digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Original War Propagandist Ari Fleischer Returns To Flack For Surge

thinkprogress.org — Freedom’s Watch, a new right-wing front group for the White House, “will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign” to pressure Congress to continue supporting President Bush’s disastrous Iraq strategy.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14What is old is new again.....
    • foxhaze, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Supporting troops never gets old!
    • Soniti, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3If you haven't been to Iraq, shut the hell up about it.

      I have, and I work in the operating room- sewing up and piecing back together those that the Iraqis see fit to blow apart. Don't believe me? I'll post ***** pictures.

      Again I say- If you aren't willing to go to Iraq, and make a difference in these truly pathetic people's lives- shut the ***** up about it.

      ~Soniti
      • BrewBeau, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I haven't been to Iraq, but I'll go out on a limb here and say that you probably haven't had to sew as many people together here at home as you have in Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong.
      • rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Go ahead and post the pictures, moron.
      • mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2What are you doing wasting your time anonymously posting to Digg?

        Shouldn't you be serving right now? Isn't the Mission Worth It(tm)?

        Barbara and Jenna Bush don't think it is.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Soniti, even if you are really in the military, you're wasting you time here. Digg is a place full of people that actually hate the military. They think most of the recruits are uneducated, underprivileged rednecks, despite the actual facts.
        • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Shut the ***** up dickwad. I lived in Northern Ireland during the '80s and early '90s. I've disparate groups fighting. And peace was certainly not brought about there by the reckless political point-scoring that you 26%ers engage in. The only way to fix this situation is if people are all committed to peace in Iraq and if people would stop questioning the patriotism of those of us who want peace.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Everybody wants peace, but not everyone wants "peace at any price".

            Those who are calling for an unconditional, immediate pullout from Iraq are basically calling for the immediate collapse of democracy in Iraq and the formation of a new terrorist state in the Middle East.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"Digg is a place full of people that actually hate the military. They think most of the recruits are uneducated, underprivileged rednecks, despite the actual facts."
          Which explains why you're here, Tuba?
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sonit, I don't recall Ari Fleischer going to Iraq... shouldn't he shut the ***** up about it too?
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/centurion.htm
  • duggtodeath, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36So the Ministry of Truth is stepping up efforts, eh?
    • jsmith39, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17My favorite part: “They attacked us and they will again. They won’t stop in Iraq,”

      Who the ***** is "They"? They won't stop in Iraq? We ***** invaded Iraq, it's not like we were chilling out in dunes and a thousand screaming Muslims came over and kicked sand in our picnic basket. Who invaded who here? Talking about rewriting history.
    • slapout, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Has it ever occured to you that maybe they are telling the truth?
      • jsmith39, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, fortunately my brain still works well enough to remember events that took place in the last 7 years so it hasn't occurred to me that anything other than a large scale revision of history is taking place. Personally I'm not a big fan of quoting books no matter how accurate but this article reminds me of the part in 1984 where the allotment of chocolate was cut in 1/2 and 2 weeks later there was a grand parade thanking big brother for doubling the chocolate allotment.
  • hawkeye17, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32These ***** have no shame.
    • rationalthinker, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2YOU ***** have no shame... if we listened to your putrid ilk in WWII we wouldn't have digg and the right to express an opinion. The surge is working but it doesn't fit the left wingnut agenda. Now that it appears we've turned a corner in Iraq, your putrid liberal base is lost in the wasteland of constructive ideas. Go ***** yourself...
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I've got to hand it to you, you have the most consistently ironic username on digg.
      • BarneyF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4O come on, the Russians beat the Germans. Germany was being ruled by a half-witted madman, their government had no future.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WW2 was a real war.

        Iraq is murder for profit.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Turned a corner"... sounds familiar... hmmm.... OH YEAH! That was the catch phrase the Bush regime was bandying about back in '05, IIRC. Let's review a few more:
        Mission Accomplished
        Freedom's on the March
        Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud
        (you could probably recycle "Heckuva Job Brownie" again if you gave it some effort)
    • jsmith39, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What the ***** are you talking about? Do you even have the remotest capability to add 2+2 and consistently get 4?
      In WWII we were attacked by 2 countries and we responded by beating the ***** out of them. In Gulf War II we've responded to being attacked by 19 people by invading 2 countries that didn't none of the said 19 people held allegiance too. Where's the link?
  • shug7272, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Good lord. Why.. Why WHY do we the people not stop this? Can we?
    • popfrogs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Because the military-industrial complex is making way too much money from this little conflict. It's just like Vietnam, this "war" was never intended to be won, just prolonged, so that all the greedy ***** involved get fat payouts, human lives be damned.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
        Eisenhower, a career military man, warned us...
  • dildoolielly, on 10/10/2007, -17/+8NOT ONE REPUKE SENATOR HAS SON IN IRAQ! NOT FU*KING ONE, YET THEY CONTINUE TO SEND OUR CHILDREN TO FIGHT THEIR WAR OF LIES AND SPECIAL INTERESTS!

    Does YOUR child have a body bag with his name on it?!
    • Molybdenum, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Jim Webb has a son in Iraq. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070125/ai_n17152201)
      Joe Biden's son is going to Iraq. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6855197,00.html)

      As of 2006, a Senator has an annual pay of $165,200...I doubt their children need the Army's college money. I'd hazard a guess that their motivation is NOT to bet their very lives on lies and special interests.

      Please check your facts better.

      -Mo
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Mo-

        Please check YOUR facts better. The OP was talking about Republicans (or in his words, "REPUKE"), while you listed two Democrats.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Wierd that you focus on ONLY the repubilcans, since it was the democratically controlled congress that approved the "surge"..... I guess only those two senators (Webb and Biden) are the only two qualified to send us to war? Give me a break.
        • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So are you suggesting that the surge wasn't a good idea?
      • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2My friend, he is a Democrat. So perhaps you should check your own facts better.
    • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5How is that relevant? I'm not a woman, can I not have a position on abortion? I've never personally been mugged, but I encourage my friends to take precautions. I don't personally hunt by support others who do. I understand how sensational it sounds to point out that many of our leaders don't have direct family serving, yet I fail to truly see its relevance. Either our presence in Iraq is appropriate for ideological reasons or its not. You can win the debate with out such nonsense... I hate this whole idea that whats right or wrong is based on some degree of proximity to the issue.
      • AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@oldhich
        While I don't agree with the original poster, I also don't think your argument here will hold much weight. Yes, you as a normal caring human being may not want harm to come to others for your benefit, but the poster was trying to say that he thinks that our government is composed of such selfish, self-serving egotists that they feel they are entitiled to force other people to lay down their lives so that they can make a few bucks and stay in power. Now, I would, however, say that broadly defining the entire government in this context is a blatent over-generalization and a disservice to many who are trying to make a difference.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You realize it's a volunteer army, right? These recruits are actively joining knowing that they'll be sent into combat zones (yes there were combat zones before Iraq).
        • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Voluntary? As opposed to all the other wonderful choices open to poor and minority folks graduating high school (or not) these days? There are fewer and fewer options to kids. What the hell are they supposed to do? It's voluntary in the same way that stopping your car at a crosswalk when someone's just crossed before you, is voluntary.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well, toddcat, while I think Tuba's a little foamy at the mouth on this (based on prior posts), I don't think your "crosswalk" example is quite accurate... you have to stop at a crosswalk because
          a.) it is the law
          b.) if you don't you're likely to kill someone
          c.) other laws and traffic dynamics depend on a. (above)
  • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14war = more profits for hailiburton, big oil, and bankers

    and how does this affect the profits of the mass public??

    when a draft comes, I hope they pick every war supporter out there. I'm not dying for these bastards. Free energy has long been suppressed from the old days of Tesla, by JP Morgan. GTFO bushies and sign up for your ***** WAR!
    • AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2First point, perhaps
      Second, war does boost the economy as a whole because there is more money being spent. Unneccesary war is still a bad way to acheieve this though as the economic benefit is short term and the debt accrued must be paid back.
      Third, "free energy has long been surpressed", WTF do you even mean. Have you every heard of supply and demand, there is a limited amount of energy production capability on this planet and so it isn't going to be free. Someone has to do the work of gathering the materials and making it and delivering it, so it's going to cost money. Could it be a lot cheaper, possibly, but do you really want people wasting even more energy? We use far more energy than we need and are squandering it from those who will need it in the future. Can you really say that free or cheaper energy would have a long term benefit?
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't think that's what he meant by "free energy":
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression

        He's still full of crap though.
      • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=free+energy+coil

        There are many examples on the Internet. Generating electricity via magnets is just one of them.
      • dufflepud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1AJH16,
        War does not boost the economy, it lowers the standard of living. This is dealt with extremely well in Frederic Bastiat essay "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen" (which can be read here:http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html ) Basically he starts with the broken window fallacy which says that the hoodlum who breaks a window is really doing society a favor by creating a job for the window man (this is your argument that destruction is good for the economy on a smaller scale). Obviously we don't encourage the massive breaking of windows because we would all be poorer since we would have to replace them. Also what would have been done with the money now used to replace windows is unseen and therefore unnoticed. Anyway the essay is a bit long but even if you just read the beginning I think you will find it enlightening.
    • Soniti, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Guess what *****- I did sign up for my ***** war. I've been there twice, and am going back soon.

      You can bet your balls that I'd die for this- and not because I'm some stupid brainwashed ***** (That would be you, liberal jackass)- but because I've seen firsthand the desperation that the people of this country live in. It keeps you up at night.

      As harshly as I can say it- It makes me sick to think that I defend a country with people like you in it. ***** you.

      ~Amn John Lansford
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No one in Iraq is "defending" the USA. Iraq never attacked the USA.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Supposedly, one more stable democratic state will help stabilize the region and put into check hostile nations. Thats how people think they are defending the USA. So you might want to shut the ***** up.
        • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Invading a nation illegally and setting up a Vichy state doesn't create stable democratic states. It only creates puppet regimes that fall when the foreign armies are defeated and leave. See: Afghanistan.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1christ Tuba - you've got such a kool-aid mustache.
  • IiberalPlacebo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Prepare for an intense bipartisan propaganda push approaching the 11th of Sept*mber
  • the6thReplicant, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16"$15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign"

    ummm....isn't this the definition of astro-turfing?

    my biggest fear is how people can do this knowing it's going to hurt and splinter the country but they still go to sleep at night?
    i really need to understand "why". what drives them? I'm sure they *think* they're protecting their country (people who think they smile to the people and press and then go back into their offices to wring their hands and laugh manically are wrong..with a few exceptions) but what are they protecting?
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Exactly. I do believe they *think* they are doing the right thing too. But we all need to take a step back and learn who really controls our government (the private/Fed bankers) to truly appreciate which group gains the most in times of war. Of course, the defence contractors make a fortune too, but the real money is in lending the government money and charging interest on it.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually the definition of "astro-turfing" involves hiding and covering up information that would lead to the sources of funding. Freedom's Watch lists their supporters in their press releases. They tell you who has donated. They tell you who is running the group.

      To astro turf requires a group to actively seek to hide it's funding, staff, and operations.
    • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Can you have a 15 million dollar "grass roots" campaign?
  • dmadip, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8thinkprogress.org?? give me an f'in break
    • strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Well, playing the full video of something is obviously lying, isn't it?
    • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah, liberals would whole heartedly accept anything from ThinkProgress without question, even though they're admitedly "fighting against the right-wing agenda" yet they claim to be a project from a "non-partisan" organization. But for some reason they instantly reject Fox News....wierd.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So liberals shouldn't accept anything from ThinkProgress? Should they just submit to the Fox "News" people and swallow everything those clowns squirt out of their slimy orifaces? I don't think so. Would you have wanted the average Soviet citizen to blindly accept the Pravda headlines, or would you prefer they had gotten news from outside the iron curtain? Don't you find it laughable that the Bush minions tend to only appear on Fox and not other networks? Don't you find it insane that W only -ONLY!- speaks before heavily screened hardline right wingers, with "rally squads" patroling to put down any dissenting voices?
        "By the way, dissent is the HIGHEST form of patriotism" --some famous guy from our country's founding years
  • kmb1794, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5I don't like his politics but Ari is a badass.
    • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Send him back to where he came from.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Uh, yeah, I guess... if by "badass" you mean "***** shill for war criminals".
  • Mier, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7so the fact that Hillary and other senators are admitting the surge is working doesn't mean ***** to you huh? Biased much?
    • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Accurate much? When did Hillary say "the surge is working"?
      • Molybdenum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Google much? She said it on Aug 20th, apparently.
        (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08212007/news/nationalnews/surge_working__but_too_late__h.htm)

        -Mo
        • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Again, accurate much? I know fine detail is irrelevant in a discussion about war and the troops giving their lives for it, but in the interest of accuracy and thoroughness, here is what she said: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again." The NY Times also reported that "[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province."
          • TubaTechno, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1You realize that the "surge" is comprised of military and political benchmarks, right? So despite your attempts to dismiss what Hilary said, the "surge" IS working.
      • Molybdenum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sorry to reply twice. Following the link worked in Google, but apparently not a second time for me.
        It was also on Digg, ironically.
        (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_on_Iraq_Surge_It_s_Working_No_she_really_said_this)

        -Mo
      • didiman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Maybe if you didn't rely on digg and think progress for your news you would have known that.
        • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2She was not referring to "the surge". Its only war and troops dying, why get so fussy about detail?
    • Acewrap, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Who gives a ***** what Hillary says?
      • AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Um, she has been a huge detractor from the war. If she says something is working, she must have gone through a lot of convincing, so even though I hate the women with a passion, it is noteworthy if she agrees that something she didn't like is working.
        • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2She has NOT been a "huge detractor from the war". In fact, she supported it for quite a while. One can argue over what that means, but she's certainly NOT on the forefront of the anti-war movement. She only tangentially involved in any anti-war faction, and even that only recently.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hillary is an ***** - I'm a progressive voter and I'd never vote for her ordinarily. Unfortunately she stands a good chance of winning the nomination (over FAR better choices like Kucinich and Richardson), so if she's the only thing between sanity and another 4 years of a republican white house then I'll do it. I won't like it, but I'll do it.
      I wish Bernie Sanders would run - but that'll never happen.
  • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Although a complete pull out would be disastrous, a continued surge in deployment would be even more devastating. Like it or not we do have interest in Iraq's resources, which need to be protected until the dust settles from the civil war. It's just smart international policy not to allow resources to fall into the hands of just anyone. However, this does not mean that we need to increase the number of troops. Such an increase maybe interpreted by the various waring factions that we have an actual interest in who wins their inevitable war. We should only care about the outcome.
    • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"Like it or not we do have interest in Iraq's resources, which need to be protected until the dust settles from the civil war." - ah, a bottom-line oil guy! Tell us, how was the US getting along without Iraq's resources say, before during and after the '91 war? Was the US struggling absence Iraq's "resources"? With 100,000 to 300,000 barrels of oil going missing every day, Iraqis against foreign control of their oil preserves and oil production below the pre-war level, suggesting the US needs to remain there because of oil is as compelling as Bush's recent comparison of Iraq to Vietnam.
      • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's not a matter of whether we need them, but who has control of them. It's a pretty simple concept.
        • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Tell us about the "who" and how we get there.
    • popfrogs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2A complete pullout would be no more disastrous than the prolonged conflict that's already taking place. When I say "complete", I mean complete, not any CIA black ops inciting sectarian violence or any other trickery. Countries tend to do ok when there aren't foreign countries actively trying to get them to rip themselves apart from the inside.
      • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I guarantee you that if there's a complete pullout that we will be back in a matter of months to stop the genocidal ambitions of the victor. The battle for the control of resources will almost certainly spur human rights attrocities of epic proportions.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Countries tend to do ok when there aren't foreign countries actively trying to get them to rip themselves apart from the inside." -- Reminds me of another country that wants to see Iraq fail miserably....
  • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4All tghis time I thought he resigned because his conscience got the better of him. He actually made Bush sound good before simple Scotty came onto the scene.
  • grhomepage, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4remember WW2 when we would level the enemies cities before we marched in? We won that war. All of these liberal pussies would wet their pants if we did that now. America will never win another war and it's only because we tie our own arms behind our back.
    • AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5While that would be nice, we can't very well do that as we aren't fighting governments. Atleast not in our current conflict. All that bombing entire cities would do is grow the problem exponentially as we pissed people off and drove them to join terrorist campaigns against us.
    • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You're misreading history. Badly. Lets just take the subject of allies, our partners in war. In WW2, the US counted Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, and Yugoslavia as our allies. I'm hoping that when you say "WE won that war" you're including all the allies that participated because we, the US, did not win WW2 all by ourselves.
      • Economist35, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1france and poland got leveled. I wouldn't say they helped win WWII
        • BrewBeau, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They had considerable forces that were able to flee and fight the Germans again. Plus they had immeasurable intelligence to give about their terrain. So, I would say they helped. Besides, the US was in no position to fight a war in 1939. If we had bordered Germany, it would be us that would have been occupied.
    • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Oh you mean level the cities and kill all the Iraqi women and children that we were supposed to be "liberating" from the oppression of Saddam's torture chambers?
    • Kabloink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The people that suggest bombing Iraqi cities seem to fail to realize the majority of the middle east either does not or barely supports our invasion of Iraq. Wide spread carnage that results in the killing of millions of Iraqi civilians would unite the middle east against us. Which would create a problem since we need their oil to keep our country and war machines running.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ grhomepage
      "remember WW2 when we would level the enemies cities before we marched in? "
      Yeah, rememer WW2 when we were actually attacked by those countries? Um, yeah, see there's a key difference right there. Stop watching so many old black and white WW2 movies, mmmmkay?
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ask the Nazis how well leveling Stalingrad worked out for them.
  • tdominey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Ari was on MSNBC's Hardball last night, and there was a rather telling moment. After airing one of the four videos, which profiled a soldier with his legs blown off intercut with images of a 9/11, the host asked Ari what the name of the soldier was. Ari: "You know, I don't have his name here in front of me, but..."

    They've spent $15 million dollars, plus God knows how much to fly Ari around to all these media interviews, and Ari CAN'T REMEMBER the name of a soldier they're profiling? It's not like we're talking about a bunch of different ads with lots of people in them. There are FOUR ads. And the one they showed featured ONE soldier.

    Absolutely shameful. They're using soldiers -- DISABLED soldiers -- to promote a political movement and solidify their base.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Why do you presume the soldiers are morons? The soldiers that appear in the ads made their own decisions to participate. Yet, you presume the soldiers are being "used".
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When did "tdominey" say they were "morons"? I don't see such a reference in that post.
    • catmistake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I am radically liberal, and I think the current administration needs to go. However, I like Ari Fleischer... he could be the best Press Secretary ever. Sure, Tony Snow has some pumped up gravitas, but Tony is disingenuine, and over compensates with his *****, and then we know he's lying... Tony joined the cult, and will need deprogrammed. Fleischer never did that... I always got the impression that Ari never wanted the job, but did it because he was asked... and he was damn good with unrehearsed responses to the press. It surprises me that he'd be involved with this mess, but... people gotta eat, right? And everyone hates their job.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If you like Ari Fleischer I doubt you truly are "radically liberal"
      • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, thats a fairly radical kind of liberal there.
        • catmistake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I like the man, regardless of his politics. And he's a bureaucrat, an appointee, not a politician.
  • Eliza101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The ads on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Freedomswatch
  • ElFredo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4s/grass-roots/astroturfing/
  • Mattazuma, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4This is from Think Progress, who is a front group for the DNC. Pot, meet kettle.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Front group for the DNC? More likely a front group for a Hungarian billionaire.
      • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'd ask you and Mattazuma if the two of you could be any more vague, but you'd probably post "Maybe, maybe not. Depends." You two have a career waiting for you in hollow soundbytes.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2OK, I'll be less vague.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_For_American_Progress
          "Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, former chief of staff to former United States President Bill Clinton."
          "The Center has no information on its website about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that "...seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler..." "

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_soros
          Now are you really that oblivious to the propaganda machine that is controlling you?
          • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, two links to (hyper accurate) Wikipedia - home run! The substance doesn't match the hype. The same Washington Post article you reference left something out (surprise!): "The seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler -- while serious dough -- IS BARELY ENOUGH TO MAKE A BEGINNING" (emphasis mine). You saw what you wanted to see and didn't go any further. Talk about propaganda control. I'd ask you to tell us how Soros donating to CAP equates to his own "front group", with the sinister "Hungarian Billionaire" pulling strings, but you've got nothing.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Crappy interface.
  • Sairynn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"Freedom's Watch"? Seriously?
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Wrap it in the flag and the some people will believe anything. It's just marketing.
    • ronh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It should be called The Center for Gut Reactions.
  • RichStradler, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Soon we'll be hearing: Shut 'em down! Censor them! Sorry folks if there's anything Americans hates more than a war, it's losing one. Get centered will ya? Sharia law is soon coming to a town near you.
    I just wish we'd get serious about winning and then pull the hell out... after the job is done.
    • dawurz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"after the job is done" - what does this mean? What is "the job" as you see it?
      • Acewrap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You don't really expect him to answer that, do you?
      • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The "job" is the set of political and military benchmarks approved by congress to help establish security and stability in Iraq.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0...which was a ridiculously losing proposal from moment one.
    • gingerbreadcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'd pay a dollar to watch a video of anyone walking up to a group of Marines and tell them to "get serious about winning".
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I doubt you'd find too many people anywhere who think the average grunt isn't doing what she/he is trained to do at a minimum of 110%. It's the people pulling their strings that are being encouraged to "get serious". But getting serious about "winning"? Winning what?! "The peace"?! puh-LEASE! How do you win the peace in an ideologically divided country that's already in the beginning stages of civil war, a civil war begun by a 100% illegal invasion and occupation?
        No the average marine is doing his job... a thankless, underpaid, underappreciated, exploited, and immeasurably dangerous job. The average marine is also not in control of strategic decisions, is understandably biased against anything/anyone that's trying to kill him, and will do whatever is asked of him by his superiors. "Semper fi", indeed. We've all seen the movies, documentaries, TV reports - we all know that unabashed brainwashing begins at Paris Island. Right or wrong, it's what the job of marine requires. So to tell a group of marines to get serious about winning is not only suicidal, it's misunderstanding the overall picture as well.

        I'd like to see someone walk up to an NFL defensive line and tell them to get serious about winning, when it's been idiotic play calling by the coaches that's gotten them in a losing situation. Same thing. It's not the players, it's those directing their play.
    • popfrogs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I hope you realize Iraq and Afghanistan are "jobs" we created for ourselves..and by we I mean the US government and complicit parties like huge government contractors. These days, Europe doesn't even want to play along like they have in the past, which is why "jobs" like this are so one-sided. There are no coalition forces, it's just US forces supplemented with a handful of mercenaries and privates from a few countries.

      This is a manufactured conflict from beginning to end. Iraqis will never directly attack the US. Afghans will never directly attack the US. We have nothing to fear but the corrupt people at the top of the political food chain in this country.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0MMMMMMMeh, Iraq yes, Afghanistan not exactly. True, the people of Afghanistan never attacked us, but the defacto Taliban "government", harbored the terror group that was behind such an attack (and others). Ergo, we had the right to strike back at the heart of them - soundly. Personally, I'd have found it poetically just for the USAF to load tons and tons of WTC rubble onto C5s and for them to have dropped it from 30,000 feet onto Taliban strongholds. Granted, it's a highly unrealistic scenario (for so many reasons), but you can see where my sentiment lies.
        Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan actually did - and not entirely indirectly either.
    • Biskino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I've only got one question for you Rich. WTF are you doing on Digg when you could be in Iraq helping get the job done? Seriously, it's time for war supporters to put up or STFU. Can't fight? No problem, open up your wallet and give 'till it hurts. Sell that car, sell that house, sell that PC your using to surf Digg and get that money to the defense department pronto - it's a small price to pay compared to the sacrifices you're asking others to make on your behalf...
  • DaTrollMon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Think Progress... Now there's an unbiased group! We need to shout down these Freedom Watch people comrades. Freedom of speech only for those who we agree with. Everyone else gets sent to the labor and re-education camps.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Your attempt at humor is about as effective as your president's attempt at freedom.
  • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2hey I thought Ari was the bomb back when the war was popular. The way he handled the press was excellent. Nowadays, not so much. Do not want, Ari.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1What's wrong ThinkProgress, afraid of the competition? Looks like cons can play the Absolute Moral Authority game too. We call your grieving media whore mother and raise you a legless war veteran. Your move.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wierd, so you have NO problem with ThinkProgress? Really?! You realize that this is the same outlet that proclaims to "fight against the right-wing agenda" but then turns around and says it's a project of a "non-partisan" organization, right?

      No one is afraid of the competition, however people do see a little hypocrisy when "fair and balanced" Fox gets trashed when ThinkProgress essentially is their equal.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0to claim to be "non-partisan" simply means you don't have to be a member of any particular political party. It doesn't mean that you can't be a Libertarian, Democrat, or even a Republican, and still be aware of the unbelievable right wing propaganda machine that is Fox "News".
        However, I tend to agree that ThinkProgress is hypocritical in that it would like to be seen as **unbiased**, but I don't think they have ever DIRECTLY claimed to be. I also tend to agree that they are about as "fair and balanced" as Fox... basically not at all.
  • didiman, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2thinkprogress = buried
  • orelses, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9He can't remember the soilders name he used in a recent pro-war ad..
    http://digg.com/politics/Video_Ari_Fleischer_Can_t_Name_Soldier_Used_In_His_Own_TV_Ad
    • uptown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You make it sound like he ever knew the name.... or even thought to ask.
    • akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That is right, stupid chicken hawk was called on it and ripped a new azzhole by Paul Riechoff.
  • Economist35, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0news articles>blogs
  • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If you don't already but want to understand what a Zionist is, get a load of Ari.
  • synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I love the line "they attacked us", who's "they"? Iraq attacked us? "they" hate our freedom fries! "they" eat puppies! and so on
  • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Hmm, why has no Think Progress author attached their name to this post?

    That's unusual.
  • LogicBomB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"All wars are fought for money"

    I forget who's quote that is but it always rings true.
  • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's interesting how right-wing groups always use tacky graphics of the shape of the USA with a flag in it, with a bald eagle.

    freedomwatch.org
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3BREAKING: Established left-wing front group attacks a new right-wing front group
  • JengoPop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Mmmm... interesting. Do you believe there could be a U.S. conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks? a) Yes. b) No. c)Maybe, but hope not
    Vote at http://www.pollicious.com
  • paulrus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+296 diggs is all it took to move this to the front page. Digg doesn't have a left-wing agenda.... no really...

    Hey Digg editors - you know there is life outside of San Francisco. Maybe you could make at least a little effort to be a little more balanced before you push every single anti-Bush, anti-America, anti-capitalism, anti-conservative, anti-Republican story straight to the front page.


    • Kabloink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem is that many republicans view pro-America articles as anti-American, anti-conservative, anti Republican and Anti-Bush simply based on the article expressing a view point that differs from their own. Perhaps instead of the editors looking for a life outside of San Fransisco, the Republicans should look beyond the "your either with or against us" mentality.
    • strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, the algorithm for getting to the first page depends on what category an article is in. For example, just yesterday I saw an article from the extreme sports section make it to the front page with only 19 diggs...
  • Nevarwinter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.
    Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025.html
    • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The same Senator Clinton that voted for the illegal invasion? Shocking.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0She's a classic politician. I am an independent voter, and I will only vote for her if she's the ONLY choice other than what the Republicans are fielding. Basically it's like this in my book:

      Bill Richardson
      Dennis Kucinich
      Ron Paul
      Barack Obama
      John Edwards
      cetaceans (porpoises, whales)
      dogs
      some birds (crows, parrots, etc.)
      horses
      pigs
      Chris Dodd
      cats
      rodents
      most single celled organisms
      mosquitos
      Hillary
      the kid with the "fart pipe" muffler on his Civic that lives near me
      McCain
      Romney
      Guliani
      Tancredo
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Propaganda site calls Bush admin official a propagandist. Pot, meet kettle.
  • Nevarwinter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Remember how when Bush was going to start updating progress on the war and the media went crazy saying that it would be biased and such? What I believe (hope) happened is that someone in the White House is tired of the lies and spin and has taken the gloves off. Bush came out swinging yesterday and all the media could do was gather the typical panel of "experts" to calm their base down and tell them what to think again. I think we need to see more of that.
  • mepol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It will, no doubt, be on FAUX!
  • TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0She's a classic politician. I am an independent voter, and I will only vote for her if she's the ONLY choice other than what the Republicans are fielding. Basically it's like this in my book:

    Bill Richardson
    Dennis Kucinich
    Ron Paul
    Barack Obama
    John Edwards
    cetaceans (porpoises, whales)
    dogs
    some birds (crows, parrots, etc.)
    horses
    the entire population of Murphy, NC (and all four of its teeth)
    pigs
    Chris Dodd
    cats
    rodents
    most single celled organisms
    mosquitos
    Hillary
    the kid with the "fart pipe" muffler on his Civic that lives near me
    McCain
    Romney
    Guliani
    Tancredo
  • ReturnToFreedom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Now I see why Bush wanted to wait until September. This gave them enough time to organize and pull off their dirty tricks in order to pressure Congress to re-authorize the war by giving it more funds.
  • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Not listening Ari , along with at least 70% of the rest of the country , your are wasting both your time and taxpayers money as your credibility is somewhere down in Hell with the rest of the fascist Bush Administration !

    How sad it is , when you can only preach to an audience of zombies rather then real people , for they might start a lynch mob , to hang those that choose to tell only lies and propaganda from the nearest light pole !
  • fsjonsey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its called free speech bitch, and it goes both ways. Deal with it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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