof undeniable.
  • diggstown, on 10/17/2007, -40/+19Burried for being more Ron Paul spam.
    • CrudeDarkness, on 10/15/2007, -15/+9buried for being ron paul spam hater
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -4/+5Buried for not knowing the definition of spam. Also buried for not knowing how to spell "buried", oh yeah, and also buried for being another whiny idiot who takes the time to click on articles, read them, then complain about them because they exist.
  • mactarkus, on 10/16/2007, -24/+11Anyone that knows anything about how to run a country and be prepared for contingencies will know that you have to have plans to do battle with all unfriendly countries at all times.
    • Arkavus, on 10/16/2007, -1/+8That's not what Bush was asking. He was asking for someone to find him a reason to invade and occupy Iraq. Pay attention to the video and you'll understand that.
      • noahhoward, on 10/16/2007, -3/+2The reason was already handed to him by the Iraq Liberation Act, he didn't need a reason.
        • sandman979, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1Still don't get it huh?
          • noahhoward, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2Nope, I still don't understand how people can forget the exploits of others when they decide to hate the current politicians.
          • card51short, on 10/15/2007, -3/+1you mean the president's father?
        • DaSuHouSe, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1The Iraq Liberation Act wasn't a reason. Going into Iraq to change the regime isn't a reason. The reason is why change the regime, especially since Saddam posed as much threat to the U.S. as Peru. The Iraq Liberation Act is also not a reason to continue occupying Iraq.
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -3/+1Exactly, you have to constantly draw up plans and scheme in any way you can to invade any country on earth that you don't like. That is the very definition of leadership.
    • desqjockey, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1Not at that level- the president and joint chiefs do not get together to discuss how to grab Greenland. This was not a 'contingency plan' but a plan of action they *intended* to put into place. Bush did not campaign on 'Invade Iraq' but often the opposite.
  • mishsquish, on 11/11/2007, -8/+119Ok, what the **** is the deal with the unnecessary sounds and stupid sum-up titles that basically act as subtitles across the whole screen?
    You get an A+ in material. You get a Z- for how you presented it.
  • chyya, on 10/17/2007, -47/+5balony. we are in iraq because saddam caused 9/11
    • cphelps, on 10/17/2007, -3/+11That proof you provide to show that Saddam was behind 9/11 is utterly amazing I must admit.

      /sarcasm
      • chyya, on 10/15/2007, -12/+3dont believe me? do a little research on past fox and cnn episodes. youll feel so stupid watch.
        • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5go drink your ***** kool aid elsewhere.
        • Godlike, on 10/16/2007, -2/+6Oh yes because those are two totally nonbiased and ***** sources.

          Double plus ungood, citizen.
        • chsbrgr, on 10/16/2007, -2/+4Claiming past fox and cnn episodes as sources? Yes, that would feel very stupid.
        • maddikp, on 10/16/2007, -2/+2You must work for Bush's press corp
        • natchiketa, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4you ***** troll
    • timjim31, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5bologna
  • ButterBuddha, on 10/17/2007, -2/+96"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world, ahhh nation building missions, we're going to have a serious problem down the road" - W during the 2000 debate
    • cphelps, on 10/16/2007, -0/+10That was my favorite part. What a crock of *****.
      • zybch, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3Well to be honest, its NOT a crock of *****.
        What makes it ***** is how Bush pretty much did exactly the opposite to EVERY DAMN THING he said to get the top job in the first place, including turning the US into an illegal worldwide police service for the highest bidder (israel and Saudi Arabia I'm looking at you!)
    • pheyze, on 10/16/2007, -0/+8I was beyond amazed when I heard that, the things he's been allowed to do is almost sickening.
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -1/+0Wait, that sentence actually made sense, it's so obvious that it was just something written down on paper for him to read, he probably didn't even comprehend what it meant.
    • robtowne, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2I hope you all understand what a double negative is.
    • nebion, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0At that time, myself and others around the non-US world worried that if Bush were elected, he might unintentionally screw up international relations because of his cluelessness.

      Unfortunately, it seems we were worried about the wrong thing...we never imagined he would *intentionally* defy everything and everyone other than his ideologues.
  • noahhoward, on 10/17/2007, -10/+21No really? You think? Of course Bush was planing a war with Iraq, Clinton made regime change in Iraq national policy (Iraq Liberation Act). You don't attack some place without a plan, I just wish they had used the plan the Clinton admin already had.
    • bowens44, on 10/17/2007, -9/+1There was not a plan under the Clinton administration to force regime change through war. That was bushes doing.
      • noahhoward, on 10/17/2007, -2/+7Prove it. Clinton bombed Baghdad for four days in 1998, you remember, Desert Fox? You don't do that sort of thing, and you don't sign national policy calling for that sort of thing without some sort of plan.
        • card51short, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2you want us to prove your claim? I give up!
        • desqjockey, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2Clinton bombed Iraq more days than he didnt: Norther Watch. There was no invasion plan to back this up- that was not the point of the plan.
      • n8glenn, on 10/17/2007, -6/+2Exactly right, the neo-cons are trying to shift blame to Clinton, but Clinton never had plans or policy to oust Saddam. They might have scolded him and bombed him because of the sanctions, but there was never a plan or desire to invade. Noah, if you want to make the claim that Clinton did this, then I think it is you who need to provide proof.
        • noahhoward, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3FFS...

          Google Desert fox and the Iraq Liberation Act and never ever comment on a political piece ever again.
    • marksism, on 10/17/2007, -3/+2Ah, conservatives.

      B-B-B-BUT... CLINTON!!
    • DaSuHouSe, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I wish they hadn't attacked at them at all. I seriously hope we end the Bush-Clinton cycle this election.
  • exomni, on 10/17/2007, -17/+87The Bush administration is sickening. The more you look at it, the more any reasonable person must hate America.
    • untrigme, on 10/16/2007, -10/+1Then get the hell out.
    • picsectionpleez, on 10/16/2007, -4/+3Just get out. You don't know the difference between the US and Bush. Fail.
  • rephil513, on 10/18/2007, -19/+888 Years of (Bush Sr.) Reagan + 4 years of Bush Sr. + 8 Years of WJ Clinton + 8 years of Bush Jr. = The F'd up America of today. But I'm sure Hillary can fix it though, after all, she does have a vagina.... /sarcasm. The country doesn't need a total of 32+ years of Bush/Clinton Dynastic Rule, so...
    RP 08
    • AmazingPics, on 10/17/2007, -10/+4Ron Paul won't win. 60% of the American voters don't even know of his existence.
      • Lotheron, on 10/16/2007, -2/+4Good thing theres another year to work on that number...
      • zybch, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2So? Go spread the word instead of maintaining that self-pity mindset.
      • card51short, on 10/15/2007, -1/+160% of americans can't point out america on the map and wont' even come near the voting booth.
        You mean 60% of americans don't know of a 20 year congressman?!
    • HigherLogic, on 10/16/2007, -9/+21What was terribly wrong with Clinton's 8-year run?
      • dcherryholmes, on 10/16/2007, -6/+6NAFTA and the 96 Telecom Act, off the top of my head.
        • sjaskow, on 10/16/2007, -2/+2I'd pick the DMCA as the best law Bill Jeff ever signed. :)
      • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/16/2007, -3/+3I'd echo the NAFTA and the DMCA laws, (I don't know what the Telecom Act was so I can't comment on that), and I'd add the following...
        1. Making no effort at all to create the universal health care he'd promised. Instead, him and Hillary agreed that she would be in charge of it and that way when they didn't do it, (which they'd never intended too), he wouldn't be blamed.
        2. Failing on his promise to end China's Most Favored Trade Nation status with the US.
        3. WACO
        4. How his administration handled the Elian Gonzales case.
        5. He created the "free speech zones" (They were used during the '98 protests of the WTO in Seattle).
        6. Supporting and joining the WTO.
        7. Continuing corporate welfare, and reducing welfare to the people who actually need it.

        That's also off the top of my head.
        • dcherryholmes, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1The telecom act of 96 was where the phone companies got massively reduced regulation and tax breaks in the tens of billions, in return for promising to roll out pervasive high-speed infrastructure by 2006. They took the money and ran, because they could, because the gov't (not Clinton and certainly not Bush) never held them to it.
      • HigherLogic, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1Well I have to admit, you guys make an outstanding case...
    • m3t00, on 10/16/2007, -1/+7We've gone about as far as we can with big money having it's way with our government. The economy will have to collapse or worse before the voters will wake up and do something. I will vote for RP if he can get on the ballot. Otherwise, I will write him in. The rest of the field is just more of the same downward spiral. Rich people looking out for their own selfish interests.
      • jsrothwell, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1So if Ron Paul doesnt get on the ballot are you going to encourage him to run as an independent or are you just going to plant your ass back in front of your giant LCD TV and continue to eat Doritos and gripe that the media is keeping you down?
    • mtgarvey853, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1OK so the past 32 years of our *****-tastic presidents have had their problems but its not like life before then was pretty. we have had these problems ever since our nation was founded. Is the only difference today that more people know about them? Is modern technology the reason to why we found out more and more mistakes of our current presidents? Our problem is we have seen all the mistakes our current president is making and little has been done to stop him, while all the presidents before him probably have just as much dirt we never knew about it unless they slipped up. Fortunately for us Bush slips up all the time
    • dertykevin, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4You do know that Ron Paul worked on the Reagan administration, right? In fact, RP is a huge admirer of Ronald Reagan...
      • diggydougie, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1So? I liked Ronnie.
        Ronnie was great.
        Bush Sr. was a shadow of Reagan.
        Bush Jr. is a moron.
        At least RP knows what the constitution means!
        • dertykevin, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I was talking to the original poster who listed Reagan. Please use some common sense..
    • Thayer75, on 10/16/2007, -3/+1Can everyone just get over their infatuation with Ron Paul, already. He doesn't impress me at all.
      • DaSuHouSe, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2I hope you support Kucinich or Gravel then because otherwise you're supporting extending the war in Iraq.
  • gllopc, on 10/17/2007, -11/+51I've been thinking of voting for Clinton or Obama, believing that a minority president would be really good for America; but if Ron Paul is chosen by the GOP to run, I think the right choice would be to vote for him.
    • bowens44, on 10/15/2007, -10/+4Yes, we need to build bridges to the 18th century.....
      • zybch, on 10/16/2007, -2/+2ANYTHING to get out of the 15th century the US is currently in I guess.
      • n8glenn, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3You mean the century when they wrote the constitution? Sure, why not? Let's stick to the constitution, after all, the nature of humanity has not changed, the definition of freedom hasn't changed.
    • calmeacham, on 10/17/2007, -3/+22Because voting for someone based on their gender or epidermal hue isn't dumb at all........
      • blueforce4116, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2it may be dumb...but way too many people vote based upon them. It really is too bad. There really are some legit concerns about gender in politics tho. For example Condoleezza Rice really should not be secretary of state during all the current arabic focused politics. Women just are not respected by many of the Arabic governments out there. Now I am not saying that women should not be in high level politics, I am just saying that sometimes gender does present real issues that are best avioded.
        • calmeacham, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2It's the sad state of political climate in this country. P.C. run amok. The minute that I vote for a candidate based on something other than their political beliefs, is the day that I stop voting. If I hear one more person tell me that they think Obama is a nice guy and that is a reason to vote for him, I think that I am going to throw up.
    • parabolee, on 10/16/2007, -4/+6For gods sake make sure you vote in the primary for Dennis Kucinich.

      If you don't want to support Hillary or Obama in the democratic party (and what informed person would), then instead of waiting and hoping to see if Paul wins the Republican primary, vote for Dennis Kucinich and you can both register your dislike of the alleged front runners and vote for an honest politician. Dennis is WAY better than Paul anyway, he has the same stand on the big issue's and has a far saner economic policy that doesn't give the multi-national corporations more room to be corrupt.
      • skipdog172, on 10/16/2007, -2/+2No, don't do that. Nothing is stopping Hillary at this point. Sorry to rain on your parade. What you NEED TO DO, is register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. It makes me sick to hear people "hoping" Ron Paul wins so they can vote for him, instead of changing parties and making their vote count. Stand up for what you believe !!!
      • blueforce4116, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1O yea thats right...vote for some guy that doesnt have a chance in hell of winning. Lets all change the country by voicing our opposition...and doing nothing that will actually have any effect on anything.
    • enginbeering, on 10/17/2007, -1/+13Just so you know, women aren't a minority.
      • blueforce4116, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2touché
      • skyshock1, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2And thank God for that!
      • gllopc, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1You're right. Although I think you got my point. I'm obviously pro-woman in my statement, if that makes any difference.
    • g00dETH3R, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Do yourself and your country a big favor and don't vote for anyone who is a member of the CFR.
      If you don't know what the CFR is google it.
  • tehxen3, on 10/17/2007, -13/+25Clinton supported the same thing, get a clue.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/15/2007, -11/+6Funny, he never once suggested or attempted an invasion of Iraq.
      • noahhoward, on 10/15/2007, -1/+6Iraq Liberation Act, go look it up.
        • jsrothwell, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1yeah but he never went through with it. Big difference there
        • noahhoward, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1Something about not being elected more than two terms in a row...
    • uraliar, on 10/15/2007, -10/+1Yeah, she did....AFTER SHE WAS LIED TO BY THE ADMINISTRATION....please pull your head out of your ass.
      • noahhoward, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Wrong Clinton.
      • card51short, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2why does she still support it then?
      • noahhoward, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1Card, that doesn't have anything to do with this comment line. I don't know why she supports what she supports. My point was tehxen3 was referring, as far as I can tell, to Bill, not Hillary.
    • sandman979, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1red or blue... All is the same, don't you see the little number they're playing with us? It's all the same: Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton (?) - Bush (Jeb ?). Please wake up already!
    • revnoah, on 10/15/2007, -1/+0exactly. this is a Bush or Republican thing, this is American foreign policy. Changing parties will not necessarily alter mindsets
  • XandraX, on 10/17/2007, -26/+6I don't see what 9/11 has to do with the Iraq War...they're unrelated so who cares if they were planning one before the other?
    • gllopc, on 10/15/2007, -8/+2It's obvious that Saddam would have loved to see the US fall in any way, that he had money to spend, and belonged to a region which was anti-US and supported terrorism; so I think that there is a cause-effect between the two. But yeah, one was not the ultimate cause of the other.
      • cphelps, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5Umm, they are totally unrelated in reality but 9/11 was used as a springboard for the Iraq War.
    • CannedMango, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5and XandraX with the win for the "most disconnected from reality" award
  • looklikecontest, on 10/18/2007, -8/+38What's the shocking revelation here? The war against Iraq was never about 9/11. First it was about "weapons of mass destruction", then it was about "freeing the Iraqi people", now it's about "staying the course". All *****, certainly, but no one ever really claimed 9/11 was the reason. Iraq never had anything to with 9/11. Even Bush said this.

    The real problem is trying to figure what WAS the reason to go to war on Iraq. (Hint: There wasn't any.)
    • mithrasinvictus, on 10/15/2007, -3/+4follow the money
    • Smokersroom, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4Not Money - Oil.

      We're running out and Iraq is the last place which hasn't fully exploited its reserves.
      • warcormc, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3well that and saddam wanted to get junior's daddy.
      • blueforce4116, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1That is just ignorant propaganda warcormc...we have spend almost a trillion dollars on Iraq. There is not profit here...and certainly no oil. Anyway we got practically free oil before the war from the oil for food program. btw read this article about how the US actually has the largest untapped oil reserves (2 trillion barrels) in the world. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_mas ...
        • DaSuHouSe, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1*****, US has the largest oil SHALE reserves not oil reserves. Believe me that's a big difference because oil shale has high processing costs compared to cheap petroleum.
    • Kindjal, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2"(Hint: There wasn't any.)"
      You do really think so? That is just sad. They planned how to split up natural resources (mostly Oil) to big companies that sponsored their campaigns as part of their war plans. So this was about nothing, yeah. They could have taken over the country without fighting because Saddam offered to go into exile. No war equals no profit for the contractors and war industry that sponsored the campaigns.
      Your government is a group of corrupt power hungry politicians that do not care about anyone but the rich. Unfortunately most capitalistic governments are, the U.S. is just best at it.
  • rephil513, on 10/17/2007, -3/+10I must say I find it interesting that there are so many comments to the effect of "of course regime change was talked about before 9/11, Clinton had it on the forefront of his agenda before W. even got elected." So W. runs against the Clintonian policy of regime change, and then changes the regime. But ya, there's a world of difference between the Clintons and the Bush's...I'm sure that's why Hillary is running...(and W has recently been giving Hillary 'advice' because she seems to be the heir apparent).
    • bowens44, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1Please provide evidence that Clinton intended to use military force to bring about regime change.
      • youareretarded, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2The Iraq Liberation Act may have not intended to use US military resources directly but it certainly did intend to aid those for regime change indirectly through such things as military training.


        I wasn't aware of the Iraq Liberation Act until today but now that I do it really scares me that Hillary has a chance of being our next president and continuing this BS!
      • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Giving moral support to Iraqi's who want to overthrow Saddam is not the same as INVADING IRAQ! What in the world is everyone smoking and why is it that the neo-cons can just blurt out nonsense and people constantly believe it? It's all lies and propaganda and twisting the truth, when will people finally stop taking them seriously?
  • montezumamike, on 10/17/2007, -28/+14I got pretty interested, and then Ron Paul spam. God damn it.
    • cphelps, on 10/15/2007, -4/+2Out of curiosity, who is your candidate? I'd like to know so I can post about how you're spamming every time you say something.
      • desius, on 10/15/2007, -3/+0ha, how true
      • obelisky, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3nah it's just clear that this story was only posted because of the RON PAUL bs..excuse me, DR RON PAUL... perot, nader, dean, now paul... he will fit in quite nicely.
    • CannedMango, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2montezumamike... you DO realize that because whoever edited the video added in Ron Paul at the end, doesn't change the authenticity of the contents of the video, right?

      You are creating your own ad hominem thinking here (i.e. I don't like Ron Paul so therefore I don't like the message of this entire video)
  • ZenMojo, on 11/02/2007, -3/+76People ignore me when I say this, but I have to repeat it in every discussion of Bush's pre-9/11 plans. I was up at 4 am watching C-SPAN a couple of years ago and it was an October 2000 debate between Bush and Gore. When they asked about a solution to our energy problems, Bush said, "One of the problems we have to deal with is our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Dictators like Saddam Hussein sit on our oil and we have to solve that problem." He later suggested drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and ANWR, but pay attention...he said that a solution to our energy problems in the future was removing Saddam Hussein. He said this BEFORE the Election Night 2000. Think about it.
    • widman, on 10/16/2007, -2/+5USA is going towards a dictatorship. The indifference of it's citizenship is the main cause. The nut jobs in charge are only a reflection.

      Wake up now or you'll never recover. With China and Russia already there, this is all set for 1984.
      • whoadave, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1* watching C-SPAN several years ago
      • enginbeering, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3We've always been at war with eastasia.
    • kohlmannj, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Is it possible to get a video to corroborate your claim?
    • mikhon, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2out of curiosity, how does one end up watching CSPAN at 4am?
      • shadowsage, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1People watch the strangest stuff when they can't sleep. I've been there.

        I'd like to see a video too, just to see if he really said "sit on OUR oil". It's the middle east's oil, you just opt to buy it from them. Hell of a thing for him to say but considering a lot of the things that have come out of his mouth I guess it'd be hardly surprising.
  • dheaddy, on 10/17/2007, -5/+62Again I'm astonished at the apathy of the American people when it comes to Bush and his actions. I mean no offence to any Americans here, but it's something that has truly baffled me.
    I just think that if Bush came out tomorrow and said to the nation, "Yup, I lied about the war on Iraq. I just never liked that Saddam guy and it was all about the oil really. Also, I shoot kittens in my back yard for fun, and there's nothing you can do about it! Good night and God bless"
    that nothing would change. Surely presidents have been impeached for lesser crimes?
    • cphelps, on 10/15/2007, -2/+5In the end and impeachment wouldn't do anything. If we attempted it everything would go haywire. Martial Law, everyone would be declared enemy combatants for opposing the president ( trying to protect our country from a domestic enemy) and shipped off to gitmo.
      • LordByr0n, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Martial Law might actually piss enough of you off to do something about; it because he obviously hasn't done enough already.
    • OswaldKenobi, on 10/16/2007, -7/+1Bush wouldn't say that the war was all about oil, because the reasons behind the war have nothing to do with oil. Get your facts straight.
      • HonestAbe, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Then please explain the reasons. Enlighten us.
    • m3t00, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Sadly the majority of us peasants feel powerless and don't even bother to vote. By the time the money/media people get done selecting our options for us, we don't even have a choice. The processes are all abstract and it takes armies of lawyers to find ways to do anything. The lawyers won't work unless they are paid so that leaves out anyone who doesn't already have a stake in the status quo. Yep, we are screwed. They could start the process to impeach Bush in 2005 and the lawyers would still be at it in 2015. He would need to be arrested and the SS won't let any law enforcement get close enough.
    • joot2112, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3We doubt whether our votes are counted. Even when we protest, the media is run by huge conglomerate corporations who have no interest in promoting dissent. Protests are minimized and are illegal within sight of the President. We write millions of letters to our "representatives" who turn around and pass a bill to fund the war with an additional 640 billion dollars. Tell us what we should do now. Storm the oval office in camou?
    • stockjones, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I guess Americans at times can be ignorant. Just like many French and European people are ignorant of the fact that socialism is failing.
  • Mooco, on 10/17/2007, -9/+28...Okay, this was fcking annoying. Just give me the 60 minute interview, I don't need the amateur video editing. Buried also due to inaccuracy; obviously if the whole thing got on 60 minutes at all it wasn't exactly 'buried.' Last, yes, we know this already. If you're only just now finding out, you seriously need a better news source than Digg.
    • treehugger87, on 10/15/2007, -3/+2Right. Because if it's not properly edited and on television it can't be true at all. Good point.

      And we DO need Digg as our news source because the news media will not tell us the truth. Fox viewers are dumber than average Americans and still believe Sadaam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. Internet users are smarter than average Americans and KNOW that this whole war is a sham designed so that Bush and his pals can get rich.
      • hoovcluck, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I hate to tell you this, but the majority of the "news" on Digg comes from an elite group users that form giant circle jerks and slpooge all over each other's stories until they make the front page.
  • jballer, on 10/17/2007, -2/+9And by 2001 Saddam had been dodging UN weapons inspectors for years. Clinton had been dealing with Iraq (Operation Desert Fox and the Iraq Liberation Act) since 1998. Why is this a surprise?
    • bowens44, on 10/16/2007, -4/+2Actually, there was an unprecedented level of cooperation before bush attacked Iraq but don't let facts have an effect on your opinion.
      • beatbox32, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2...and if some bully at school starting beating your kid up only 3 times a week instead of 5, I guess that would be an unprecedented level of cooperation as well. Genius.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/15/2007, -2/+8For those curious about how Bush got elected twice...here are all of the presidential debates over the last 8 years.... I honestly think people have to be really stupid if they let this guy into office even once.

    http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.49/aid.71327/colu ...
    • thecorruptor, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Its called election fraud. The system doesn't work when corruption is rampant.
  • tauntz, on 10/17/2007, -6/+4You mean, the actual video was buried? You mean.. like.. underground?
    • stevedclarke, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1Yeah. With a spade.
    • sandman979, on 10/15/2007, -1/+0yeah, just like your head.
    • desqjockey, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3On that renegade underground program 60 minutes. Isnt that Westinghouse's network?
  • qpn6ph9q, on 10/16/2007, -9/+8What I want to know is WHY Bush and Cheney not being impeached? This evidence presented in this documentary ALONE is grounds for impeachment,
  • wookiecontrol, on 10/15/2007, -3/+4hilarious sound effects
    • desius, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Ha agreed, how lame. Props to 60 minutes though, good video.
  • NSResponder, on 10/19/2007, -16/+10If the pentagon doesn't have plans for invading every country on earth, then someone's not doing their job. Those plans are a normal function of the DoD, and I would expect that we've had such plans regularly updated since at least the end of world war two.

    This is a non-story.

    -jcr
    • bowens44, on 10/15/2007, -4/+1Wow. No wonder we're the most hated country on the planet.
      • redwards, on 10/15/2007, -2/+3Please. Should our motto be, "Be Unprepared!"
        • obelisky, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1you play too many online FPS armchair general...
    • graderguy, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Let's see those canadian invasion plans, ok???

      Pfft,
    • YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1He's got somewhat of a point. In WWII we didn't invade France preemptively, we invaded France to free it from German control. What if Russia deicdes to invade Canada? I would hope we have at least a rough idea of invasion plans to drive back Russian forces. But the point is Bush obviously had a hard on for this war before he was president, and he still will not admit that.
    • digginamish, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1I'm sorry, but they had a mission; they had a directive; they had an end to the means. They never had a PLAN, or this mess wouldn't be as ugly as it is. I don't know if Bush is capable of planning; react and "stay the course."

      I laugh daily at the stink he made about Gore "flip flopping" because the man was able to admit he was wrong and change his mind!
  • kotatsu, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5This surely shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The invasion of Iraq has been a sham from start to finish, and Bush, Cheney, and Blair all belong in the Hague on charges of war crimes.
  • thespace2, on 10/17/2007, -11/+9I loved the video right up to the Ron Paul comments, another person doing Y when preaching X. Screw that seriously. You all are morons if you believe that crap.
  • IHaveIssues, on 10/16/2007, -3/+10Watch "Power of Nightmares" : http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=power+of+nigh ...
    The documentary is also all over bittorrent.
  • itsPinkCharms, on 10/16/2007, -2/+20Its amazing how people feel more outrage towards the bad editing job instead of feeling outrage because the public was lied too... Just another sign of the times... Screw what they said I'm not pissed about that. I'm pissed about the bad editing...
  • shortkookyllama, on 10/15/2007, -2/+3One of the sickest videos I have seen in a long time.

    (Could have done without the cheesy sound effects, but the information was good.)
  • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -18/+9good video except for the last part of it where the submitter is sucking ron paul's *****.
    Gravel '08
    • parabolee, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Kucinich is way better than Gravel (and Paul), IMHO. Plus he has a lot more support.
  • hnilsen, on 10/17/2007, -25/+20Buried for being Ron Paul 08. Would you guys stop acting like he's the new messiah?
    • floatingpoints, on 10/17/2007, -1/+11Compared to everyone he's running against... he pretty much is :P
      • parabolee, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1Wrong, Kucinich holds the same positions on the issue's that the Paul fans keep banging on about. And I strongly respect Paul and his supporters because I agree with them on those issue's Paul's econimic theory is deeply flawed, while it is far better than what we currently have it is far more dangerous than that of Dennis Kucinich.

        Paul fans keep plugging him as if he is the only one that apposes these injustices, and Kucinich has been far more vocal on these issue's for a lot longer than paul. I'm sure Paul held these a=opinions 4 years ago, but Dennis was the only one putting forward bills and drumming up support against them back then.

        So compared to Dennis Kucinich Paul is certainly not the second coming, he is another honest and respectable candidate, with a flawed economic theory.
    • YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Cum all over my snorklel Ron Paul!
  • majortom1981, on 10/17/2007, -14/+8Ron paul is not the guy who you think he is. I hate all this ron paul stuff. Go look through the speaches on his website. He is a doctor and everything he is for or against is only to help doctors out . He is not the choice for president. Heck he is even against a patients bill of rights .(don't belive me? go to ron pauls own website and wade through his speaches.)
    • m3t00, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2This country needs a doctor. Send me a bill.
      • obelisky, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1a lot of people in this country could use a doctor above anything else...
    • floatingpoints, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7How about instead of "wading through his speeches", which is clearly obfuscation trying to present your point, you directly link us to said speech?

      Or you can GTFO.

      I can say that too. "There's a speech somewhere on google where Bush claims to have planned 9/11. Go look it up."
  • ladbroke, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4What I want to know is why those secret memos said "Post-Saddam Iraq Crisis" 11 months before 9/11, and all we got told was that we'd be greeted as liberators.

    Also: "Iraq (BA DA DA DUMM) Septermeber 11th (BA DA DA DUMM) George Bush (BA DA DA DUMM), etc"
    • peestandingup, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Yeah, they forget the standard: DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUNNNNNN
  • KingMoses, on 10/15/2007, -13/+7It didn't stay buried; I had to bury it again.

    File your stories in the right category. I'm not interested in the Digg community's dopey politics.
  • KillerLettuce, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2So what do you suppose we do now? Build a time machine?
    BTW, that noise every time words popped up on the screen was annoying as hell.
  • Steviebe21, on 10/16/2007, -7/+16Great video...until the last minute where it turns into blatant Ron Paul spam.
    • youareretarded, on 10/16/2007, -1/+12I like RP and I thought that was annoying and unnecessary as well.
    • parabolee, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Especially since it presumes he's the only candidate that has been right on these issue's. Dennis Kucinch was the only outspoken politician that was against the Iraq war from the start and is right on more issue's than Paul.

      I also like Paul, but in every area he falls short, Kucinich is excels.
    • WiLLGT09, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Yep! that was exactly what I was going to say.
  • skyz, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2some of us already know/knew we have been royally or should i say imperially scammed BUT i don't want to hear it as a campaign bash ~ i want to hear exactly how and exactly which of our civil liberties will be restored and when ~
  • frenchkick, on 11/11/2007, -2/+32wow that turned into a ron paul video real quick

    jesus im all for the guy but lets not turn every political article into something to do with ron paul
  • HTIZ, on 10/16/2007, -5/+1i'm not a bush man, but i'm not up to believing anyone coming out of the white house right now. Including this dude coming out of the Bush Closet.
    • desius, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1He's not coming out of the Bush closet at all. Quite the contrary. He may be in the republican party, but he has a complete 180 on policies. On top of that, he's a Libertarian. Get your facts straight.
  • diggggggggggg, on 11/11/2007, -3/+44Without the f..king text & sound effects:

    Part 1:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk
    Part 2:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-D1jCZ31Uw
  • slapded, on 10/17/2007, -15/+8gay music = no digg
  • Dahbud, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5Thank you, interesting video, which reminded me of the following story.
    Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country
    by Balzac
    Year after year, George W. Bush has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums of money, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
    With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, George W. Bush could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by Scooter Libby and others facing indictment reveal that George W. Bush aids and protects terrorists, including Neocons Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scott McClellan, et. al. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could create another 9/11, provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
    Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that George W. Bush could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those Neocon hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by George W. Bush. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of George W. Bush is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
    The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages (Shock, Awe, and MK77) -- leaving thousands of Iraqi citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
    And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of the United States: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
    Located at: http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/Balzac/index.htm ...
  • TecHeavy, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Glad this was posted...but this is nothing new. I think we all have known for sometime now that this war was planned way before 9/11.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.