Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Bush administration manipulates intelligence to tie Al Queda to Iraq
seattletimes.nwsource.com — A pentagon general inspector report made public reveals how the Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence so that it can conveniently tie Al Queda activities to Iraq, leading to our current war there. Our intelligence agency did not fail us, Bush did. Please digg to make the last 32% of Bush's supporters to see the light!
pengapine- 2734 diggs
- digg it
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -22/+16learn something new every day
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1546121267852729018&q=ruppert+911&hl=en- keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15"The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaida was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June."
"This is al-Qaida operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about al-Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq."
"lol, now that that the evidence is dead how about you just trust us next time?" is probably his next statement. - therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16What I don't get is how more people don't know that Muslim Extremists and Neo-cons had the exact same teacher - Google "Leo Strauss" if you don't know (or believe it). They both come from the same ideology and mindset...yet they're fighting?
Video, too - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l0ceOoxujk
(sorry for the comment spam) - DonWilson, on 10/12/2007, -30/+11Why can't we live in the days of the Clinton administration when everything was perfect, no problems, no evil administration and absolute honesty.
- therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23In other news: Cows moo and Dogs bark
- keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7@ mrfoos
Barack Obama isn't a woman.
Barack Obama is not a man either.
Barack Obama IS THE MAN - th3heretic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Bush administration manipulates intelligence NO WAI!
- aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4Zarqawi was in Iraq and being paid by Saddam before and during the war. Zarqawi was a terrorist. If you can't see a tie with terrorists there, you are fooling yourself.
- Yokohamalion, on 10/12/2007, -23/+5Ok, I'm gonna make this real simple for those of you who need your dots connected. Iraq and 9/11 were linked. How you ask? Terrorists are coming out of the mid-east due to a dictatorial regimes that stifle freedoms provide no economic infrastructure to the growing masses of unemployed uneducated youth who turn to religious fanaticism as the only way to bring meaning to there lives. Case in point: SADDAM. You don't stop terrorism by killing terrorist but by killing the root of the problem. ie. regime change. Add to the mix the prior research into and use of WMD's Saddam made the perfect target to stop the growing threat of future attacks upon th US.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13But they DO have ties to Iraq. It was al-CIAda who significantly aided Saddam's rise to power in his country. It's even admitted.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4@donwilson
Well yeah sure if you approve of innocent men women and children . . babies, being gassed to death and run over with tanks then machine gunned down as they run out of a building burning that the feds set ablaze.
Don't know 'bout you but I actually looked into the Waco murder. The traitor Clinton should spend the rest of his life in prison.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665&q=Waco%3A+Rules+OF+Engagement+1/2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1755692679103175934&q=Waco%3A+Rules+OF+Engagement+2/2 - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Welcome to Bible-God's reality, 21st Century GOP-Butt Pyramids & Pedos
The legacies of the late Republican Party: 9/11, butt pyramids instead of WMDs, finger pointing, finger holing underaged pages, bribe taking, not catching Osama, running up our debt with Communist China, uncontrolled borders and shorelines, high medical care and energy prices, and the moat around Baghdad.
It is because of a bush voter that the country is in the atrocious position it is in today.
- keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15"The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaida was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June."
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -17/+48Really? I've never heard such accusations before?! It's a good thing this article was posted . . . we never hear about these things on Digg. Bush administration manipulates intelligence? Color me surprised!
- RubeusEsclair, on 10/12/2007, -43/+12Wtf, it says that it was a report compiled to convince-- it sounds like fancy wording for a proposal-- the higher-ups that they were linked, and that it was disputed--not a lie.
Color me suprised, Digg again goes anti-republican on a story that is a huge stretch. You sir, are dugg down, and the story marked inaccurate. - thedobber, on 10/12/2007, -38/+4Big deal.
It's not like every other entity manipulates and cherry picks the facts to make their case. Look at any legal proceeding, corporate dog and pony or political event. Heck, I bet you did it last night at the bar while you were chatting up the blond. - olik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I for one am shocked *SHOCKED* to lean that there is *GAMBLING* going on in this establishment!
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31@thedobber,
Ask the relatives of the over 3,000 US service people who've died in Iraq if it's a "big deal."
*****. - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8PRESIDENT BUSH IS A COURAGEOUS MAN
It takes a lot of courage to send young people to their deaths and kill thousands of innocent civilians while you avoided going to Vietnam yourself preferring to snort cocaine and get drunk. - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"Big deal."
-------------------
REDEMPTION FOR DICKLESS BUSHWIPES!!
PICK ONE, SIGN UP AND SHUT THE FUK UP (not necessarily in that order, B1TCH)!
Air Force
http://www.airforce.com/
Air National Guard
http://www.goang.com
Army
http://www.goarmy.com
Army National Guard
http://www.1-800-GO-GUARD.com
Coast Guard
http://www.gocoastguard.com
Marines
http://www.marines.com
Military Career Guide Online
http://www.todaysmilitary.com/
Minnesota National Guard
http://www.dma.state.mn.us/index.htm
Navy
http://www.navy.com/
- RubeusEsclair, on 10/12/2007, -43/+12Wtf, it says that it was a report compiled to convince-- it sounds like fancy wording for a proposal-- the higher-ups that they were linked, and that it was disputed--not a lie.
- bonkers1, on 10/12/2007, -15/+51Noooo! I don't believe it!! You terrorists! The Bush administration if full of extremely intelligent people who want to protect America from Iraq's evil!! How could you say such a thing!
;)- xbair, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12Or rather the Bush administration is full of intelligent people who benefit from "protecting" America from Iraq's evil.
- aikimann, on 10/12/2007, -63/+11Cherry picked != untrue. The link was there. There were terrorist training camps allowed to operate in Iraq, some of Saddam's people HAD been in contact with Al Queda, and Saddam sent $10,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Terrorist ties? Definitely.
People can close their eyes and cover their ears, or start name calling all they want, but it won't change the fact that it's true.
While I wish Bush hadn't ***** up so bad in Iraq, we were right to go there and we need to make sure Iraq can take care of itself before we leave.- iamlegend86, on 10/12/2007, -51/+13Come on don't tell them that. This is a site for little kids to ignore any facts, and continue to post the same stuff over, and over again. The only stories we see are weed is good, Bush is bad, Sony is bad, RIAA is bad. The same thing everyday, all day. And they say marijuana doesn't affect the memory, yet they forget they just had the same story 5 seconds ago.
- deweather, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38SOURCES! I need sources. I didn't digg you down, but I understand why people would. Without sources to what you say, it adds nothing to the argument. Oh, and Limbaugh and Cheney aren't great sources so don't go using them.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Agreed with dewather.
You guys who complain about Digg never offer any evidence to the commentary. You just go straight to the ad hominem.
I believe there was no connection because I have never seen any compelling evidence to suggest there was and plenty to prove doctored info. SO, prove me wrong. I'll change my mind if you are convincing.
But you aren't going to, are you?
This is some kind of psychological defense mechanism, isn't it?
You are just too far in to back out, aren't you?
Anyway prove me wrong, refute the article. Put up or shut up.
Too much is at stake to humor you and protect your ego. - yakski, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Well you lie just like Cheney... there were NEVER any training facilities with al-Zarqawi in Iraq prior to 9/11. He in fact did operate facilities in Afghanistan, so once again your statement is NOT supported by any factual evidence. He clearly was associated with Bin Laden and hated Saddam, and would never have cooperated with Iraqi officials. Look it up. Check the facts... Cheney lies so I guess you might be following his lead. He did move his operation to Iraq prior to the US invasion but it was after 9/11 not before and was not in any way sactioned by Saddam. It was a direct result of his expulsion from Afghanistan after the US invasion, but had nothing to do with Saddam and everything to do with running away from Afghanistan. He entered Iraq via Iran, Saddam's hated enemy. There is absolutely no proof for any allegations that he worked with Saddam... nada, none, zilch.
- phaed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@akiman
ok. you got my attention. please post some trustworthy sources backing your statements and i will change my mind. - tgrossner, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@yakski
Google "Salman Pak".
'nuff said. - badarabdad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5if Saddam was sending money to s.b. families, which i haven't seen evidence of, then it's no more tied to terrorism than what the CIA does all over the world. one example is Nicaragua in the 80s - Iran contra. if you're too young to know what that is, wikipedia has a nice summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra
it's actually an interesting story.
please don't be so simple minded. read a book. do the research yourself. don't take my word or anyone else's for it. if you haven't done the research and don't know the facts, please shut up because you're only keeping the stupidity alive. - anachronaut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ tgrossner
So I googled "Salman Pak" as you suggested, and you know what I found? A bunch of highly credible articles debunking the claim that it was used as an al-Qaeda training camp.
For instance:
"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."
Here's the PDF straight from the Senate Intelligence site (~7MB). Skip on down to page 108 and read it yourself: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Is that what I was supposed to find (I get the impression that it wasn't, but perhaps I'm mistaken), or would you prefer to cherry-pick some links for me that say the opposite?. - aikimann, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Ok, to be clear i said terrorist ties in general. I mentioned no one terrorist specifically. And here are some sources:
"THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp?pg=1
"Congressional investigators say Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel....up to $25,000 each"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/17/iraq/main656284.shtml
"In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."
-911 Commission Report
Any other questions?
PS. It took 10 minutes to gather this information. Do your homework people. - aikimann, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Holy crap, I provide credible sources, and within minutes I'm dugg down?
Why doesn't that surprise me? - muchachoburacho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard
the weekly standard is hardly a credible source. - aikimann, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I agree, I'll post more sources then. But how about addressing the other points? Namely the payments to families of suicide bombers and the meetings between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda?
- aikimann, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2An excerpt from a study by the Joint Center for Operational Analysis. (a directorate within the United States Joint Forces Command, which is responsible for operations research and lessons learned)
Excerpt:
"Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training."
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf
Also, for the commenters above, I never said Al Qaeda trained in Iraq. I said terrorists did. My whole issue with Saddam is that he did have terrorist ties, and the evidence supports this. - aikimann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3People who yell political stuff like "Impeach that *****" get diggs. I post evidence backing up an opinion, and i get dugg down.
My faith in humanity is waning.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -11/+60I don't think the last 32% have the Internet...
or access to the outside world...- iamlegend86, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Nope, not at all. More like the only people who give a damn about polls are the people who vote in them to make what they hate look bad. The people who don't care, just don't vote, except for the election. Hence, why Bush is president, and Kerry isn't. Also why Paul, Obama, and Clinton will never come close either. Get off your ass, and get outside yourself.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clinton_approval_rating.JPG
OMG a president with a positive approval rating!? - cozinator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_approval_ratings_line_graph.png
- therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9thetaoofbill,
You couldn't be more right. In fact, a recent study showed that around 30% of Americans are still without internet and most of those don't even want it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2323460320070323
- gonknet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Is that like Al Qaeda?
- pairanoyd, on 10/12/2007, -15/+60God damn I wish they would impeach this *****. Clinton almost got the chair for a blowjob.
But this ***** is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American kids and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Not to mention wrecking our economy.
He probably eats babies for breakfast and sacrifices puppies in the oval office too.
Only 653 days left. How far down can he take us in that time? Another war I dare say is coming.- BoogerRed, on 10/12/2007, -32/+10Dude the economy is actually pretty damned good. Dow at record highs doesn't signal bad economy. I agree though. Kick his goofy ass out of office but atleast when you bitch, be accurate.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44Given our debt has doubled since 2000, the dollar's slide, our reliance on foreign investment, and our consumer-based economy STILL spending more than it earns, there's plenty to be concerned about.
Just because you got a bonus and free donuts at work today doesn't mean your 8 grand worth of credit card bills went away. - definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4The market is usually indicative / responsive to testimony from Bernanke or someone in the Fed as well as the Fed Funds rate, not a president. The Fed Funds rate affects quite a few commodities on the stock market. The president gets to pick the chairman of the Fed, that's true, but the list of candidates is supplied by the Fed to prevent the President from going FEMA Brown with monetary policy.
Sure, Bush's tax cuts did give the stock market a boost that day, but I highly doubt that his tax cuts have a long lasting effect on stock prices. At most a couple of days. If you remember from the 200 point drop, Bernanke said not to worry and the markets responded back. As I've been studying it for my Money & Capital Markets class, it seems more reactionary to events and things that happen then a president "creating jobs." I invested in light crude before gas prices started going up, and I'm seeing the return right now. How does a President create jobs? My guess is tax breaks for companies. This allows them to have more in the company coffers, and evaluate where they need people. Either that or public works projects.
As the poster above me said, going back to the gold standard would be, in my opinion, a wise move. Sure, the Keynesian economists would argue it would deflate, this is true. But it would give the dollar a true value and have a backing to the note. I think that's a good thing.
If a President wanted to effectively boost the economy for a long time, they'd need to get rid of the double taxation practice or cut the amount of regulations a company has to follow; however, this is a double edged sword. Given the scandals in 2001, it's tough to trust a lot of companies creative accountants. Back to boosting the economy, your earnings at a given company are taxed, and then you pay personal income taxes on that remaining balance. I suppose that this would be equivalent to political suicide though, as it would decrease the amount of money the government could access. He would, however, be very popular with the people.
Back to your first point. Bush won't be impeached (this coming from an Independent). Quite frankly, the last few months have been filled with more scandals than one would assume from an 8 year presidency. Democrats do, however, know that he's out of office soon. Clinton was charged with two years left. By the time the proceedings finished with Bush's refusal to testify or anything, he could be out of office. It's better to let him be accurately portrayed by historians for who he was than impeaching him. Would you really want a Dick Cheney being head of the country for a few months?
Some of these may be incorrect points, but I tried to be as objective and nonpartisan as I could. - rds260, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Dude, the chief economic indicators are inflation, unemployment and interest rates, all great under Bush. The indicators you cite are meaningless if other 3 are good.
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"God damn I wish they would impeach this *****."
You really want Cheny as President? - sonaro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Don't forget clubbing baby seals.
- arcangelgabriel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"You really want Cheny as President?"
Good point. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11What do you mean?
1) Impeach Cheney first, then Bush and the GOP gets to pick its replacement.
2) Impeach them both at the same time and we get President Pelosi.
(I know that latter option sends shivvers down some spines, but I think she'd do just fine -- all she'd have time for is cleaning up the mess BushCo made, hardly any for a new agenda.). - macslut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1definiteform,
You would've been totally dugg up if you had only written, "...the list of candidates is supplied by the Fed to prevent the President from going FEMA Brown with monetary policy." - tgrossner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@Dumbledorito
You are SO right. Bonus and free donuts? Who wants that when we could have upwards of 10% unemployment like France, etc.
There is no doubt that that people in this country need to change their spending habits for their own sakes, but this economy is going strong, and the biggest indicator is that people are working! - JLouise, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Since you brought up Clinton and this is about Bush lying, etc about Iraq, please go and read President Bill Clinton's State of the Union Address of 01-27-98, If you print it the part I would like you to read is on Page 8 of part 2. "Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them." My goodness child, please do a little research before being so bombastic. I could quote many other Democrates saying similar way before 9/11. Also, just so you know the economy has 96 percent employment.
- Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Definiteform
I'm always astounded when people still reference the gold standard as if it is some holy grail for finances (not that you have, but many do).
Gold is a fixed asset. Economic activity, however, is not fixed. As the population grows, economic activity increases in lockstep with it - more humans means more food, more houses, more clothes, etc. As a result, previous generations were forced to change the ratio of real wealth (gold) to paper wealth from the 1:1 ratio that everyone seems to want to go back to down to 1:2, then 1:5, then 1:20 ... by the time the gold standard was dropped altogether, the ratio was closer to 1:50. That means for every paper dollar in circulation, there was ultimately 0.02 USD in actual gold somewhere guaranteeing the wealth of that dollar. That's not very secure, is it? You could, theoretically, force the US back onto the gold standard by taking a bunch of paper dollars out of circulation so that the ratio became more reasonable, say 1:3, guaranteeing 33% of your wealth was represented with gold somewhere ... but that would cripple economic activity in the country because there wouldn't be enough money in circulation to allow for proper market activity in a population this large.
Gold is just a currency and all currencies, whether they are rare like gold or common like paper, merely represent true wealth. Some currencies are more valued than others, but that is because more people accept them. Gold is more accepted worldwide and is an excellent currency, but that doesn't move it into the category of "true wealth". Your odds of trading it for true wealth are greater than a paper currency if the ***** hits the fan, but even that is not guaranteed. If you want true security, the only way to do it is to buy a house and enough land to feed you and yours should the worst happen. You can't eat gold.
- BoogerRed, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Intel manipulated on Iraq's links to Al Quaeda pre-war. Damn there's something that hasn't been said, discussed, and gone around the bin 600 different ways.
Buried for being a repeat story. Just a different writer. - Tostito, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5I'm tired of all this Bush administration ***** going on around Digg. It's time we stop whining and complaining about it, and start actually doing something about it. Our forefathers would be ashamed at us right now, that's for sure.
- mexmiler, on 10/12/2007, -35/+6liberal propaganda, nothing more, just like everything else on this site... congrats "diggers" you've posted more lies and gotten people to believe them.
grow up and stop telling lies about Bush just to become popular with the crowd that thinks bashing the establishment is cool and fun.
Grow up kids.- deweather, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Problem with your statement is that this article has sources to back up its claim. YOU don't. It would seem to me that you would at least READ the article before you open your mouth. Oh well, I guess that's the problem.....Preconceived notion, find "facts" that seems to support your point, then act on those facts. Good job showing how the hawks think.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Care to address the multiple lies and complete screw-ups (WMD, ties to 9/11, "slam-dunk," greeted as liberators, oil paying for the war, the resurgence of the Taliban, and on and on) of this administration?
Not to mention you're calling a memo from the Pentagon "liberal propaganda." Head explode, much? - rds260, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1This is proof people just read headlines. None of these articles disputes the Bush adminstrations claim that al-Zarqawi operated in Iraq with Saddam's blessing before the war. He was in fact killed in Iraq, thus proving Saddam was giving material support to the same terrorists that hit the US on 9/11, not to mention Saddam paid suicide bombers to terrorize Israel despite the way the media is brainwashing masses to lazy to check the facts for themselves.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@rds260: From the BBC:
"He first appeared in Iraq as the leader of the Tawhid and Jihad insurgent group, merging it in late 2004 with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network."
Let's see... the war started in 2003. Where was Al-Zarqawi?
"Months later, in 2003, he was named as the brains behind a series of lethal bombings - from Casablanca in Morocco to Istanbul in Turkey."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
Was he an evil sumbich that deserved to be offed? Certainly. Was he in Iraq, justifying an invasion of said country? Nope.
The only person saying he was in Iraq before the invasion is Dick "we have confirmed WMD" Cheney, who seems to be living in some VR-land, playing a big game of "Risk."
- Mystic06, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Probably why they hate us in the Middle East. Unless we give them weapons. Then they love our lying asses to death.
- zoezack, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15The truth should be made known over and over, until people wake up. So what if we've heard this already. Evidently we've not heard it enough, yet.
- mexmiler, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1why would we want to hear repeated flagrant lies...
proof you say... you're even more of an idiot than i originally thought - LBTS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6mexmiler, you ask the question, "why would we want to hear repeated flagrant lies..." You have a point, we really don't want to hear repeated flagrant lies.
Would you pass that sentiment on to your buddies Cheney and Bush, because frankly we're all getting very tired of listening to their repeated flagrant lies.
- mexmiler, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1why would we want to hear repeated flagrant lies...
- georgeslivers, on 10/12/2007, -32/+7Let's see:
1. U.S. troops are currently fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein was the former Despot of Iraq.
3. Thus, denying a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is nothing more than an act of desperation by liberal dingbats who support islamofascism over the leader of the free world.
You guys are pitiful.- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8Saying there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda does not mean Al Qaeda did not exist within Iraq. It simply means Al Qaeda and Iraq were not directly working with each other. This has been proven and your logic throws no doubt at the situation. It only shows that you truly have no understanding of the situation.
- deweather, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26HORRIBLE LOGIC
1. We are, but we were in Iraq first. Al Qaeda came later to aid the insurgents.
2. He was, installed by america...go figure. (btw a horrible guy)
3. No connection between 2 and 1. Good try though. Go back and learn logic before you try and make this kind of argument. - georgeslivers, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2The connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda is undeniable. He created and fostered an environment that was ripe for islamofascist groups. If the U.S. spanked North Korea, do you think U.S. troops would be fighting Al Qaeda in North Korea? Come on. As Bush warned Saddam, if you harbor terrorist you will be treated like a terrorist.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20And it's completely impossible that Al-Qaeda moved in AFTER we invaded, right? Your logic has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese. No offense to the swiss, of course.
- rgladstein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Saddam Hussein was about as secular a dictator as any. Bin Laden hated him and he hated Bin Laden.
Zarqawi was in Iraq before Saddam fell, but he was in the North, where Saddam couldn't reach him, and he wasn't even associated with Al Qaeda then.
Al Qaeda are in Iraq now because the US took out Saddam and his secular government which, while incredibly brutal, kept the ancient hatred between Shia and Sunni in check. - georgeslivers, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1@Lunacy
Despots fall all the time and Al Qaeda doesn't just "move in" to fill a "vacancy". If your neighbor gets evicted do you worry about Al Qaeda moving in? Where else is a dictatorship replaced by a democracy and "Al Qaeda just moves in".
Al Qaeda and Saddam had subversive direct and indirect ties. Its the simple truth, but you rather hold onto your conspiracy theories to satisfy your irrational hatred. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13george:
>Al Qaeda and Saddam had subversive direct and indirect ties.
That's simply not true. Name the ties. - InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@georgeslivers,
"He created and fostered an environment that was ripe for islamofascist groups."
You're talking about George W. Bush, not Saddam.
Terrorist groups did not operate in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. By removing Saddam's secular dictatorship, which deliberately kept radical islamist groups out of Iraq, the U.S. created a breeding-ground for Al Qaeda and other radical groups.
- orxor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3In other news it has been discovered that water is wet.
- yyuuyyuu2, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6how do we know its not the person that wrote this article that is doing the manipulation of facts
- deweather, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19SOURCES. He has sources. Glad I could help
- georgeslivers, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3It's Seattle Times, one of the most liberally biased newspapers in the country. I'm sure they were fair ;)
- rgladstein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11From the article:
"In making its case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration relied heavily on evidence that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. However, another important reason was the allegation of connections between Iraq and al-Qaida. While the CIA has been criticized for erroneously gauging Iraq's weapons programs, its assessment of Iraq's ties to al-Qaida proved to be more accurate."
"Evidence" of WMD? That was an allegation too. They got hearsay reports from liars, refused to listen to Energy Dept experts on the aluminum tubes, and of course accepted the ***** yellowcake from Niger story that everyone already knew was bogus. There was never any real "evidence". - illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"Please digg to make the last 32% of Bush's supporters to see the light!"
Cause if there's one that that will make people change their political ideology, it will be that a bunch of people disagreed with them. Is there anything digging a story CAN'T do? - ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14The last 32% have irreparable brain damage.
- evanct, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2next they'll discover water is wet
[edit] heh i guess i was a little late with that comment... - bloodriver, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3? Doesn't anyone watch 'Frontline' ? This is not new news.
- mexmiler, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5Your SOURCES are liberally biased newspapers, but i guess that doesn't matter to liberally biased people, as long as their propaganda gets out there so they can be popular with their fellow idiots.
- wonderworm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I would expect nothing less from the worst president and most corrupt administration in history.
- dsthunder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6dugg because Prezident Bush is an *****...
- HairyPoter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The right article title should end as "to tie Al Queda to Bin Laden"
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9wait Bin Laden who?? you were supposed to forget about him by now...
- Bluteau, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Wolfowitz and Feith, two noted ziofascists, cooked up the bogus Iraq intelligence which led us into war.
They should be tried for treason and hanged. - Colonel2121, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Why the hell is anyone still talking about this?? We are already there. Its a moot point to discuss this anymore. Yes Bush has screwed up in Iraq, but there is no point to discuss why we are there anymore. Why not discuss stories that might affect what is going on now, maybe why the British soldiers were taking by Iran and how they ARE the greatest evil in the world. Not many stories written about that though. No it seems like the liberal media wants to keep going back in history to say we told you so and most of you sheep just follow what they say. When some liberal has some constructive criticism about what is going on I will listen. Not for a bitch-fest about what should have been done or bush lied or how he manipulated why we went there. This is dugg down.
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12If Iran is the greatest evil in the world, why don't they torture their prisoners like we do?
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That Bush was manipulating intelligence was well known before 911. I remember reading material on the internet from CIA agents showing that Bush was lying about the "facts" on Iraq (like, who would have thought Bush would lie, right?). I got into forums, contacted people in the political party I'm in (Libertarian), wrote to my MPs, the Prime Minister, and newspapers saying we should distance ourselves from American policy. I got back an email from the future Prime Minister, Paul Martin, basically restating Bush's case but adding we wouldn't get involved in Iraq unless it had UN approval. It wasn't the direct facts that kept Canada out, it was the lack of UN approval (though that may have been a convent excuse). I only hope we don't get conned into the next one (ie: Iran or Syria). The reason the US is a target of "terrorists" today is because of blowback from a hundred years of interventionist and imperialistic foreign policy. I'm just surprised there isn't more.
- Colonel2121, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Well if you read on the interweb then it must be true!
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Well, as it turned out, it was completely true. So score one for the internet. From my reading, it was also becoming obvious how it would all turn out (a bloodbath). No one, especially Americans, give a crap. They were all behind their president and basically told me to MMOB. Get my ass kicked out of lots of forums because of it (Anantech and ABC News forum are two).
- SomaSynth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Please digg to make the last 32% of Bush's supporters to see the light!"
You make it sound as if the last 32% of Bush supporters read Digg. That's got to be the least likely population group on the planet to visit Digg.
You're gonna have to print it on the front page of the bible to get the word across.- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12the last 32% are way out in the far reaches of no where, farmers, hicks, rednecks, cave men, who think Bush really cares about them. Oh yeah and the people who OWN HUGE CORPORATIONS and who profit from bush being there.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3BTW, I thought I'd add, the Libertarian Party of Canada had NO interest in anything I had to say about Bush, I found they were rather supportive of the entire thing. I haven't had anything to do with them since. The papers also had no interest in what I had to say. Our papers were not much better than those in the States, but at least, they didn't become cheerleaders after the invasion.
- revad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Whoops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Another thing I don't understand is why people still think media such as ABC News is anything other than a propaganda machine? While they may not support Bush, they do support the overall theme, which is the evil Muslim terrorist and how all Muslim and Arab countries are out to get you. The people who run this media corporations hate Muslims and Arabs.
- yakski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2HAHAHA ... allegations without facts or evidence is your what??? proof??? Unsubstantiated propaganda that has been completely disputed/disproved by all the world intelligence organizations. "They cannot be certain what was discussed..." allegations with no evidence no documentation and a completely reviling report that has not a single fact in it.
- DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3hagbard72, it's because Jews control the media. I totally agree with you. There is a definite pro-Israel stance and a negative bias towards Arabs in general on U.S. media stations.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Another thing I don't understand is why people still think media such as ABC News is anything other than a propaganda machine? While they may not support Bush, they do support the overall theme, which is the evil Muslim terrorist and how all Muslim and Arab countries are out to get you. The people who run this media corporations hate Muslims and Arabs.
- AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9If Bush didn't lie then I ask...
Where are the WMD's?
Where are the captured operatives that can confirm the 911 ties to Saddam? I mean, some of these guys were even tortured.
It does not even matter if the media is liberal or conservative because there has yet to be anything reported by anyone, anywhere, that backs up the pre-war claims.- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3>Where are the WMD's?
Syria and Iran. - sathias, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@nixfu
And where are they going to be once we invade Syria and Iran and discover none?
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3>Where are the WMD's?
- gazwilwah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Truthers are here to stay! Digg my "here to stay" thread, lets get the US government to realise we are going to be on there backs for as long as it takes.
- kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just in: @pengapine is retarded.
- okiepoke, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1So Bush lied. Let's move on as a country and do what's best with the current situation in Iraq. Enough already of raking Bush through the coals.
- dadavexx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Don't you idiots know that the "liberal" media has been long dead. The former News reporters are now a profit center and must contribute to the bottom line of now monopolized networks and the slimy activities of Fux.
I believe that most of the remaining 32 % are the mindless fundamentalist that make up the majority in Texas. How do you think that an idiot like bush could ever been elected Governor of any state, much less the presidency of the US.
Pity our grandchildren - and for a long time thereafter.- Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agree. This should have been nipped in the bud during Bush's gubernatorial campaign. He ran against Cleland, using the implied argument that Cleland wasn't a patriot. Minus two legs and an arm ... any political strategist worth his or her salt should have been able to turn that one right back onto Bush.
I'm still mystified at how that same story was played on McCain in the primaries, too. Didn't McCain's advisers see that one coming?
And it happened AGAIN in the Presidential election in 2004. Kerry's strategists couldn't have possibly expected an attack on Kerry's war record, seeing as Bush and Rove had done just that, AT EVERY PREVIOUS STAGE.
Simply amazing. - smartretard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ gaki
I think you have this horribly mixed up somehow:
(from wikipedia)
"In 2002, Cleland was defeated in his bid for a second Senate term by Representative Saxby Chambliss. Voters were perhaps influenced by Chambliss ads which featured Cleland's likeness on the same screen as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, ads that Cleland's supporters claim questioned his commitment to homeland security.[3] (The ads were removed after protest from some prominent politicians including John McCain.)"
Cleland was never a governor of any state, nor did he run for governor of any state... I'm all for pointing out Bush's missteps, but attributing an act such as this to him undeservedly only serves to weaken the genuine arguments against him. - reiner15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok who's with me... we'll pool our resources together and start a real news network. Have REAL information instead of celeb gossip and half ass reporting.
- Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I stand corrected. I'm Canadian, so perhaps we can blame that. ;)
- Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, I found what I was referring to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14474-2002Jun19.html
Bush didn't actually RUN against Cleland (which was the error I made), he just made several visits to Georgia during Chambliss' campaign and many suspect that it was his influence and Rove's standard m.o. that led to Chambliss publicly questiong Cleland's patriotism. Seeing as the same m.o. was used later against McCain and Kerry, this isn't a big logical leap to make.
- Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agree. This should have been nipped in the bud during Bush's gubernatorial campaign. He ran against Cleland, using the implied argument that Cleland wasn't a patriot. Minus two legs and an arm ... any political strategist worth his or her salt should have been able to turn that one right back onto Bush.
- thegibster, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3When will you people give this ***** up already?
- Ethervoid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Buried for beeing Captain Obvious's "news" and half a decade old.
- missingdigits, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If Bush was a Democrat the right wing media machine would have have gotten the idiot Limbaugh/O'rielly/Fuax News lemmings in such a froth over this that I am sure we would have a revolution of idiots and Bush wold have been publicly executed. But no, questinng Bush it "unpatriotic". Stupid stupid Americans.
- OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Marked as inaccurate. Like all of these stupid liberal topics, there is no evidence that Bush himself was involved in the cherry picking of intelligence. The man may not be the most capable President in history, but this BS propaganda that George W Bush is pulling all the strings borders on stupidity.
- Shandooga, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Do you think that it was a fortunate coincidence that 9-11 happened the year after he stole an election and gave him the needed rationale to finish his father's work in Iraq? Don't be naive. The Bush administration has been all lies and murder and there is more to come.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3borders? Come right out and say it.
If you think the United States manipulated intelligence to go to war with Iraq then you ARE AN IDIOT. - Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@ gabriels
And yet, the Levin Inquiry proved just that.
The Office of Special Plans cherry picked the intel. Feith resigned, Wolfowitz went onto the World Bank, Rumsfeld quit in disgrace. The only member of that Office of Special Plans that is still in the Administration is Rice.
All Bush staffers, all involved in the routing of intel past the normal vetting procedure and all involved in the "selective editing" of said intel to more firmly support the Administration's goals. Bush appointed every last one of them to the office in the first place.
Perhaps Bush himself didn't do the cherry picking, but he put into place the group that did, specifically creating it out of thin air, unlike any previous sitting President.
- Shandooga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Forget about enlightening the Bushies. None are so blind as those who *will not* see. Here's a future newsflash for you though: "Nuclear device destroys New York; President Guiliani declares martial law."
- laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Anti-Bush sentiment is not partisanship, it's pro-American. Bush is a craven sycophant for corporate interests, even as he claims to be a Christian. What a joke his retarded arrogance is to anyone who doesn't suffer from microcephaly or anencephaly. Bush wipes his ass with the Bible and with the Constitution; he's the worst form of human - a monster in a man's skin.
Bush is a traitor. Live with it. If you support Bush, you'll find plenty of sympathy in Hell, dastards.- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Please tell me you were not educated at American public schools.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Wonder how many of you calling everyone who doesn't support Bush a "liberal" realize just how far left Bush really is? He is a true believer in state power, and many of the people around him follow an internationalist ideal they inherited from their Troskyist teachers. All that changed is they no longer believe in socialism, they still believe in world revolution and one world gov't.
- HarryCallahan, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Today on Digg...
- Bush administration manipulates intelligence to tie Al Queda to Iraq
- US captured 'wrong Iranians'
- Cheney Still Insists Iraq/Al-Queda Link Before 9/11
Digg.com, for your daily dose of Anti-Americanism don't look anywhere else.- yakski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Nothing Anti-American here.. just the facts... the facts about how the Un-American Bush administration manipulated data for their own benefit to the complete and utter disregard of the truth and in contempt of the American people.
- cozinator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@yakski: I wish I could digg you up three times.
- therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What could be more American than having the freedom to question our leaders?
What could be more UN-American then denying those freedoms to your fellow Countrymen and women?
You, sir, are why we persist. - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's anti-American to place your head in the sand when our country does things that are WRONG or CRIMINAL. An American patriot stands for what is right by ALL THE PEOPLE and not one President. No, you mistaken American Democracy for a Kleptocracy of extremist wack jobs. That to me makes you unAmerican and an enemy to Democracy itself, you self-proclaimed nut job!
- Sakumi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If the bush administration had any intelligence we wouldn't be in this situation.
- RationalXubrnce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6 Why do you assume that? Bush didn't screw up, he got exactly what he wanted. We now have bases in the middle east for our next war effort, we have TV stations to pump out propaganda all over the Arab world and when it's all done the internationalists will run the Iraqi central bank Federal Reserve style and we'll control thier wealth without even taking the oil. Plus Bushe's buddies have made billions.
And you think that's a screw up? Haha, he didnt' make one single mistake, at least not from his perspective, it's not he really cares what happens to the country as a whole. - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4He used fake intelligence to do what he wanted to do, he made no mistakes except for buying into his own ideological fantasies and taking America for granted. Let's send the piece of crap to the Hague.
- RationalXubrnce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6 Why do you assume that? Bush didn't screw up, he got exactly what he wanted. We now have bases in the middle east for our next war effort, we have TV stations to pump out propaganda all over the Arab world and when it's all done the internationalists will run the Iraqi central bank Federal Reserve style and we'll control thier wealth without even taking the oil. Plus Bushe's buddies have made billions.
- thomasprebble, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Is anyone really surprised by this *****? Why oh why are the American people stupid enough to vote this ***** administration in?
- robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I am convinced that there is a group of people with Digg accounts who conspire to minimize critical analysis of the Bush administration. I am starting to see a pattern where comments that seem to be well though out, but critical of the Administration seem to be dugg down in rapid succession by an apparently well-organized group. Any comments?
- laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Money buys many things, not the least of which is virtual influence on the 'net. Do you think the Bush administration stands up on its own merits? A coven of traitors such as those who support Bush need money to buy influence because their deeds are nothing short of demonic sycophancy. Only those whose hearts are full of hatred could possibly twist themselves sufficiently to support Bush and his cronies.
- Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I do a LOT of research to support my posts here, but it never fails ... a couple of minutes after my posts hit the page, I'm dugg down. Every post, every time. As much as the righties complain about getting dugg into oblivion by the liberals here, I guarantee you there is a concerted effort to digg down researched posts that undermine their arguments.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Please digg to make the last 32% of Bush's supporters to see the light!"
HAHA. You can't seriously think that's possible? If they still exist now, they will always exist no matter what happens within the next two years. The last 30% is just simply living a blissfully ignorant life. Sometimes I wish I was one of them.. - Thumper13, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Is this a news flashback from 2004. Who doesn't know this already? It really doesn't matter anyway. Doesn't change the fact that they have Frakked up the whole war so badly.
I am a Republican....George Bush is not a Republican. I don't know what he is, but he is not a Republican.- DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3But you voted for Bush anyway, right? It figures. The criticism of Bush is not partisanship, so I don't know why Republican Nazis always say it's liberals. If you have a brain, you know Bush is an idiot. You knew it back in 2000, but you voted for him anyway. Typical GOP Nazi. Welcome to the New World Order that you helped create, you Nazi.
- Helenbo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2What?
The GWB maladministration Lied about their reason to invade and occupy Iraq?
And here I thought his "Heavenly Father" gave him the orders....
Whoda thunk it! - RationalXubrnce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4 When the Republicans are in office we all blame them for the scandals and when the democrats are in the corruption is their fault. No one dare point their fingers at the ever present Zionists and Israeli loyalists steering the direction of the American system. Just look at the names surrounding Bush and the number of them that hold dual Israeli citizenship.
Add to this the all of the New world Order/free trade/open borders sellouts that get their money from corporations and international finance and you'll see why the next administration will just be more of the same as the shell of our great republic continues to fall in on itself.- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Who are these people that surround Bush that hold dual American/Israeli citizenship?
- Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Perle, Chertoff and Wolfowitz have all been accused of having dual citizenship, but I haven't personally checked on them to see if this is true.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ari Fleischer and Michael Chertoff hold Israeli citizenships.
- DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Wolfowitz definitely has Israeli citizenship. Not Blue Bloods but Jew Bloods that make up PNAC which diverted a war on terror to beating down Israel's enemies.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
