digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Administration Misleads America on Iraq/Al Qaeda Link

thinkprogress.org — A video compilation of administration officials asserting an Iraq/Al Qaeda link. The clips are from the days after a Senate Intelligence Committee report refuted the connection.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -29/+111What a bunch of liars we have in office. Can they honestly trust anything that they say at this point.
    The whole lot of them should be indicted.
    Bush and Cheney should BOTH be impeached. Bush should should be prosecuted for the laws he has broken.
    • yakimushi, on 10/12/2007, -19/+100Now if only we could figure out some way to catch Bush getting a BJ in the Oval Office...
    • da5idblacksun, on 10/12/2007, -33/+12Big time. Then we need to get Ken Starr on the case.
    • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -65/+9Uh, what laws has Bush PERSONALLY broken?
    • omgwut, on 10/12/2007, -8/+62@antoniojvr:

      Apparently enough that he's so bothered to attempt to push acts through Congress to retroactively amend long-standing war crimes provisions so he and his administration can recieve complete legal immunity.
    • hcl40u, on 10/12/2007, -10/+42Nothing quite like rewriting the rules to avoid potential trouble.
    • HickJew, on 10/12/2007, -14/+42What laws has Bush broken? Military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research are just some of them.
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38here is a quick summary for anyone not actually watching the video:

      on sept 8th the senate intelligence report came out saying that there was no link between saddam and 9/11-AlQaeda. and that saddam was actually going after Zarqawai

      in the following days Bush's cronies, Rice and Chaney, said repeatedly that there was a link.

      I guess Bush's administration got this same info from the intelligence reports that said they had WMD.

      and further, I can only assume that Chaney/Rice/Bush all think that if they keep repeating the same lies over and over that it will become the truthiness.
    • farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38Funny... by their definition of "connection," the Bush family is more 'connected' with terror then Iraq.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2hey "hickjew", i'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but are you a republican?
    • gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -23/+6They weren't under oath, so it doesn't matter.
    • jonnyeh, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@gmillerd: It matters, just not in a legal sense.
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30how the hell is this being marked as inaccurate?

      ANYONE who marked it as such, give us a reason!
    • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24The way Digg is set up, a small gang of trolls who get dugg down in a thread can still get it marked innacurate. It's like shouting LIAR! When you can't muster an effective argument.
    • Jlaugh, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1VinceNoir

      So then have you given up on democracy? Are you an elitist?
    • webXL, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Please read (that's R-E-A-D) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html

      They based everything off of the CIA's assessment.
    • blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32It's funny how this is marked as inaccurate. Video of the actual people saying these things is inaccurate? Jesus, the state of denial some people live in is staggering.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17If you shut your eyes and cover your ears and bang you head against a wall enough times this story may just become 'inaccurate.'
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21@Jawood
      Liberal has become a dirty word in the eyes of the neo-cons who use it to describe any American who does not agree with their agenda.

      It is important to distinguish between the republican party and the neo-con movement, as they are two different entities. The BBC recently released a documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" where this is covered in great detail.
      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares&page=1&so=0&lr=
    • AMCer, on 10/12/2007, -19/+1505 Diggs: CAUGHT ON TAPE: Administration Misleads America on Iraq/Al Qaeda Link


      5 Diggs: CAUGHT_ON_TEXT - Democrats mislead Americans on Iraq WMD
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/CAUGHT_ON_TEXT_Democrats_mislead_Americans_on_Iraq_WMD
    • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"It is important to distinguish between the republican party and the neo-con movement, as they are two different entities. The BBC recently released a documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" where this is covered in great detail..."

      Like the average Muslim, they are not innocent when they stand by and do nothing while extremists hijack their party and use it to wreak havoc. As long as other Republicans don't resist the neocons, they are also culpable for their crimes.
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The repukes are the ones marking this post as inaccurate. Simply because they are too stupid to face facts and comprehend that their Republi-con leaders have lied to them. And still to date continue to lie to them.
      Yet, anyone with half a brain can see that. This is what makes America a joke in the eyes of the world. People are being lied to right to their faces and they still believe the lies.
      This is getting pretty pathetic. No wonder Bush won 2 terms and the Republicans have majority control. America is filled with dumb asses (sad but true).
    • HallsOfMandos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4If you think about it, the inaccurate warning (if interpreted properly) actually applies here. There is a video of these people relaying false information to the American people, hence the content is inaccurate. I just Dugg it though, I can't count on the masses to follow the logic to its end.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@AMCer

      The reason that doesn't have too many Diggs is that it is a stupid piece.

      I'm cherry picking here, but, this is from that article

      "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
      - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source"

      Holly *****, in 1998 Clinton said that! Then! he must have been intentionally misleading people in order to coerce America into illegally invading Iraq 5 years later. Right.

      ""If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
      - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
      "

      It's like everyone forgot about the policy of containment, and the no-fly zone, and how Saddam kicked inspectors out years ago (what this quote is referring to) but then let them back in before our invasion in 2003.

      That article just bores me, the fact that it now has 15 diggs is a miracle. Claiming that most of the quotes 'catch' Democrats is like claiming that people who, in 1937, stated their doubts that Germany was amassing an army were compltely right in their statements, since Germany had no army in 1965. Or maybe we should call everyone a liar who thought Russia was a threat to America, since today they're not.
    • Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Saddam was, for a long time, a US puppet. A secular suni tyrant - so OBVIOUSLY a radical shia fanaticism would have been regarded as a threat to his government. What happens if you threaten a tyrant's power? Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Islam and the Arab world was calling ***** on this "link" since day one -- Iraq and Al Quida would have been enemies. Americans still can't seem to wrap their heads around this. Think of it this way,.. what are the odds that the Bush administration would hook up with the KKK? C'mon they're both Christian aren't they? Discounting differences in the political ideologies simply because they're the same faith (which is debatable, Suni and Shia are different sects of Islam) is just plain stupid - and its sad that the American people don't ask basic questions when fed this crap by their govt.
  • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+42I'm usually a harsh critic of the C-minus content on Thinkprogress, but this is all too telling...

    6 years later...and still....no one wants to raise their hand and admit a mistake.

    *shakes head in disgust*
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8That will never happen in case they are brought to justice.

      C.Y.A.
    • philonous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10And, these are even the weakest instances of the WH totally contradicting reality. But, I agree. Think Progress is usually weak stuff, but how can one possibly deny the WH's total rot when they say it with their own mouths?
  • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -75/+12So what if Dubya was lying, Dubya wasn't under oath.
    What are we going to do, just pull all the troops out of Iraq?
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -6/+65It is acceptable to you that, unless under oath, the president is not under any responsibility to tell the truth to the nation?
    • hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Could we start with some? I mean, Japan did, Hungary did, who else did? Are we going to wait for civil war or is there some kind of other measurable mark versus "until Iraqs troops are ready". I mean some of the troops can't read/write, it's not some super motivated squad that we're training.

      What would be the worst thing that would happen if we pulled out, another regime starts up and tries to kill us again. It's going to happen anyway just like the War on Drugs, Was on Poverty, War on Illiteracy isn't going to end.
    • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -64/+6The president is not under any responsibility to tell the truth, his responsiblity is to the safety and security of the american people and the interests of the american people.
    • Diabolickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Sure, and starting an illegal,unprovoked war is the perfect way to ensure our safety, right?
    • lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22@hurtydufur
      If we had a War on Illiteracy, would Bush have been elected in the first place?
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19If you honestly feel that the president is allowed to lie to the public with impunity, I am not sure what to say. That is just ridiculous...
    • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -21/+11Who's going to impeach the President?
      The republican controlled senate, the republican controlled congress or maybe the conservative supreme court?
      Read my lips, Dubya is NEVER going to be impeached!
    • handband2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23@JohnCrichton

      'The president is not under any responsibility to tell the truth, his responsiblity is to the safety and security of the american people and the interests of the american people.'

      You might want to do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States_oath_of_office

      I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
    • withears, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21John Crichton wins - Sheep of the Year!
    • VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27@JohnCrichton

      I like the way you think! I find it shameful that you're being dugg down because you really are the perfect example of why the Republicans are in power in the United State. Right or wrong, you'll always come to the defense of those you support. True loyalty. Some would likely claim you to be a troll, but I firmly believe that you stand behind the words that you say. Can't wait to meet you on the battlefield when the civil war starts.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Johncrichton

      You should really change your name to Michael Crichton.
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3John, the Presidents duty is to protect the constitution, and through the constitution comes our safety. You have it completely backwards.

      Baaaaahhh.
    • Sorka42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2See, the problem with you're comment is that, yes in fact he is breaking the law every time he lies in public. Slander - Liable. Clinton was nearly impeached for lying about his sex life. Are you actually trying to say that Bush lying to send young men and women to die so that his corporate buddies can get rich is Not a crime?????? He is Defrauding the American people by fabricating this information. He is bound by an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution from the moment he takes office. He is an Oath Breaker and needs to be lawfully removed from his position.
  • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -69/+17Wow...Digg has become a ThinkProgress liberal think tank...

    I can't understand why liberals are so much against right wing bias media but whole heartedly accept left wing bias media....
    • grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -12/+42@ TubaTechno

      Probably for the same reasons so many conservatives blindly accept right wing media bias.

      People are less skeptical of news that agrees with their opinions.
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -15/+42@ TubaTechno


      This has NOTHING to do with anyone being a "librul".

      This is about America, try to take a deep breath and realize this.....


      Left wing biased media? Pssht..What color is the sky on YOUR planet?
    • Jadix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+45Well in this case, the "biased news" is direct quotes which were actually said...
    • Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Bias implies commentary. Quoting the responsible parties -- in context -- isn't exactly biased.
    • omgwut, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22Jesus Christ.

      A present "bias" usually assumes that facts are being spun for propagandic use.

      You can call it liberal bias all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it came straight from the horse's mouth.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -35/+7"Left wing biased media"

      ThinkProgress a known liberally bias source of information.

      This destroys their credibility.

      You know the liberal community will be up in arms if ABC or Fox News tries to run a report supporting the president even if they use a quote from Bush "there was no connection to 9/11"...
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15@ tubatechno

      FoxNews = DailyKOS = Michelle Malkin = Thinkprogress = MoveON = Little Green Footballs.

      All ***** from the same mold...the reason why they even get posted here baffles everyone with a working mind, but there they are, everyday, front-and-center on the Politics page.

      Submissions like this one, however, are the diamond in a dessert of fecal matter. It's a great day when there's actually a useful post from any one of those above sources. So instead of Digging it down, rejoice, and learn something as they were kind enough to post SOURCE MATERIAL instead of an all-out (and mostly wrong) partisan rant.
    • Ryland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36"ThinkProgress a known liberally bias source of information.
      This destroys their credibility."

      It's all right there on video tape, without commentary. They presented facts and video tape, nothing more. The Senate report says there was no connection, and administration officials are on tape saying the opposite. Where's the bias? Where's the issue of credibility?

      If a liberal comes up to you on the street and says, "Hey, there's a piano about to fall on your head, look up," are you just going to dismiss the information because of his obvious liberal bias, or are you going to look up and step out from under the piano?
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@Ryland - They'll wait for a signal from Fox News
    • rokinroj, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18And how again are video taped quotes straight from the mouths of the accused, "left wing bias media"? I hate to point out the obvious (yet again) but because someone doesn't agree with your support of the administration doesn't make them a liberal.
    • Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@TubaTechno;

      Its called a "democracy", you should look it up sometime. People are "voting" for these stories, what's that phrase people always say to people who disagree with Bush...oh yeah they say "Bush won, get over it."

      So I say this...this article was dugg, get over it.

      Good day, sir.
    • Jawood, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Could someone explain to me what the ***** "Liberal" means - these days, anyway?

      I once told someone that I was concerned about the expansion of Executive powers and the erosion of our Civil Liberties, you know, the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution of United States of America that President Bush swore to uphold?

      I was called a "Liberal Moron." Since when is desire to not change the Government and the Constitution being "Liberal" - that sounds "Conservative" to me - whatever that means these days.

      I guess because I mentioned "Civil Liberties" or our Freedoms, that made me a "Liberal"?
    • VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Hey Tubby Tuba!

      It's only "biased" if it don't agree with me!! Duh-merica hath spoken!! (And if Digg is any example of what happens when you let the rabble grab the reigns, you can see why America is a total ***** mess)
    • Jlaugh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5That's because liberals are biased. We have become a nation of three biases Liberal, Conservative and the Apathetic. The Apathetic are the majority.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Well in this case, the "biased news" is direct quotes which were actually said..."

      And Muslims all over the world are upset over a direct quote from the Pope. Direct quotes taken out of context can be misleading. Of course, so can this administration (be msileading). My experience with thinkprogress.org is they are extremely biased, and an unreliable soure of news.

      I didn't mark it inaccurate, but I can see how some would. Please find more reliable news sources.
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Look jackass, this was posted in POLITICAL OPINION. ThinkProgress is a POLITICAL OPINION BLOG. Quit bitching about a political blog post in a political opinion forum.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1TubbaTechno: "You know the liberal community will be up in arms if ABC or Fox News tries to run a report supporting the president even if they use a quote from Bush "there was no connection to 9/11"..."

      Actually, if Bush's public admission of no connection between Hussein and alQaeda was followed by Fox News wailing and gnashing their teeth in their coverage, this member of the liberal community would be happy to sit back, smile, and enjoy it.
  • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -39/+6BFD. This was really exciting news in 2002.
    • grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18It's scary when someone doesn't consider this "BFD" and accepts the status quo because it's the status quo....
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"BFD. This was really exciting news in 2002."

      Yes, well, plenty of us thought that in 2002 as well. The problem though, was that we were then a small minority. The rest of you worthless inbred Middle American trailer-park-dwelling cum dumpsters were yelling a little too loudly about "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" to hear what we were saying.

      But times change. Now, we're the majority. And you folks, despite still being inbred, aren't as loud as you used to be.

      How many times do we have to be right before you'll realize we've been right all along?
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I guess you just feel the need to bring up the same argument over and over. I personally feel that there are more current issues to debate, such as immigration and soaring gov't spending under president Bush.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@kylesellers
      Just because an point is 4 years old does not make it invalid.
    • RCinBigD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@kylesellers

      Hey, rocket scientist, you don't think the soaring government spending has anything to do with Iraq? Your president lied to you to go in there and he's being lying to you since to justify staying and BFD is the best you can come up with?

      BTW, projected total cost of the Iraq war at the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2006) is $318.5 BILLION. This number does not include Afghanistan. http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
  • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008103.php

    http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

    nope no connection. Move along nothing to see.
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6That doesn't matter. ThinkProgress says that we should all ignore those crappy documents and drink more Kool-Aid.

      /sarcasm
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Didn't GW himself just confirm there was no connection? Which is it?
    • hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yes bush already said there's no connection. At the bottom of the page:
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

      Search for: "THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?"

      It's not some silver-bullet quote but it makes me wonder if the public thinks that Iraq was tied to 9-11 because we invaded right after 9-11. Isn't that the general assumption?
    • thinkingbear, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Did you even read the memo? It says none of the things being attributed to it. You guys are REACHING now, why not just give it up and accept your guys lied.
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8Bush confirmed thqt there was no connection to 9-11, but Saddam's own *****' documents confirm that he had senior officials meet with both al Queda and the Taliban. It sucks that we didn't find these documents 4 years earlier and avoid all this ***** flinging.
    • petroK, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11ArchieAndrews... pay attention... there was no direct connection, but we had to do what we had to go on the intel we had...and its fine because we are creating a democracy-friendly bastion against terror in Iraq as we speak (if only people like you and other americca-haters would stop comforting the enemy). Besides there were terrorists in Iraq even if Saddam didn't support them... we've clearly solved that problem.

      Its like the state of our safety. We are safer now that the Bush administration has taken important steps to protect America from Terror, but there is still a looming threat of terrorism at every front that hypothetical questions like the one you just posed only encourages...

      Please stop encouraging the enemy by trying to confuse the fact that there was(wasn't) a connection between Saddam and the Global Terror Network led by Al Qaida... and for God's sake, remember that we are safer(have never faced a more dangerous time) now than in our recent past...So vote Republican, and stop asking questions.
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Great subtle sarcasm Petro, but things like "we've clearly solved that problem" really throw it off.

      Thousands of cilivan deaths a month isn't a problem solved :/
    • jknevitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ kylesellers

      Source, please? I'd like to see you back that up. And not with some Fox News propaganda, either. I mean real, genuine, unbiased intel.
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1bcismar has already posted sources. BTW, most FoxNews "nonsense" is actually from the AP, but the more liberal stations have chosen not to run with them. They are just as fact checked as any other AP story, which makes them MUCH more reliable than anything from thinkprogress.

      The bias is in the selection of stories to cover, not in the stories themselves.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@petroK

      Golf clap for you. Very nice.
    • dibbler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@petroK: "We are safer now that the Bush administration has taken important steps to protect America from Terror". Erm, 3000 US troops have been killed, and many more have been maimed for life, due to the "important steps" taken by Bush. Invading Iraq as a response to 911 has actually caused more American deaths than lost their lives on 911.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1NB: Officials in this current administration have had many meetings -- possibly more than alQaeda -- with Saddam Hussein in the past; one being Donnie Rumsfeld by name. If all it takes is a out-of-date, perfunctory, and possibly fruitless "meeting" to be considered a terrorist in bed with Iraq, then there are quite a few current American officials who have some explaining to do.

      Keep in mind, many of those previously reported "meetings" between Iraqi officials and alQaeda officials have since been debunked.

      Either way, Bush's argument is wagging the dog. Osama bin Laden and alQaeda attacked us. We committed fewer troops to finding him in Afghanistan than there are on-duty police officers in New York City. And he got away. Even if Iraq sponsored alQaeda, shouldn't we be more focused on catching the terrorist zealots willing to enact the attacks than the diplomatically and economically restricted states which fund them? Admittedly, the 9/11 attacks took some planning and some funding, but if bin Laden really wanted to hit us that day, don't you think alQaeda would have found a way to do it on the cheap?
  • skotski, on 10/12/2007, -26/+18Yeah, this is timely...
    so where are all the clips of the Dems making the exact same assertions?
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -24/+13Sheesh everyone keeps beating me to the good points!
    • diggnatious, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22You mean Joe LIEberman? He got tossed out in the primary election probably because of his lies and ties to this administration.
    • Crumbles, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Right here:
      http://www.archive.org/download/variouspeoplematdcvideofixII/democrats.avi

      enjoy. courtsy of:

      http://www.mattandthat.com

      taken from here:

      http://www.mattandthat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=925
    • wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22The Dems are just as bad as the Reps, from this UK person's perspective.
      Two wrongs aren't making a right..
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7ThinkProgress forgot to include those links...
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14they didnt include them because they arent relevant, its them saying saddam would build weapons.. it has NOTHING TO DO WITH LINKING THEM TO ALQAEDA

      it also has nothing to do with them saying we should preemptively attack them and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, send thousands of our young men and women to die on foreign land of a country that HAS NEVER ATTACKED US

      all that video showed was dems saying is that iraq could develop weapons and is a threat to OUR ALLIES not even us..

      so good work, you have proven that you are great at digging up propaganda to defend a LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE that led us into the bloodiest war this generation has seen that according the bush adminstration could last 100 years
    • Patented, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@diggnatious
      I gotta disagree man. The current party practice on both sides is to declare anyone not a rank-n-file extremist an outsider. Leiberman is a democrat through and through, his only disagreement with the party is his support for the war. He has been outcasted by his own party for that. Lets not even talk about Zell.

      McCain has to deal with the same thing from Repubs. Arnie somehow gets a pass, even though he could be considered a "socially-liberal/fiscally-conservative" republican... maybe because any Hollywood repub gains "Oh yeah, well we have Arnie and Tom Selleck!" status.

      Fact is, both parties need to stop looking for their own members to be such cardboard cutouts, else we continue to spiral in the direction we are going.
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"so where are all the clips of the Dems making the exact same assertions?"

      Who could possibly care?

      For the first time in 40 years, the Republicans control EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. What possible difference could it make what the minority party says.

      When the people in CHARGE lie to you, those are the people who should be held accountable.

      Sure, the Dems who toed the line are all morons. But they're also weak and ineffectual. The endless neocon drone of "but the dems said it too" is possibly the most disingenuous argument in the entire debate. The Green party might have said the same things. But who would have cared?

      Is that really the best you've got?

      Actually, it is, isn't it?
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This isn't a partisan argument.
      Trying to turn it into one is an attempt to discount the lies said by Rice.
  • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6Seems Clinton was pretty worried about a pill factory in SUdan that was a partnership between AQ and Saddam whre precursers for chemical and biological weapons were found.

    Concerned and convinced enough to bomb it.

    Must have been because of that lack of connection.
    • josho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Might want to source your rants. Also dear god, you're drawn like a moth to a candle flame when there's anything political on digg.
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9Ouch! Modded down for reminding people that Ol' Billy Boy agreed with Bush about Iraq being a threat. You should know not to point that stuff out on Digg!
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9The facts of the Sudan pill factory are so commonly available, I shouldn't need to lead any one to them,,, oh yeah,, but your trying to pretend it didn't happen.

      Well then what is the point of providing the facts when you'll just ignore them anyway.

      As for me being drawn to the political debate, how would you know? Unless of course your always there yourself.
    • josho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Might want to cool down with your inflammatory rhetoric, bcismar. All I say is to provide a source and you start off on a huge flaming attack saying that:

      1) I'm oblivious for not knowing or having the source myself, 2) I'm pretending said unsourced event didn't happen, 3) I ignore all of the facts, and 4) I troll political debates.

      This is a good example of why no one can argue with people like you (re: rabid republicans). If I calmly ask for proof, you turn around and blast me four times for that action. Then kylesellers chimes in to continue to be maliciously sarcastic.

      It's embarrassing to you when you're posting screaming like a lunatic all over this thread. You are representative for your side, and you might want to start doing so in a less stereotypical way so you don't keep giving credence to your negative image.
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2josho, if you were being sincere then I apologize for affronting you. It would make you one of only three people who I have encountered here on Digg that asked a sincere question.

      The deeper truth on the Sudan Pill factory bombing is that the Dems made the claims that VX was found there as justification for their attack. This was later put into doubt as post attack intelligence suggested it really was just a pill factory.

      So since there was discrepancy in the pre attack intel and the post attack intel, and as the CIA and the DIA both believed there were links between Saddam and AQ then, and there never was a retraction, why is Pres Bush not afforded the same allowance for acting in good faith that was afforded Clinton?

      I really don't have a problem with dissent on current administration policy. I think it's healthy. The hypocrisy is not though.

      And that is the subtext to my comment.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I appreciate the rhetorical middle ground that you and josho have achieved, bcismar. It's a refreshing relief in the high noise-to-signal ratio of the general Internet. However, you have yet to answer josho's initial inquiry: what is your source for this criticism?

      Given this lack of proximate citation, I'll assume you're referring to Clinton's 1998 cruise missile strike on the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum. Clinton ordered the strike as retaliation to the alQaeda-credited simultaneous bombing of two U.S. embassies on August 7 of the same year. Bombings in which 257 people were killed and over 4,000 were wounded.

      It seems to me that evoking such a specific tragedy -- 1 person was indeed killed and 10 were injured despite the complete decimation of the structure -- is simply another argument against using intelligence to act unilaterally in the shadow of tremendous security breaches and loss of life. A unilateral action which Bush had evidently taken in 2003 and is now looking to justify ex-post-facto.

      Just a couple sources:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
      http://www.flonnet.com/fl2222/stories/20051104000905900.htm

      I have yet to see Saddam Hussein or Iraq mentioned in any of the articles I've read about the misinformed strike or the August 7 bombings.

      BTW, bcismar, Watch "Bowling for Columbine" sometime. Michael Moore agrees with you that the Al Shifa strike was a mistake on Clinton's part. So please, watch where you throw the "hypocrisy" word. One digger's "hypocrisy" may be another digger's "subtlety."
  • brunobf, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Eventually... all the truth will come out.
    We might be dead by then, but the whole Iraq and even the 9/11 will be told...

    "You wanna know the truth ? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH ! "
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4what makes you think that it will ever come out?
      theres been dozens of other events like this, national tragedies that the causes of which were never exposed or investigated
      pearl harbour
      JFK assissination
      that attack one one of our ships that got us into vietnam
      the attack on one of our ships in the mediteranian by isreali jets!! to try and blame it on egypt so we could get into a war over there during the 6 day war

      and now 9/11
  • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -21/+11Hey lets not forget that the first WTC bombing, by AQ, was financed by,,, (drum roll please),,, Saddam.

    The financier was captured and his cell phones last call was to an Iraq embassy, which was fitting since he was traveling on a Iraqi diplomatic passport.

    Move along now, I said there is no connection, so what are you looking at?
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9please keep your facts to yourself....there is not room here for that kind of crazy talk...now MoveON
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Wow two intelligent posts modded down in a row. You're just going to have to give up bcismar...
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10I know I know. There is no room for truth when it doesn't fit the model of reality proffered by the left.

      Of course when it suddenly begins to fit their needs, the left will revive these simple facts to cry about nobody connecting the dots.

      For the left, truth and facts are like fashion, they go in and out of vogue.
    • culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17"Hey lets not forget that the first WTC bombing, by AQ, was financed by,,, (drum roll please),,, Saddam."

      Umm... Not so much.

      You need to stop reading NRO, WND and Drudge. Only then can you start the long and painful process of pulling your head out of your ass.
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5culbeda, please find something besides my ass to occupy your thoughts. I know you want it, but you can[t have it.

      Why does the left allway raise the level of conversation to someones ass? Is that really the full height of their cognition?
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6proffered? dude...you're banned from intelligent conversation the rest of the day.
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1its all too damn convenient if you ask me..
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@popdmb

      You're banning him from intelligent conversation because YOU have a limited vocabulary??

      fyi
      prof·fer (prfr) Pronunciation Key
      tr.v. prof·fered, prof·fer·ing, prof·fers
      To offer for acceptance; tender. See Synonyms at offer.

      n.
      The act of proffering; an offer.
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21ahhh I see the "but but but but" crowd of Bush Apologist's has arrived.


    Typical sheep..Baaa!
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12easier to insult then it is to rebutle...
    • arthurclements, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Insults are not debate. I guess this is all we can expect from the lefties. Bush made the right decision to invade Iraq because they were a brutal regime that sought to kill Americans and our allies. The threat of Saddam's regime has been neutralized. We are dealing with other threats now. We on the right fight the terrorists, you on the left fight people on the right. I guess it is easier because the worst we will do is debate you, the jihadis will incinerate you. That is why you don't read blog comments from leftists mocking Islam like they mock Christianity.
    • hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@arthurclements: So the answer to getting blown up by "jihadis" is to kill more people. Excellent.

      Of course, the pentagon doesn't do body counts. But since 2003 2,687 American forces deaths, 50k iraqi civilians (iraqbodycount.net), etc, etc. The War on Terror is never going to end so we should change the way we do things, not civil liberties, not policy, not goals of the American government.

      The reason for being there is shaky at best and it's horrifying to hear Bush say that 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Are the Dems the answer? Probably not. But I'd just *feel* better if someone other than a former Texan oiler was invading a country who's #1 export is not blueberries.
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1iraqbodycount is a farce. It includes every terrorist killed, every suicide bomber, and every single person they kill in their kill count. That's like blaming the US for the deaths of every kamikaze bomber in WWII.

      Oh yeah, and all their numbers are estimated, and unsourced, so it's a pure propoganda.
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The retort from the right is "Well....look at uh...clinton!"

      Where the ***** does that get us? Clinton isn't in power, Bush is.

      Im not left, or right, but saying the left is the worse of two evils is pointless because it doesn't require the right to improve at all.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@TubaTechno
      As others have said, it does not matter what the dem's have said What is the matter is what the people in power are saying now. This is not a partisan arguement and trying to turn it one is just an attempt to ignore the facts.

      webXL posted a great link above where you could see the white house offical responce to the NY Times. In it, Bush clearly states that the only links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda are that they are both monsters and threats to the world.
      This is, as you can clearly see in the video, not what is said by Condoleezza Rice.
  • TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6The thing I find ironic is the same people that bitch and moan when a blog links is put on digg and the ones submitting and digging stories from thinkrpogress, a liberal blog.

    Typical liberal hypocrits.

    Go ahead, digg the comment down, you know you will.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Not all blog submissions are blogspam. Not all blog submissions get the "blogspam" treatment. But please, continue trying to discredit the source, it speaks volumes.
    • TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0The only volumes it speaks is the standard liberal agenda. Blogs are blogs. If people bitch about one they should bitch about all or they are just plain hypocrits.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, I guess that is one (narrow minded) view. Myself, I prefer to weigh the value of the information first before blindly discounting it due to the source.
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10There was an Iraq/Al Qaeda link, for crying out loud top members of Al Qaeda where treated in Iraqi hospitals and had meeting with Iraqi officials, there was not an Iraq 9-11 connection.

    There is a huge difference, and yes Bush also said there was a 9-11/Iraq which was later debunked. If you are going to rail against the administration at least do it correctly.

    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6So do you feel that the administration, at crunch time in 2002 regarding support for another shot at a gulf war, made it clear there was no Iraq - 9/11 connection? Sadly, the Iraq - AQ connection is forever tied to the Iraq - 911 connection that the adminstration actively allowed to be perceived.
    • Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Repins,.. Just because a terrorist is in hospital within your country doesn't mean you know or support terrorism. The 911 highjackers were in America,.. by your logic, this means America harbours terrorists. And just because you've had a meeting with someone doesn't mean you're buddies,.. http://www.billmon.org/archives/rumsfeld%20saddam.jpg Use your friggin head and stop grasping at straws,.. this horse is long dead so you can stop kicking any time now.
  • kingatrock, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'm sure they'll spin it to their favor somehow, mainly by ignoring it. In the history books kids will learn about bush like we learned about nixon, the inside joke of a country. It would be more funny than sad if the entire world wasnt watching.
    • hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Depends how far into the future you are talking when you talk about history. Way out in front, this will probably be called the Oil Wars like the Opium Wars were boiled down to. Even though the two events might be slightly different, I'm sure Britian sold the "economic" benefit of Opium to its people instead of mentioning the negatives.

      Chapter 76: "Although it might be hard to imagine, in the 20th and 21st century Man's main energy source was from burning crude oil in devices called Cars. This was brought to a head when the United States colonized a country called Iraq in 2003. Although Iraq saw oil as a way to equate the trade deficit with America, the USA saw Iraq as a weak military force and invaded with plans of assimilating their government and economy with their own."
  • graddatadda, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Bush could stab a puppy in the head 45 times in an Alabama Southern Baptist MegaChurch on Easter Sunday morning and people would think it was an act of defense against terror.

    Then when the news reported "puppy stabbing by prez," everyone would say it's an obvious slant by the liberal media to report that and how it's considered treason. Furthermore, when people would react negatively about puppies getting stabbed, Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads would bully them down saying how they are pansy liberals for not being readily willing to sacrifice for freedom.
    • arthurclements, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4I find it interesting you would bring up such a vile example.
      Your prejudice against Southern Baptists reveals the hatred in your heart.
      Bush isn't flying buildings into planes, bombing families in markets or decapitating innocents. You clearly have lost your ability to recognize true evil. Good thing people with your values have a hard time getting elected in this country.
    • lobotomy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Megadittoes on that comment! http://limbaugh.com/?q=Enzyte
  • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5Now you'll also need to forget (if you ever knew) that Saddam was the principle source of financial and technological aid for AQ in the Philippines, and they only terminated their relationship after 9/11 specifically because they were concerned that the money trail would be too easy to uncover.

    So don't look at that either MmmKay?

    Oh yeah, I'm sure you'll need to erase any recollection of the AQ plot to use liquid based explosives being based in Manila (that is in the Philippines for you smart lefties). That plot was foiled when the apartment caught fire "The Iraqi" (that is the nickname for the bomber of the WTC in 93).
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4i suppose they got that information from someone more reliable than curveball or chalabi..
      recently declassified prewar docs.. oh yeah i trust that crap.
      next you will tell me that prewar intel had saddam trying to get yellow cake from africa..
      oh i know perfect.. saddam had wmds but sent them to iran and vensula for hiding pre war..


      english translations of iraqi docements coming with the disclaimer from a senior administration offfical
      "the professionals' way of saying that these items cannot definitively be certified but seem to be the real thing."

      LOLOLOLOL yeah i have seen that before.. we also couldnt confirm iraq having wmds
      we also couldnt confirm iraqs 9/11 conections
      but a lack of evidence is only proof he is hiding it.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I almost forgot to be rude to you mmmmmmkay.. do you get it now.. maybe watch something besides fox or research the info yourself. MMMMMMMkay

      I really hate to soil myself by getting down to your level, but if you are going to throw pooo i have to prepare to throw someback.
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Oh you are sooo funny. I get nothing but personal attacks and you, decide to take offence at me fighting back, when I wasn't directing anything at you. Priceless.

      At least your sceen name fitts your mentality,

      Now Moooove along Mmmkay?
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1
    [comment buried, show commenthide comment] - 1 digg The thing I find ironic is the same people that bitch and moan when a blog links is put on digg and the ones submitting and digging stories from thinkrpogress, a liberal blog.

    Typical liberal hypocrits.

    Go ahead, digg the comment down, you know you will.
    by TheEditor1 2 minutes ago




    What's wrong 29 percenter? Truth hurt? Waaaaa!


    Get over it....Either REFUTE what the link says, or get over it....Crying and whining and "blaming" the "dems" ain't helping this country.

    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7the reply button is that little blue one under the parent's post... that's where you...

      you know what...nevermind.
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Actually according to todays polling, it is up to 45%, thought you'd want to know. :)
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"29 percenter:" refers to the depth's at which it fell. (Harris poll and other's for Job performance as pres) It has become the "nickname" on blogs for Bush Apologist's. Hell, 43 percent of FOX News viewers still thinks SADDAM did 911...Says alot.

      Listen, you can hear them off in the distance....shh... baaaaaaaaaa!

      ;-)
  • bingymon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Right now the connection is irrelevant because they've spent so much time making themselves and the narrow minded public believe the lies.

    Would they be able to invade Iraq today based on the facts? I think not.
    • arthurclements, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It seems you have much contempt for the "narrow minded public". Where I come from, that is called democracy.
  • arthurclements, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6So, there was Al Qaida in San Diego, New Jersey and Florida but NOT IN IRAQ?
    Do you want us to suspend all common sense?
    • cookiemonster01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7seems like it's easier to sneak into America then it is to get into Iraq
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Don't forget Lodi, CA. But they were just there for the world famous Zinfandel.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"So, there was Al Qaida in San Diego, New Jersey and Florida but NOT IN IRAQ?
      Do you want us to suspend all common sense?"

      So you're saying just because there were aQ members in Iraq, that means Iraq supports aQ? You said it yourself, there were aQ members in SD, NJ, and Florida, does that mean we (Americans) support aQ, and have a connection with them?

      Speaking of common sense...
  • cookiemonster01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2America has had very few average presidents.
  • phoofy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@TubaTechno

    "You know the liberal community will be up in arms if ABC or Fox News tries to run a report supporting the president even if they use a quote from Bush "there was no connection to 9/11"..."

    I'd like to see ABC or Fox do that. And as long as their direct quotes predate any other quotes saying otherwise.
  • vbbx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Think Progress, that's a laugher. Poor people at this Donk Soros sponsored site wouldn't know truth if it bit them ... And the Democrat addendum of the Senate report, it doesn't even agree with the actual report, just a bunch of Bush bashing lies..

    There is a book in progress, it will be out soon. The source will be all those captured ISI documents. All the truth you will need, in the words of Iraqis.

    You can get a sample right here ...
    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008103.php

    The Senate report writers must have missed this one, heck even CNN could find the connection in 1999. wonder why the Senate couldn't find it...
    http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
    • Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How is there a connection here?

      Saddam offers asylum, is different than Saddam pays for war on the USA.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I must agree with Horseshoe. IIS recieves many documents, some which get substantiated, some which don't. The quote of the IIS document "Captain's Quarters" is referring to seems remarkably sparse... and indirect.

      BTW: it seems the original PDF has been moved or gone missing completely.
  • billspaced, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13To the guy who said "Bush wasn't under any oath" I say: He took the oath of office. Basically, the guy is always under oath to protect the country and uphold its laws. Even though he's taken more vacations than any other president, he has still been "on the clock" so to speak. Being president means never really having a day off. After all, there are wars to be waged, bad people to torture, sick people to neglect, and poor people to rob.
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Exactly. HIS number one job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

      Anyone that needs reference to it look at his oath he swore, TWICE.
  • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9CAUGHT_IN_TEXT

    A list of Democratic officials, INCLUDING former PResident Clinton talking about the threat of IRaq to the US:

    What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    JANUARY 30, 2004 | Printable Version
    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

    http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
    • Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Everything after 1999 is simply a fruit of a poisoned tree that Bush planted (ie his 'evidence').

      Regardless... these do not link them, which is what the article is about, and in no way makes the case for invasion.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Before my child goes in to die to protect our freedoms in the next war, that administration better have ***** hard evidence. No *****, did Bush ever think of the fact that Saddam may have been lying to everyone WMDs? Calling our bluff? Waiting for us to come and attack him and weakening us in an occupied country?

      I WANT HARD EVIDENCE
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3WHERE did those Dem's get the info to make them say those quotes from eth3l? Exactly, from the administration.

      Congress was NOT told about the USAF laughing at the admins info on the "unmanned drone aircraft."

      Congress was NOT told about the Aluminum tubes that Rice claimed they could only be "what we say they are for". They were not even the same measurements.

      Congress was NOT told about the Mobile Labs not being what the admin claimed they were.

      Congress was NOT told about the admin getting LIES from Chalabi

      Congress was NOT told about the admin getting LIES from "Curve ball".

      Congress was NOT told about the 12 yr old "college" thesis that Powell used in front of the UN that was found on the INTERNET and was in reference to capabilities from the FIRST gulf war.


      Congress was NOT given the same info, and was SOLD on info and the "threat' by the administrations Office of Special Plans headed by Douglas Fieht and Rumsfeld, and Scooter Libby (Remember him folks?)

      Those "quotes" do nothing, but show what the Congress was sold on.
      Iraq wasn't a threat in any way, shape, or form during the Iraq/Iran war, during the 8 months I spent there in 90-91, after 12 yrs of Sanctions, or even 2 minutes before this war started.

      Those quotes, are useless, and merely represent the bill of goods they were "sold".
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@successrealm
      Most of those quotes are from before W was even elected. So, you are a moron.

      Anyways, great collection of quotes!
  • EviLMoNKeY3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Doesn't this topic belong in Shoutwire or something?
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@successrealm
      Most of those quotes are from before W was even elected. So, you are a moron.
      by kylesellers







      Actually MORON, you just shot yourself in the foot by mentioning that...



      1) Clinton FULLY understood exactly what Bush Sr. and every other engaged person with two braincells shooting synapses at each other understood. That OCCUPYING Iraq, wouldn't work. Didn't work, did it moron?
      2) The UN Weapons Inspectors stated that after 1998 Iraq was about NINETY FIVE percent WMD free, and anything left over was pretty much deemed useless due to shelf lives of those items. So theeeeeere goes the validity of those quotes and the "threat" involved. Woooooosh! What was that sound? That was your "threat", being blown away again.

      Ever been to Iraq? I have. I've been in a war there. Call me when:
      1) You find your head in your ass and can show us all the "threat". Good luck!
      2) You've "gotten the T-shirt" and spent a ***** day there.
  • graddatadda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I find it interesting you would bring up such a vile example.
    Your prejudice against Southern Baptists reveals the hatred in your heart.
    Bush isn't flying buildings into planes, bombing families in markets or decapitating innocents. You clearly have lost your ability to recognize true evil. Good thing people with your values have a hard time getting elected in this country."

    spin spin spin!

    Silly little person...you shouldn't assume things you don't know.
    • Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2How does this link Alqauida to Saddam?
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5True evil is killing men, women, and children from the comfort of your throne.
  • wibblewibble, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4And you will all vote for Bush again wont you, and if you dont, he will get in again anyway. Yup. Nothing to see here move along,
    • billspaced, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7What? Are you kidding? Do you know that Bush can't run for president again? Are you from this planet?
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Wow, They must have stopped teaching civics in those pubic schools.

      Bush can't run again, so no one can vote for him again bright eyes.
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3wibblewibble, google "term limits" +President
  • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7You know, I love this feature on Digg where conservatives can quickly find comments by other conservatives. It's really useful. All I have to do is scroll down, look for comments highlighted in gray and click "show comment," and I can see what my fellow conservatives think.

    Whoever thought this feature up is a genious.

    /sarcasm
    • graddatadda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5genious indeed! It's like looking through the garbage for some type of substance
    • cookiemonster01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7lol or eating your own *****
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2kylesellers
      "You know, I love this feature on Digg where conservatives can quickly find comments by other conservatives. It's really useful. All I have to do is scroll down, look for comments highlighted in gray and click "show comment," and I can see what my fellow conservatives think."

      I know. I think it's funny as hell because you know that everyone goes and open the gray comments first. How else does a comment get -63 diggs unless everyone looked at it!?
      I mean surely the lefties wouldn't just blindly pile on negatives,, would they?
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10See, as a technology site this site attracts people of above-average intelligence with an strong aptitude for logical thinking so you get a different bias than you would at say a theological web site.
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1graddatadda, cookiemonster01,

      Separating the garbage and the ***** from the truth is easy. Anything laced with vulgarity and hate is 90% certain to be from the left, and therefore BS as well as totally juvenile.
    • josho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@bcismar

      That's why you're being so respectful in your 20 separate posts on this thread, including the one up there where I calmly ask you for a source and you attack me four seperate times, right?
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@FlaG8r

      Or the fact that so many people in IT field go to ultra liberal schools like Stanford and spend much of their life in Silicon Valley which is just downwind from Frisco.
    • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@kylesellers-Funny that Time magazines listed Digg as one of their recommended sites. Users can filter through the *****. Anytime I see something with alot of negative diggs, I know that the law of shifting through ***** has worked.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4Digg is going to become a joke if left wing extremists fill it up with propaganda and inaccurate statements from ThinkProgress - a left wing extremist blog that is usually wrong


    Can we move pasted the ThinkProgress propaganda and use real stories and information from valid sources?.
    • graddatadda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I 'member back in '45 dem goo' ol days when pappy used to sit us in our lap and tell us dem true stories about digg...the good ol digg...where men didn't use dem things like "thankin" or "readin them thar books"

      sheesh..get over yourself. You want to feel like you got the truth, my I direct your attention to Matt Drudge, Anne Coulter or Hannity
    • Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2what are valid sources? How about a vote on that before any sources are posted.
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Can we move pasted the ThinkProgress propaganda and use real stories and information from valid sources?.
      LastVisibleDog



      Sure dude! Just ask the Bush admin and the Office of Special Plans, or maybe Rove.
      It's not like they "pay" for stories to reflect their truths.

      Or go to FOX News, Lot's of "truthiness" there huh?
  • withears, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"Pre-emptive war was invented by Adolf Hitler. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't take anyone who came up with such a thing seriously."

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican (and also responsible for defeating fascism)
  • moxley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Yakmushi ""Now if only we could figure out some way to catch Bush getting a BJ in the Oval Office...""

    Well now that that Gukkert/Gannon guy is gone the opportunity to catch Bush and Rove getting BJs in the oval office is probably gone...
  • Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Inaccurate my ASS!!

    This is the neo-con top brass spouting ***** *on tape*.

    Republican neo-con Digg trolls strike again.

    Digg really needs an exhume function to counter all the bogus buries.
    • Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I agree,

      the headline is accurate, the text below it is accurate, and the linked website shows US government officials confirming the headline.

      The story is accurate.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6People on this site label political opinion and transcripts as inaccurate.

      Its just a label made to stories that didn't match their agenda.

      What inaccurate should read to you is "hot argument in progress"
  • edverb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Government of the Big Lie, by the Big Lie, for the Big Lie.

    "His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
    • edverb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Oh, who doubts that we're living under big lies? You look at a videotape of direct quotes, without commentary -- and mark it as inaccurate.

      Valerie Plame wasn't covert, right?

      Terri Schiavo had brain function, right?

      We know where the WMDs are, right? I heard they were in Syria, right?

      Saddam sought uranium from Niger, right? Which he was to enrich with his unsuitable aluminum tubes, right? He has reconstituted nuclear weapons, right? That's after he could have sprayed American soil with his unmanned aerial balsa wood drones...right?

      Abu Ghraib was a fraternity prank, right? We don't torture, right? Club Gitmo -- tropical paradise!

      Wiretapping requires a warrant, right?

      Clearcutting forests means "healthy forests" right? Removing all pollution controls means "clear skies", right? There is scientific doubt about global warming, right?

      No one could have imagined they'd use planes as missiles. Bush couldn't leave the classroom without alarming the children. Osama bin Laden is a stain on a cave wall. The air was safe to breathe at Ground Zero....RIGHT?

      All a bunch of contemptible lies. They lie, and you on the rightwing swear to it. After all you know to be true -- that the've bribed American reporters, that they've planted their own operatives into White House press briefings, that they've aired government funded propaganda on nightly newscasts without disclosing the source...

      That they've spied on their own people, had people DISAPPEARED and TORTURED without due process of law, held Americans in custody without charges or benefit of an attorney, and now seek to eliminate habeus corpus...you still support them.

      May God have mercy on you for bearing false witness. Digg this down too, because you dare not embarrass yourselves trying to refute the truth.
  • MagikHelmet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1We need to give back Iraq to Saddam and say sorry. Hell, let's give him one of our states as a good faith gesture....say, Florida. Just a bunch of old people there anyway.
    • cookiemonster01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3thats a good idea.

      but then bush might have to "liberate" another 4 countries to make up for it.



  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Insults are not debate. I guess this is all we can expect from the lefties. Bush made the right decision to invade Iraq because they were a brutal regime that sought to kill Americans and our allies. The threat of Saddam's regime has been neutralized. We are dealing with other threats now. We on the right fight the terrorists, you on the left fight people on the right. I guess it is easier because the worst we will do is debate you, the jihadis will incinerate you. That is why you don't read blog comments from leftists mocking Islam like they mock Christianity."


    I'm not being a smart ass but what threat did Saddam pose? I keep hearing this but nobody can tell me what it is. He invaded Kuwait to get back oil they stole but thats really all I can think of in recent history. Iraq was pretty much crippled when we invaded them.

    You're right, we do fight terrorists now. Iraq was a pretty locked down place before we "freed" it. There are many more terrorists there now then there were before the invasion.

    Also you're right! The jihadists will burn me now that we've given them the oppertunity to...
    • graddatadda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"Insults are not debate. I guess this is all we can expect from the lefties. "

      I didn't know Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage and Pat Robertson were lefties!? Wow! You learn something new everyday!

  • sritzhaupt, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Inaccurate? This is clearly a liberal, left-wing website taking various excerpts in order to try to put together an illogical point. Go to the "About" page and read the bios on the staff and contributors... Tom Daschle?? No bias there!

    Podesta - Clinton Chief of Staff
    Sperling - National Economic Adviser to Clinton
    Harvey - Regular Guest to Al Frakken (King of the wackos!)
    • DaManDOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Come now, sritzhaupt. Everyone knows that our King of the Wackos is Michael Moore.

      By "our" I mean those whom -- like myself -- consider themselves a liberal and are proud of it. After all, as George Clooney said, "...we don't have to put the word 'compassionate' in front of it to say we actually give a s**t about people."
  • chall2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate?!
    How can the content of the VIDEO be inaccurate? Are people claiming that these were impersonators? Who are these people that still believe this administration? Damn, must be some sort of "battered wife" syndrome.
    • egh3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0I marked it inaccurate because it relies on common misconceptions and/or crafty editing. Too bad most people never do their own research and believe everything a website tells them.

      Don't get me wrong the war in Iraq was the greatest mistake the US has made in decades, but there is no reason we should be dishonest when trying to right a wrong.
  • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Every single thing the Left claimed would happen vis-a-vis Iraq has happened.
    Every single thing the Right claimed would happen vis-a-vis Iraq has not happened.

    You're batting 0. We're batting 1000. And yet you still keep saying you're right.

    You've been right about nothing. If you'd like to claim otherwise, then SHARE A SOURCE. You've seen ours. They're transcripts and video tapes of all of your favorite Admin folks, saying things that are subsequently proven false by sworn testimony and official government panels, many of which are overseen by Republicans.

    No one cares what you wish to be true. You get to live in the world you have, not the one you want. Like it or not, this really is a reality-based community.

    So if you want to continue defending the indefensible, you'll need to start providing some data.

    You've seen ours. Where's yours?


    (psst....Malkin's blog doesn't count. Remember - no one cares what you THINK.)


    Show us.
    • aftk2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Damn, you're on fire throughout this discussion.
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Precisely forumgirl.
      We are dealing with pure, Bush Apologists (and let's be clear here, that's exactly what they are, STILL following along blindly in lockstep after 5 1/2 years of failure after failure, and lie after lie, paying reporters, etc etc etc ...)


      You are correct, they do not see reality, and would rather be a "party" than simply an AMERICAN.

      Reality and truth is something that they cannot grasp.

      It reminds me of what a Bush Aide said awhile back regarding "reality" and how it was going to measured, and manipulated.

      --->"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."



      America is being brought to it's knees by "but but but's", NO accountability for anything, known failures along with those still in power from the days of Watergate and Iran Contra, and men like this....who would try to fool us with THEIR "reality".

  • esdjco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I love cheney...soooo awesome at lying! budduddaa thats all folks!
  • diaboIickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Buried like the innacurate bs that this story is.

    ****thumbs down****
    • ReportAbuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3************ ABUSE ALERT ************

      The user above, diaboiickungfu (to you it looks like diabolickungfu), is impersonating a genuine user, Diabolickungfu. This impostor has impersonated other genuine Digg users as well. This impostor is breaking Digg's Terms of Use Agreement, Section 3.1 : http://digg.com/tos .

      Please report this user by emailing this imposter's user name (please copy and paste for complete accuracy) and the URL of this thread to abuse@digg.com, and state in the email what you yourself see as the violation.

      If you see yourself being impersonated in a similar fashion, report it immediately to abuse@digg.com with all pertinent details.

      People who intentionally break Digg's Terms of Use Agreement will only serve to bring Digg down and lose its popularity among true Digg users. It is important that people like this are reported and stopped.

      Thank you.
  • diaboIickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0No hidden agenda here LOL

    Admin Organization:American Progress Action Fund
    Admin Street1:1333 H St NW
    Admin Street2:10th floor
    Admin Street3:
    Admin City:Washington
    Admin State/Province:DC
    Admin Postal Code:20005
    Admin Country:US
    Admin Phone:+1.2024818156
    Admin Phone Ext.:
    Admin FAX:
    Admin FAX Ext.:
    Admin Email:hostmaster@americanprogressaction.org
    Tech ID:35603570-NSI
    Tech Name:American Majority Fund
    Tech Organization:American Majority Fund
    Tech Street1:805 15th St. NW
    Tech Street2:Suite 400
    Tech Street3:
    Tech City:Washington
    Tech State/Province:DC
    Tech Postal Code:20005
    Tech Country:US
    Tech Phone:+1.2026821611
    Tech Phone Ext.:
    Tech FAX:
    Tech FAX Ext.:
    Tech Email:no.valid.email@worldnic.com
    Name Server:NS7.WORLDNIC.COM
    Name Server:NS8.WORLDNIC.COM
    • ReportAbuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3************ ABUSE ALERT ************

      The user above, diaboiickungfu (to you it looks like diabolickungfu), is impersonating a genuine user, Diabolickungfu. This impostor has impersonated other genuine Digg users as well. This impostor is breaking Digg's Terms of Use Agreement, Section 3.1 : http://digg.com/tos .

      Please report this user by emailing this imposter's user name (please copy and paste for complete accuracy) and the URL of this thread to abuse@digg.com, and state in the email what you yourself see as the violation.

      If you see yourself being impersonated in a similar fashion, report it immediately to abuse@digg.com with all pertinent details.

      People who intentionally break Digg's Terms of Use Agreement will only serve to bring Digg down and lose its popularity among true Digg users. It is important that people like this are reported and stopped.

      Thank you.
  • diggfraud, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Buried this crappy story!

    Lets talk about all the ***** lies clinton told in his 8 years - what trash!

    While Monica sucked America was *****! eat ass libtards!
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No one cares about people like you any more. You stopped being relevant the day more GIs died in Iraq than people died on 9/11.

      You're the minority now. Behave as such.
  • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How was this marked inaccurate?
  • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@diggfraud-Who gives a ***** if Clinton got head? At least we know he was a happy president!
  • diggthiscrap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What ***** keeps marking this as inaccurate?

    Why is it easy to mark things down, but never mark them up? Such as flagging this as "appropriate" after its been flagged inappropriate? This current system taints the story.
  • diggfraud, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0stienback- easy enough for u to say ask the 3,000 the died while clinton raped
    • chall2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3raped? Umm, sure. I don't suppose anyone has any proof of that?
      Don't get me wrong, Clinton clearly wasn't faithful to Hillary but raped? Was that the women who claimed to be his number one fan (after the "attack") or the women who brought the allegation decades later?
      Anyway, there is no doubt that getting a BJ is far worse than starting a false war that kills 10's of thousands, costs 100's of billions, increases terror world-wide, and destroys US credibility. Yep, no doubt about it.
  • diggfraud, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I marked it inaccurate because it is - duh

    • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Clinton raped? Look, I'm sorry you aren't getting ass. But if getting head made Clinton a happy man and took some stress off of his job then what is it my business? 3,000 died while Clinton raped? Dude, get real, tens of thousands have died under Bush! Maybe he needs some head too.....get Condi. Sorry I had to get juvenile on your ass.
    • xenoploid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What the ***** is inaccurate about quotes? Wake up people.
    • diggfraud, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0to steinbeckgirl -

      I rather have Bush killling 10,000 of thousands of terrorists then getting a blow job in the oval office and lying about it - you bet I would - doesn't matter what you think your a irrelevant pee size idiot who shouldn't give a voice anyways so move on ***** ....
    • Diabolickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I thought some of these other neocons were stupid assholes, but you my friend take the cake. I hope to whatever god you believe in that you are just ***** around and trolling, because if you're not then you are seriously one of the stupidest ***** alive.
    • diaboIickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Ahh the personal attack,,,

      you definately are your own worst enemy when you assume to know what you are talking about.
    • ReportAbuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2************ ABUSE ALERT ************

      The user above, diaboiickungfu (to you it looks like diabolickungfu), is impersonating a genuine user, Diabolickungfu. This impostor has impersonated other genuine Digg users as well. This impostor is breaking Digg's Terms of Use Agreement, Section 3.1 : http://digg.com/tos .

      Please report this user by emailing this imposter's user name (please copy and paste for complete accuracy) and the URL of this thread to abuse@digg.com, and state in the email what you yourself see as the violation.

      If you see yourself being impersonated in a similar fashion, report it immediately to abuse@digg.com with all pertinent details.

      People who intentionally break Digg's Terms of Use Agreement will only serve to bring Digg down and lose its popularity among true Digg users. It is important that people like this are reported and stopped.

      Thank you.
  • JimNtexas, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Reposted since hate-crazed moonbats try to bury the truth:

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 |

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 |
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8What difference does it make what the Democrats said?

      They control NO branch of government. And yet you blame them for the Iraq fiasco rather than the people who actually broke it?

      Accept that your people are at fault. It's not open for debate.

    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@forumgirl

      You are very naive about politics. Republicans need support from Democrats to push the war. Quit trying to wash their hands of it. I didn't see any Democratic filibusters over the vote.
    • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@geekee

      "You are very naive about politics. Republicans need support from Democrats to push the war. Quit trying to wash their hands of it. I didn't see any Democratic filibusters over the vote."

      No, I'm sorry, I'm not.

      If you read my response just a bit more carefully, it should be abundantly clear that what I'm doing is, in fact, correcting the same sort of error in the OP that you believe you're correcting in me.

      Of COURSE there's culpability on both sides. But the standard GOP retort to anything that discredits the push to war is "the Democrats said it was ok too".

      My point is simply that this is a feeble counterattack. EVERYONE knows that this is a GOP war. It will be known as such for the rest of time. They're the party in power, they called the shots, and they worked the intelligence.

      Blaming Democrats is as useful as blaming the Whigs. This was Bush's war, and Bush will take the blame.
    • dingdingding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You go forumgirl1! I'm too lazy to fight idiots myself today. But always nice to see someone keep it up.
  • forumgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

    - Hermann Goering, Head of Hitler's Luftwaffe, in testimony at the Nuremberg Trials, April 18, 1946.
  • egh3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That quote needs to be put in broader context. Here is more text to that quote:

    """We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."""

    This broader passage, I think, provides some important context, though one can see it in the original version, too: Goering is trying to justify what happened -- what the regime he ran did -- by suggesting that all the regimes are the same. England, America, Russia, Germany; democracy, Parliament, fascism, communism; it's all the same; all war is just regimes manipulating their foolish citizens. The German decision to start World War II, by this logic, is the same as the British and American decisions to resist the Germans.

    So that, I think, is the problem facing those who use the quote: Their proposed moral equivalence between Goering's Nazi Germany and America only works if they are also willing to accept Goering's moral equivalence of Nazi Germany and Roosevelt's America and Churchill's England. And if they are, like I am, repelled by the latter moral equivalence -- if they think that Americans really did deliberately endorse a war against Germany, or that, even if they were influenced by their elected representatives, their elected representatives were properly doing their job by exercising such leadership -- then what's the point of citing as authority a man (a monster) who was asserting it?
    • almostretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You almost have a point here, except that you are missing the actually meaning of Goering's quote. The actual act of going to war is almost always the same. The leaders employ the tactics that Goering cited, even if the threat is real or not. Hitler attack Poland because he believed he he could justify his actions as a pre-emptive strike against a threat. Chamberlain declared war on Germany because he believe he could convince the people of England that they were threatened. The American congress declared war on Germany because they believed they could justify it to the American people. In all declarations of war, the leaders must be sure that they can justify there initial declaration for war, irrelevant of weather a threat is real or not.

      Weather the threat is real or not isn't really the point of Goering's quote, he is merely trying to get ac cross the point that Leaders need to be able justify war to its people and that it is very easy to do.

      The actual way in which the war is conducted does not really come into play in this comment. Albeit the Nazi's committed untold of atrocities, that is besides the point in the context of this quote, because the tactics that they use to start the war (and i am only talking about starting a war) are the same that the Bush administration employed, namely fear-mongering in all its forms.

      We don't have to to accept any moral equivalence here, especially considering the holocaust, which i am assuming you are alluding to, because the holocaust doesn't play into the starting of world war two.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 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.