digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at crooksandliars.com

PBS Frontline: The Definitive Account of “Bush’s

crooksandliars.com — Unbelievable presentation of the "facts" that led this country into an illegal war.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Erich100, on 03/27/2008, -14/+51I watched both parts. Talk about inept.
    • pedo, on 03/27/2008, -5/+51you're referring to bush and not pbs, right?
    • ScienceDoc, on 03/27/2008, -4/+27The amazing thing is that the whole freakin' administration is made of ignorant morons. It is stunning. They are all fools.
      • moolaismyfriend, on 03/27/2008, -5/+33Whats even more stunning is that these inept crooks were given a second chance to make things worse by the American people.


        I am amazed that American men and woman who are republican and voted for Bush in 2004 even manage to feed themselves.
        • bugsy187, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9Americans aren't stupid, the political climate really just shows a lack of good information sources in the US and a resulting amount of fanaticism/fundamentalism. It would make sense that Americans are as intelligent as any other group of people. Intelligence, however, is rendered irrelevant when a population is force fed propaganda and mythologies about politics, economics, and religion.
        • 98percentcogdis, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4I voted for Bush twice. I had no idea. I watched the evening news and believed what I was being told. Someone had even given me a large copy of a pencil sketch of Bush. Soon after 9/11, I began to see what was going on in the main stream media. When I started to read some of the alternative news sources, my eyes were opened. Some of my friends asked me how I know that I can trust what I'm reading on line. One thing that I do know is that I can't trust ANY news source in the main stream, be it ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN or even the BBC completely. So, I'm sorry that I voted for the chump, I mean chimp twice. I was what 98% of the American public is, cognitive dissonant.
          When given information contrary to what people believe, leads those persons who feels dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance, and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that causes dissonance, are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.
      • theDunedan, on 03/27/2008, -1/+23@ScienceDoc: "the whole freakin' administration is made of ignorant morons"
        I disagree. Had George Bush not allowed Colin Powell to be undermined and undercut by Cheney and Rumsfeld, we would not have gone to war in Iraq. Yes, Powell made mistakes. But he is not in the same list as Cheney and Rumsfeld.
        • Speed, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5True. Cheney and Rumsfeld were inept crooks. Powell was just a sellout. He knew we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but he kept pushing for it anyways. That makes him worse. At least Cheney and Rumsfeld followed their beliefs (if you count making money for companies like Haliburon a belief)
        • BossKey, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9Agreed. As time went on, each time Powell spoke in public he looked more and more like a man who grudgingly said what he was ordered to say, even though he knew better. On the one hand, you know he was smarter then the rest, but on the other, the nation regrets that he and his conscience didn't have a stronger spine.
        • gernblansted, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6In the end, Powell's allegiance was to Bush, and not America. That's still the case to this day.
          • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I disagree. I used to have the same feelings towards Powell as well but after seeing this it appears George tenant is the one who sold out to Cheney/bush. Powell took tenants word because he felt he could trust him. For the most part Powell was used as a trophy and only paraded in front of the American people when the bush administration needed him.

            Powell didn't sell out, he was intentionally lied to or not given all the facts.
    • GlobalistShill, on 03/27/2008, -6/+39With all due respect, Bush was very successful in what he set out to accomplish,... an agenda set forth by predecessors including his father (son of a Nazi financier) and their club. The problem is, the agenda wasn't for the benefit of the American people.

      They are one step closer to their new order, where Iraq is shattered and bled for oil, where the UN will step in, and where at home the American "g*dd*mn piece of paper" Constitution will ultimately be subjected to the authority of "International Law".

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-131974513 ...
      • ScottyMcBaggs, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Holy *****, I said the same thing once in other words and got buried to china, and insulted for being a bush lover and this and that... i love you diggbots!
      • Triskozko, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I'd use the word successful cautiously. Their accomplishments aren't due to any special political charisma—they were only able to initiate the war because they were lucky enough to receive a very friendly political climate—and the war wasn't carried out successfully at all. If you've seen "No End in Sight" it shows that the administration had plenty of opportunities to keep Iraq relatively stable in the first few months but made the worst decisions at every turn.
      • GlobalistShill, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2@Triskozko

        Pappy Bush and his pal Cheney never wanted Iraq to be stable. They set up Iraq as we know it to fail and ultimately want it to be fragmented into 3 parts. UN "peacekeepers" will eventually step in where the US "failed".

        Cheney knew *exactly* what would happen if Iraq was invaded, especially if it is coaxed to... it would shatter:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

        People often think of success or failure in Iraq in terms of how Iraq and America benefit as individual, sovereign countries. I guarantee you that that is not the way that George H. W. Bush looks at the world. The agenda is ultimately geared toward world government under the so-called "elite", not national auto-determination.
      • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I don't subscribe to this bush Jr and bush Sr wanted an unstable Iraq. Had bush senior wanted that he would have continued the first gulf war. What I see is two power hungry know it alls thinking they know whats best (or what will push their movement forward) and a puppet who was fed hand picked information so that the dynamic duo could get what they want.

        Cheney and Rumsfeld are the masterminds here and used many people to play their game whether they were aware of it or not (Powell, Bush Jr, George Tenant, Jay Garner, etc).
        • GlobalistShill, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1@youareretarded

          I can see where you are coming from but Bush senior is VERY high up "behind the scenes". Remember that he was the head of the CIA. He, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are all a part of the same camp. So I really don't disagree with you what you say about Cheney and Rumsfeld. I also agree with you that Bush Jr. is a total puppet.

          SOME REFERENCES regarding the power and influence of Bush Sr.:

          * http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

          * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-292771133 ...

          (for a quick hit watch 1:19:05 through 1:21:10)

          * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561 ...

          (Bush involvement with JFK,... for a quick hit watch 1:06:00 through 1:07:45)

          * Leo Lyon Zagami, a 33rd degree Freemason, has to say about George H. W. Bush: "...in the Masonic Lodges the power of his father is felt everywhere. And any mention of his son George W. doing the wrong thing will automatically bring you to expulsion from Freemasonry, the Rotary and even the Boyscouts."
    • JimmySpaza, on 03/27/2008, -41/+1Yeah, I know. PBS totally sucks. They couldn't do an inbiased story about the time of day or the current weather. I think that PBS should be immediately disbanded and shut down permanently. They are an irritant in the fresh air that freedom breathes.
      • pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -2/+12wow, it must take quite an effort to put your head so far up your ass.
      • mfc5200, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6"They are an irritant in the fresh air that FREEDOM breathes"

        "PBS should be immediately disbanded and shut down permanently"

        Hypocrisy? Irony? What's the word I'm looking for?
    • borez, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6I was up till 5am this morning watching both parts, that's an eye-opening documentary if ever I saw one. The Bush administration really did make some monumental ***** ups along the way on this one.
    • sporg, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3The stink of their lies sickens me...
  • forestflyer, on 03/27/2008, -11/+118Amazing production (in two parts) with lots of interviews of many of the players, some of whom apologize for their stupidity and complicity.
    Shows the depth of the hubris and ineptitude of Dubya Gump & the Dick, as well as that complete *****, Rumsfeld. (Sorry, just my gut reaction to this COMPLETE *****).
    • DiggasWAttitude, on 03/27/2008, -2/+23Agreed, a lot of ineptitude. But one person who deserves huge praise is General Shinseki. He was one of the first to put his reputation on the line and stand up to Rumsfeld, suggesting the troop levels that would be required after the initial attack were much higher than Rummy's estimate. He came across as the most patriotic out of all of them but when he retired hardly anyone came to his ceremony to acknowledge his service.
      • swrostmore, on 03/27/2008, -3/+10Yes..."retired"....did you expect the people who told him behind the scenes to fall on his sword for contradicting the Party line to actually show up to his retirement ceremony? Well, for all I know they did, these people have no shame.
        • DiggasWAttitude, on 03/27/2008, -2/+23Not showing up for his retirement ceremony was just an example of how petty and vindictive people like Rumsfeld are. Granted, such examples pale in comparison to what they did to Wilson and Plame.

          I guess what struck me the most about the Frontline special wasn't the terrible policy, lack of foresight or utter absence of respect for life. It was the personal hate and animosity Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremmer, etc. displayed towards anyone who expressed an alternate viewpoint. I assumed my liberal 'Cheney and Rumsfeld are evil' belief was biased, coming in part from my years of Daily Show watching. After watching this special, objectively I don't know how anyone could think Rummy and Dick are not truly evil people intent on destroying the foundations of this country.
    • ScienceDoc, on 03/27/2008, -2/+14Don't forget Condi. She is in no way qualified to be in charge of anything. Well maybe a graduate seminar.
      • bjornski, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4I'd love to sit and listen to her lecture on Russian history, but I don't think she's qualified in any way to have a decision making position.
        • hittnrun, on 03/27/2008, -6/+2It is always amusing to read the comments of the "do-nothings" whining about the "do-somethings". I am sure Condi doesn't spend her days typing ridiculous comments on a public message board.Think about that.
          • bjornski, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2After looking through your comments, I see you're just an activist ray of sunshine yourself. Maybe once you move out of your mom's basement, you'll see the people you're protecting aren't worth protecting.
        • hittnrun, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Protecting? It's called "common sense".
      • nonymous666, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Interesting. The show says Rumsfeld is reported of saying a similar thing about her. Something like "she's nothing but a glorified russian studies major".
        • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3And he was right, she was a complete lay down and did not do her job effectively.
    • LukasSmith, on 03/27/2008, -15/+3Here is reality:
      What do people do when they are attacked? Write a letter. Give speeches? The fiasco that is Iraq was caused by a nation and government filled with fear. People do stupid things when they are afraid. To blame this war solely on Bush is I think the greatest liberal conspiracy of this decade. America responded to fear. The majority of the countries population and government supported this war. We lashed out and we made a mistake. America made a mistake. And then our government went on to make a few military tactic mistakes as well. Now if you think its easier to blame others, the American way, Or want to believe that democrats, who by the way are getting off easy as ***** especially on digg.com please please present real evidence that doesn't involve opinion pieces or evidence that would never survive in a court of law. Americans, especially the democrats who voted for the war, are so busy trying to find a fall guy for a great blunder by the entire government and by extension the American people, they fail to remember in this country "innocent till proven guilty" is still true. I recall after Bush was elected there was no love for him by government democrats. In fact I would almost say they hated each other. Yet in their distrust and their hate they still managed to come together and vote for a war that has proved to be costly and dangerous. I often wonder how democrat politicians can say But I trusted Bush. Can that be called true? or did democrats act in fear or out of mob mentality? The truth is we may never know who is responsible but I would rather be opened minded then close the book on the basis of opinion pieces and shoddy evidence as our government was convinced to go to war on opinion pieces and shoddy evidence.
      • nycmac247, on 03/27/2008, -2/+14ahhh,,, did you watch the videos? Right after the attack they saying "How can we connect this to Iraq" and even after people said Iraq had zero to do with it they kept going since they had wanted to invade for quite a while anyway. It was clear from BEFORE the beginning that Iraq had ZERO to do with 9/11.
        It was not a foolish mistake - it was ON PURPOSE
        • 98percentcogdis, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5Please know that LukasSmith does not think like normal people think, and to reason with him would be impossible. It will not be long before he is calling you the foulest names that you have ever heard. I think he is mentally ill.
          • LukasSmith, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1Pray tell would my comment be something like this:
            Listen to him, he is such a TWIT. That's why we're in Iraq too. To help the Iraqi people to have a democratic form of government, like ours, so they can quit being backwards. That's why their whole country is demolished, because we have been HELPING them since the 1980's. I can not stand that ass hole,LukasSmith!!!
            yes can you feel the hate... oh wait thats not my comment. maybe its yours?
          • bjornski, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Huh?

            Lukas, Put down the Bud Light and go to bed. You're making an ass out of yourself.
      • LukasSmith, on 03/27/2008, -14/+3I don't recall the part where someone said "how we can connect this to Iraq." Who said it? and when? You can't really tell from a video. The rest of your arguement is pure conjecture and speculation. I say keep an open mind without concrete proof. Maybe they kept going in Iraq because they like many democrats don't like to admit they are wrong/to late to say oops and run back to your country when you already started it. And no it wasn't clear that Iraq had zero to do with 9/11 even in 1998 Clinton was bombing Iraq years after sanctions began because he thought Saddam had weapons. Which now we know even in 1998 he didn't have weapons. So why bomb Iraq in 1998? because government is just made up of people and people are stupid. People make mistakes. In any case Saddam was viewed as a threat all the way up to Bush's election and beyond and obviously it took very little to convince Clinton or Bush that Saddam was a threat and react. Would some other president have acted more brilliantly? doubt it.
      • zyryx, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2did we watch the same show?
    • nonymous666, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4> "as well as that complete *****, Rumsfeld"

      You should see the Frontline show from a couple years ago... "Rumsfeld's War". It's draw dropping. I think even more so than this recent "Bush's War".
      • nonymous666, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2"draw"? I meant "jaw" of course. Duh!
  • sheasie, on 03/27/2008, -40/+6Buried for inaccurate title. Re-title "Cheney's War".
    • gypsi, on 03/27/2008, -5/+12frontline has shown a lot of the footage before - but this production was called "bush's war"
    • Bushlied, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Actually I have to agree with you. I worked on the show, both Cheneys Law and Bushs war. Same freaking footage and storyline. So ya their really isn't to much differnce between the two.
      • nonymous666, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Thought Rumsfeld's War was amazing. This recent one was sorta 'meh. been there done that."
      • homercles337, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yea, i turned it on and thought that i had seen it before. Lots of the same interviews and footage from previous Frontline shows.
    • zyryx, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2can we add Rumsfeld's *****?
    • nonymous666, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1They already did a show on Cheney called "Cheney's Law".

      They also did one on Rumsfeld called "Rumsfeld's War".
  • MadKennyP, on 03/27/2008, -9/+25Did any of Bush's and Cheney's old cronies in the petroleum industry or defense industry get rich off the Iraq War? Just wondering. Bush and Condi Rice used to work in the oil industry. Cheney used to run Halliburton. Just curious.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -7/+32"Did any of Bush's and Cheney's old cronies in the petroleum industry or defense industry get rich off the Iraq War?"

      Of course not. The way crude oil prices have jumped through the roof had to cut into Exxon's profit margins in a way that hurt their stock prices.

      "February 1 2007: 9:07 AM EST
      NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit in U.S. history Thursday,"
      http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/companies/exx ...

      Or not.
    • swrostmore, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9http://code0range.net/files/images/rice-tanker-743 ...
    • rexblade, on 03/27/2008, -1/+20Profit is an understatement and halliburton is now based out of Dubai where companies who move there get a tax free status for 50 years.
  • jlhoben, on 03/27/2008, -15/+166Bush couldn't have done it without all the millions of Americans with sub average IQ's. Way to go you dumb dinks.
    • ScienceDoc, on 03/27/2008, -10/+12Republisheep and Rush Douchebag followers.
      • Herolint, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5It is foolish to think republicans and Rush listeners have a monopoly on stupidity.
    • haylel, on 03/27/2008, -1/+11I voted for the other guy.
      • Pake, on 03/27/2008, -10/+5And that would have turned out different? The "facts" given in 2002 were made up of the same "facts" given prior to 2002. You can't honestly believe that in 3 years time since Clinton decided to bomb the ***** out of Baghdad to direct the USA's attention from his impeachment trial (Iraq bombing: Dec. 16th to Dec. 19th, 1998. Impeached on Dec. 19th, 1998.), that somehow Saddam had managed to destroy every single weapons project they were accused of by Clinton, Kerry, Gore, the Democratic Party, Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party. They were all behind going in and removing Saddam and one way or another we were bound to end up in this very situation. Kerry and Gore had no problem helping bomb Baghdad in 1998 and continuously up until the invasion in 2002 were consistently saying that Saddam needed to be removed.
        • Neo829, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Hi Pake, you must be new here. This is Digg. The only truth we're interested in is the one that we make up. Still, I went ahead and dugg you up... out of pity, of course.
        • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Actually the "facts" you speak about were not "facts". Had Gore won in 2000 I highly doubt he would have made the same appointments and cheney most definitely would have not been his VP, those to decisions alone would have led to a very different outcome of the "War on terrorism".

          The intelligence was clear and dated back some ten years prior and NONE of it linked saddam with weapons of mass destruction. The case for wmd's was made up by a group whose specific purpose was to make the connection.

          Had someone else been president the war would have been over by 2003 right after the cia had back up from the military in Afghanistan where osama and al queda had been.
          • Pake, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Gore had just as much desire to invade Iraq as the rest of them. Anyone who believes we'd be in a different position right now is just a fool of one political party.
    • DontGiveADamn, on 03/27/2008, -2/+14And the sad thing is that they would re-elect him again. Bush has a 70% approval rating with Republicans.
    • DeskFlyer, on 03/27/2008, -0/+30I'm sorry, what were you saying? I was busy watching a rerun of American Idol.
    • lobsterroboto, on 03/27/2008, -5/+4dugg down for implying all dinks are dumb.
      dink - a partner in a well-off working couple with no children
      • Jesse, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2dork - you
      • skyshock1, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2DINK = Dual Income, No Kids
      • nycmac247, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1yeah, its really dumb to not have kids - better to be poor and have 5 or 6?
        (potential false dichotomy, I know)
    • pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5the sad thing is, they may do it again with mccain so he can "bomb bomb bomb iran"
      • SwedishNinja, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and we can invade Iraq for the next 1,000 years too!

        Look, I can take quotes out of context too!
    • Herolint, on 03/27/2008, -6/+4Don't lay this on the shoulders of the American people. Whether for or against the war, the American people don't have the means to get us into a war.
      • DocOctavius, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3No, but America didn't need to vote for an obvious idiot AGAIN, AFTER he'd already been caught lying multiple times. Even if Kerry wasn't the best person for the job, he was 5000 percent better than Bush. I agree- most Americans are pretty stupid, but hopefully logic will prevail in 2008.
    • gerfenstein, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3A failure of education and the media.
    • anillop, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8Don't blame me I voted for Kodos.
    • Pritchard, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2A person is smart. People are stupid. It's the Shepherd's blame when his sheep run a muck.

      ^ - Don't act smart when you let others act stupid.
    • dk911, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Wow... just wow. Your ignorance, my friend, astounds me. "Those who are afraid of others, only show their own weaknesses." Let me translate for you, since you obviously will miss the point: "If you think others are stupid or moronic, it's only because you know you are worse off (mentally) than they are.
    • Izult, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E Hacking Democracy. Watch all 9 parts. You still think he was voted in the first time?
  • Stevanoski, on 03/27/2008, -92/+13Only the Left supports Frontline and this story. Does this tell you anything about the bias in the story and at PBS in general?
    • scottpigeon, on 03/27/2008, -8/+70So anyone who disagrees with attacking a country that did nothing to us, over made up reasons, must belong to the political left ideology? Okay...

      See, I thought it was a common sense issue...
      • ordig, on 03/27/2008, -2/+8You have committed crimethink. Report to reeducation center immediately. Failure to do so will result in termination.
    • milou, on 03/27/2008, -7/+16It is about time we get the "OTHER" bias. We have been dragged to the right for way too long.
      • Stevanoski, on 03/27/2008, -22/+5Point made by your post, therefore we cannot trust the story.
        • milou, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2I was being funny by "dragged". It is about being balanced, were both left and right are somewhat equal. We need to see both extremes to get an even view.
    • nblsavage, on 03/27/2008, -7/+59hey Stevie, you're free to post a rebuttal of the facts as Frontline presented them. But I guess it's just easier to troll isn't it?
      • Stevanoski, on 03/27/2008, -30/+6Ah nbls, my own little troll, I am flattered you follow me.
        • nblsavage, on 03/27/2008, -4/+22Hey baiting simpletons is just a minor hobby, don't be too flattered.
        • chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -3/+23I noticed you didn't post any sort of rebuttal yet....
          • gypsi, on 03/27/2008, -3/+15they did: "i know you are but what am i"
          • Stevanoski, on 03/27/2008, -31/+3When someone rebutts my point, then I will anwer their points.
          • jaxcs, on 03/27/2008, -3/+22you made a point?
      • BossKey, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5What about all of the Bush officials interviewed in the program who participated in the invasion and spent the program apologizing for the terrible mistake? Are you against those people too, those conservatives and soldiers who realize what a horrific decision it was?
    • solidcube, on 03/27/2008, -2/+19I guess the facts must be biased too. Welcome to the reality-based world.
    • w00master, on 03/27/2008, -2/+17The problem with your argument is that the documentary provided interviews with many former Bush administration official who were actually involved with the fiasco.

      Then again, so you're one of those "20%" - crazy, close minded, and unwilling to see the truth.

      Then again, you're probably just a troll.
    • Hangly, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6Who do you work for?
      • neocognitism, on 03/27/2008, -4/+7Don't mind him, he gets high, comes online, and posts the most "conservative right" outrageous things possible. He doesn't actually believe it. He's super pro-Zionist too, when it suits him.
    • bitORlogic, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9You just have to love such a tautological fallacy. They're biased because they disagree, and they shouldn't be trusted because they're biased. The fact that they disagree with you MAKES them wrong!
    • anillop, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Kind of like how only paint chip eating retards still support Bush.
  • caponumen, on 03/27/2008, -43/+9Good, but pretty weak and one sided as far exposing just how the democrats where involved in helping make the war happen........
    • chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -7/+21In 2002 a majority of the Congressional Democrats voted against the illegal invasion. If it were up to the Democrats, this horrible crime against humanity wouldn't have happened.
      • JimmySpaza, on 03/27/2008, -15/+8Not true. More Democrats voted for the war than against, 29 to 21.

        Here is the actual vote tally from the Senate's own website.

        http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...

        Democrats vote tally for/against war:
        YEA (go to war): 29
        No (no war): 21

        Chicofaraby, you might want to educate yourself before opening yourself up to ridicule.
        • chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -1/+15Spaz you must be too stupid to realize it, but the Congress has two branches.

          A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the illegal invasion of Iraq. It is a stone cold fact.
          • ufia, on 03/27/2008, -12/+1Liberals this, democrats that, this is all jibba jabba. I blame global warming for the war in Iraq.
    • rexblade, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Well it's not hard to realize they are in cahoots really. The right left paradigm is for show.
    • swrostmore, on 03/27/2008, -5/+11Harrisburg, Pa.: Can you explain why the title "Bush's War" is used? The fact is that Congress declared this war. Your attempt to pin it on one person is unprofessional and politically motivated. Whatever happened to responsible journalism? We deserve better.

      Michael Kirk (producer, Bush's War): I beg to differ. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, "100% authority yields 100% responsibility." I believe the president ultimately made all the central decisions about the war in Iraq."
      • airiox, on 03/27/2008, -6/+1Thanks for that quote, it shows exactly that the makers of this documentary were bias.

        "Lets deny that it has a liberal slant by giving you a direct quote that displays that slant." Smart... They still did a good job examining the facts, but it goes to show they had a message they were trying to get across. And that message certainly wasn't pro-bush. In my opinion any bias when filming a "Documentary" should be avoided. Unfortunately 99% of theses "documentaries" are filmed starting with some sort of bias.
        • mjantz, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8So assigning responsibility to the person who is responsible for the war is biased?
      • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry where was this declaration of war you speak of?

        That's right there was none.
    • mfc5200, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9Listen, I don't like the Democrats in general more than anyone else, but maybe you missed the part where the President asked for "war time unlimited presidential powers" and the Democrats, despite being in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, denied his request.

      Given, he ended up getting what he wanted via legal loopholes given to him by the justice department, but the Democrats still said no. God I hate this administration.
  • BigPapasan, on 03/27/2008, -4/+89PBS Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
    • Fragalishus, on 03/27/2008, -8/+3Yeah was posted at reddit straight to PBS. Personally burying this one, not that I have anything against C&L, but this is just pathetic. If someone submits the PBS link I'll gladly digg it up, as I have with your comment, but I'd prefer to officially digg it too.
    • BlaenkDenum, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6http://www.mininova.org/tor/1272259
      • Nickdotnet, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Thank you! Was taking me forever to rip those flash files....
      • rillo561, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1big thanks!
  • Carv, on 03/27/2008, -5/+62This was a great documentary, I applaud Frontline for being an honest part of the media and having the balls to tell it how it is.
    • ScienceDoc, on 03/27/2008, -2/+25Frontline and Bill Moyers are about all that is left.
      • moolaismyfriend, on 03/27/2008, -6/+17Thats why the pedophile, Jesus worshipping, Republicans in congress tried to get legislation passed that would strip PBS of all funding.
        • Railz, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7NPR and PBS are the only news I try to listen too. If I want quick breaking news Ill swap to BBC.
        • pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic ...
          "Republicans are looking for ways to save taxpayers' dollars" then end the ***** war. and stop wasting money on faith-based initiatives and abstinence only education programs that don't work. conservatives are so anti-education and pro-ignorance.
        • airiox, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2NPR? are you serious? HAHA! They aren't biased at all.
      • fyngyrz, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7HEY! Don't associate pedophiles with congresspersons. It degrades the pedophiles.
    • banmaster, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah, just a pity they didn't grow balls about 6 years ago isn't it!!
    • 140Suffolk, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1Balls? You mean bravery? What the hell is brave about being anti-war on a non-commercial leftist network? What's going to happen? Everybody who watches Moyers is already a leftist who agrees with him. So what's so brave? What's going to happen?
      Next you'll say that Diggers who post anti-war statements have "balls". Gimme a break.
      • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2"What the hell is brave about being anti-war on a non-commercial leftist network?"
        Please explain to us how PBS or NPR is leftist?
        I want to know so I can look for your reasons when I listen to them.
        • corneliusJones, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1If you don't see that NPR and PBS are left, then you need to re-examine your bias detector. I am a former liberal, now sick of both sides of the aisle, and though NPR and PBS are about the closest thing we have to unbiased journalism, they have a definite left tilt. Which doesn't mean I don't like them, I listen to NPR every single day. Just be aware of the biases of the news you consume.

          Examples: Just look/listen how the issues of global warming and universal healthcare are presented. Though these are contentious issues with no clear conclusion either way, the journalists of public broadcasting have clearly already made up their minds, and often do not give a voice to those who speak against the liberal view. It's quite obvious when you stop assuming they are perfect--they are human just like the rest of us.
        • 140Suffolk, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I can give you one great example that will cover both PBS AND NPR. I think you would agree that is good policy for a fishermen to bait his hook to suit the fish. Just a week or two ago, on Sunday night I watched for hours as PBS was raising money using the gift of a certain DVD about the life-and-times of a certain individual. This individual was obviously beloved of the staff at PBS and they expected him to be beloved of their viewing audience as well.
          That individual is an avowed former communist, and in truth STILL a communist, named PETE SEEGER.
          Seeger has done some good promoting cleaning up the Hudson River. But he was a member of a global political party that has murdered more of its citizens than any in history. He has spent his life promoting the beliefs of a failed philosophy that has lured millions to their graves. It has been shown that his positions turned 180 degrees the minute the tide turned in Moscow. He even brags that he contributes money, and lies, to Palestinian groups that make it easier for Palestinian terrorists to sneak illegal murder weapons into Gaza.
          Or course Seeger explains this a little differently.
          A couple of years ago the NPR station in my local area likewise was plugging a CD of Seeger interviews as a gift to induce listeners to give money. Because, again, they are leftist communist fellow travelers and expect their audience to be the same. Or, at least, what Karl Marx referred to as "useful idiots".
  • Kikokun, on 03/27/2008, -6/+19impeach the MF's already, kick'em into the slammer...
    • oscenester, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1To hell with the slammer. I think a public flogging, followed by the execution by guillotine.
  • seldon21, on 03/27/2008, -9/+1If you get a chance check out this one.

    http://digg.com/politics/Bush_s_War_Back_Story

  • milou, on 03/27/2008, -10/+33Al Qaeda high jacked planes to destroy United States, Bush's administration high jacked the system to finish their job. I would say this is the perfect winning strategy for Al Qaeda. They almost failed. The one plane that should have hit the target failed. If only Cheney would have been gone? Al Qaeda are brilliant leaders or very, very, very lucky. They managed to start the ball rolling and let the enemy finish themselves off. This looks like an inside job (Al Qaeda must have known about the ineptitude of Bush's administration)?

    The United States of America has a very good process to guarantee check and balances. The PBS "Bush's War" is a good lesson that on occasion this democratic process of check and balances will fail. It is obvious, lack of leadership, power hungry, perceived respect, and desire to "fit in" are viruses this administration "bathed in". Each one of the administrative individuals with their proper responsibility should be fully held accountable. I would say take out the gallows, "it is execution time". In all of this administration mess I am personally amazed NO ONE stood up and said "STOP". With so many "intelligent people" involved, were was the courage? Even worse, is these supposed "leaders" still get treated with respect by the people. This is a disgrace to humanity. In retrospect, I do not see any present U.S. political parties capable of doing any better. It's a system issue that needs some serious cleaning.

    The United States of America is presently the mightiest, most powerfully country in the world but with a wounded system a couple guys with sandals can bring it down on its own. Looks like we have met the enemy and the enemy is US (as in United States).
    • solidcube, on 03/27/2008, -1/+14Parent does not deserve to be dugg down, he has a point. I've heard that Al Qaeda were delighted by the Bush administration's actions, beyond their wildest dreams. If we'd responded with missile strikes on terrorist targets, or covert ops attacks, the economic damage would have been vanishingly negligible.

      As it was, the administration sent our military into the assassin's den, and dragged the rest of us after them.
      • 140Suffolk, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1You "heard that Al Qaida [was] delighted..." ? Really. Where did you hear that? It's plainly not true.
        • solidcube, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1No, they were happy. Bin Laden's stated purpose was to draw the US into a war in the middle east to bleed our economy dry and bring more muslims into the jihad. It's been Afghan strategy since time immemorial, and it's part of the reason for the proverb having to do with land wars in asia. I'm surprised you're not aware of this. I don't know if BL was prepared for the extent of US retaliation, but the damage done to the US economy was a success beyond his wildest dreams. He (ostensibly) knocked down the towers, but he couldn't force us to bankrupt the national treasury.

          Only enemies domestic could do that.
          • 140Suffolk, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Oh I'm aware that you libs go along with that idea. It just doesn't make sense. Did BL want us in Afghanistan too? And what damage done to the US economy? The "housing mortgage crisis" ? That didn't come from our war with the jihadists. That is courtesy of the 90s when the Federal government encouraged/required banks to loosen up their lending standards for homes, for reasons of "racial equality".
            So according to your belief, we should not have gone into Afghanistan? That's just giving BL what he wants? So really, we should NEVER fight back.
            You know, when the Islamic preachers rail against the west warring with them, they say their "brothers" are being killed by the "Crusdaders" in Palestine, Iraq AND Afghanistan. All three are the same to them. Because they understand what you libs do not.
    • dshey, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8Thats if.... Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11 ....
      • mrgreenjeans9, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3i'm glad someone made this observation. i wonder if the truth will ever come out?
        • milou, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I assume Al Qaeda did 9/11.
        • dshey, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I'll get buried for this, but a good place to start is by YouTubing "loose change"
      • solidcube, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Yes, you have to operate on several sets of assumptions, because very little this administration says is true.
    • lordenlil, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2It's "hijack".
  • ScienceDoc, on 03/27/2008, -6/+38It is stunning how dumb the neocons are. One after another they appoint someone's "old friend". What a bunch of insular idiots. The neocons that back these people are nothing less than complete and utter morons. If you voted for Bush, put on the Dunce Cap and go stand in the corner. Shame on you. Disgusting.
    • UntoTheBreach, on 03/27/2008, -1/+11Do a search on The Project for a New American Century and read the whitepaper called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" Then look at the list of signatories. This mess has less to do with stupidity and more to do with arrogance, power-lust, hubris and above all, greed. The real stupidity lies in the complicity of the American people.

      TO ALL AMERICANS: DO YOUR HOMEWORK, BAND TOGETHER, HONOUR THE CONSTITUTION.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Nothing dumb about em, they knew exactly what they were doing, Making them selves rich at the expense of dumb uninformed Americans who can't see the forest for the trees.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/27/2008, -14/+6You know I submitted this first from the same source. How come you are able to submit it again?

    http://digg.com/political_opinion/PBS_Frontline_Th ...
    • airiox, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5Silly you. You aren't a power user. Don't get the idea you could ever get anything promoted to the front page.
    • ScienceDoc, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yes there is a strange Digg cabal that controls these things. No clue how it works.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/27/2008, -6/+15Anyways, I watched both nights and this documentary is absolutely fascinating in its depth and scope of coverage.

    Some really great interviews with the insiders.
    • ScienceDoc, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Makes you wonder WTF CNN and MSNBC have been reporting for the past five years.
  • borez, on 03/27/2008, -9/+3Anyone got a torrent for this?
    • borez, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7Forget it, didn't know it was online...I'm British, why would I know.
  • Dynamis, on 03/27/2008, -15/+4I see a lot of praise and a little bashing but nobody offers any facts in relation to the show. I haven't seen it but does it bring anything new to the table? Or is it just well done?
    • moolaismyfriend, on 03/27/2008, -6/+6Thanks for a waste of a comment that was meant to discredit any notion that the war may be wrong.

      Get off your lazy republican ass and watch the program. Until then shut the ***** up.
      • brycelb, on 03/27/2008, -11/+2Who are you responding to? WTF is your major malfunction? Until you gain proper reading comprehension skills I think you need to SHUT THE ***** UP!
  • whatthefu, on 03/27/2008, -4/+23It's going to be interesting to see how the history books sum up this presidency.
    • haylel, on 03/27/2008, -2/+13They will call it "The Great Depression".
      The current "Great Depression" will be downgraded to "The Moderate Depression".
      • kinseyincanada, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2or maybe greatest depression?
    • swrostmore, on 03/27/2008, -2/+13Personally I don't give a ***** how "the history books" sum up the past 7 years. All I know is that Bush took America from a prosperous nation at peace to a broke nation at war, and now we're staring a total economic collapse in the face just in time for him to pass the buck to the next President. Bush Jr. will live in infamy as the American Gorbachev.
    • silentboom, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1The winner writes history and at this point it looks like The endgame is near and they could write what they want. Soon you'll be a servant, owned by world government.
    • SwedishNinja, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Protip: The Bush presidency will be herald as a challenging one that shaped global policy in the early years of the new millennium. The history books will talk about the expanded roll of intrastate war, fanatic Islamic terrorism, and the Chinese challenge to American hegemony in the early 21st Century. No one will give a ***** about Dick Cheney's roll in Halliburton, the Valarie Plame scandal, or any of the other "impeachable" offenses routinely mentioned on this site and others. At most, they'll be a footnote. Try to remember, despite winning several elections in relative landslides, the venerable Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself was seen as a divisive character. He not only inscenced Republicans of that era with his New Deal program, but also struck a bad note with isolationalist Democrats who would rather have seen us not enter World War Two. Despite all of this, today FDR is known as a fantastic American President who rose to the occasion in turbulent times, just as Bush will be remembered. I'll buy all of you a Coke if when the 2020 edition of the American History textbook comes out, this is not true.
      • chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Thanks for commenting Mrs Bush, but I'm not as optimistic as you are about your son's legacy. FDR didn't start an illegal war, he ended one. See the difference?
    • gypsi, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1google used to know the answer - "failure"
  • borez, on 03/27/2008, -3/+19What's the point of having a democracy when you can just bypass it at will when it suits?
    • ordig, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5the point is to keep up the illusion that the people have some freedom, when in fact they are slaves.
  • grungegbunny, on 03/27/2008, -3/+15Wow I am amazed this much info about the inside going ons existed. Does mainstream media just ignore it cause it makes for dull news?
    • moolaismyfriend, on 03/27/2008, -3/+9Did you hear about the white girl that has been kidnapped?
    • chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -1/+13No, they ignore it because they are wholly owned by the same corporations that own both political parties.
    • dumpyhumpy, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Not just info about inner workings -- It's first hand testimony. I guess you just have to ask.
    • oscenester, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Bush's Cousin is in charge of approval of news stories at fox. nuff said.
  • milou, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5For more information about the show check out "Frontline producer Michael Kirk online":

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discu ...
  • theDunedan, on 03/27/2008, -2/+21The special is video journalism at its best. I hope they show it again this coming October.
  • pennvneff, on 03/27/2008, -2/+10You know you guys can just goto the Frontline website and watch it for free. My question is why did the French screw over Colin Powell and embarrass him publicly like that? Powell was the only guy in that administration who was trying to stop Bush and Co. from going to war.

    • oldman, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7IMHO the jury is still out on Powell. True he did resist the evil Empire, but in the end he supported them with that vial of white powder to create fear on Anthrax in the Congress and in the public at large. We will likely never know to what level he was complicit, But I refuse to give him a complete pass either.
      • Heywoodj, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I think they sent him on enough diplomatic suicide missions to throw him under the bus.
        Good soldier he is he went on them.
        Might have made a great President,
        to bad they made sure we'll never know.
        • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I agree, he was kept to the outside and only brought in when they needed to parade him around to garner support for their cause.

          Thrown under the bus indeed, and George Tenet was the hit man.
    • airiox, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2You haven't heard the news? Europe is the most racist place on Earth. If you happen to be a man or woman of color and are affiliated with the Republican party, America is.
    • Izult, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1My beef with Powell is that he didn't immediately go to congress and press that they seek Bush and Cheney's immediate resignation knowing what he knew about the war and the fabricated reasons for starting it it was his patriotic duty.
  • sexydarin, on 03/27/2008, -28/+4***** off with illegal war. Clinton murdered thousands of serbians and the leftist big yaps were silent.
    • OrangeTide, on 03/27/2008, -10/+1You're right. It's so sad that a "legal" war that is less just is quietly swept under the rug. The problem with legal and illegal is that governments get to define it. I guess Bush just didn't fill out the right paperwork for his war. Next time you just need to have NATO ask you to bomb civilians first. Maybe Bush should have just carpet bombed Saddam's cities instead of putting troops on the ground, I guess Bush is just not as competent as other politicians at hiding wars. (he didn't even try to hide it)
    • Picaroon, on 03/27/2008, -1/+19Wow, that's pretty goddamn ignorant. "Murdered thousands of Serbians"? Give me a break.
      • SullyA, on 03/27/2008, -7/+0Human Rights Watch said 500 civilians. The Yugoslavian government said as many at 5,000. Like it or not the Clinton administration conducted that war with a bombing campaign over an extended period of time without Congressional or UN approval and there was scarcely a peep of protest from all the so called peace groups. Bush is not the only president who has stretched his authority.
      • airiox, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Just about as ignorant as people saying 500k Iraqi civilians were killed by Bush.
    • oldman, on 03/27/2008, -1/+21And this justifies bush? However many Serbs died (for their genocide of the Croats as you no doubt misremember) is poor excuse even for some ignorant neocon supporter
      • sexydarin, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1There were more troops killed under clintons watch than bush's. i personally would have bombed a city for payback. It's too expensive to conduct wars. it's much easier to bomb cities.
        • Firgof, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2"It's much easier to commit mass genocide." Fixed that for you.
      • SullyA, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0No, it doesn't justify Bush. But as it turns out Clinton killed the Serbs for their ethnic cleansing of the Kosovo Albanian Muslims. The affair with the Christian Croats occurred before and engendered little response. The lack of historical knowledge among commenters on this site, knowledge easily accessible on Wikipedia, is breathtaking.
        • sexydarin, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1And clinton and the un ignored the ethnic cleansing of the christian serbs by the albanian muslims. it wasn't a one way street. Clinton murdered many innocent Serbs. didn't clinton also bomb innocent civilians.
    • ordig, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Im sure Clinton killed more iraqis than serbs.
  • mal1964, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4"(or as I would call it, McCain’s War) "
    PBS Frontline: The Definitive Account of “Bush’s War”
    I think Frontline has the correct title.
  • jEsusextRact, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6I always program my DVR to record Nova and Frontline. Both are such damn good shows, never disappoint.
  • Jimgress, on 03/27/2008, -6/+21Reality = liberal bias
    • airiox, on 03/27/2008, -7/+4You're a moron if you deny the liberal bias in the press. Same goes if you deny the Conservative slant of Fox News. Every person who picks up a pen and covers a politician has his or her own agenda. Thats a fact and any person who wants just a shred of the truth, rather than be told it, realizes such a fact.
    • KDX200rider, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Thats why people like you are so insufferable. You only see the world one way, your way.
  • DeskFlyer, on 03/27/2008, -2/+43The people at PBS deserve a raise. Not just for this, but in general. They do outstanding work.
    • no1ukn0w, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Too bad Bush wants to cut off all Government funding for PBS.
  • theskyisblue, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7mass media is speaking out against bush? hard to believe...
    • dshey, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5I would barely call PBS mass media. They reach the masses, but no one really pays attention.
      • SwedishNinja, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Also not to mention that they are funded by the government. If Bush is such a monster, then why even allow this to be aired at all?
        • cannonball, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Tax payers fund the government, and the government is not entirely Bush.
      • oscenester, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Actually, PBS programs are brought to you by AND Viewers Like You. haha
  • piratearggghhh, on 03/27/2008, -3/+73In conclusion

    Cheney & Rumsfield = Evil incarnates
    Bush = Easily influenced idiot
    Rice = Spineless kissass warhawk
    Powell = Man of dignity who got shut out
    Americans who voted for Bush = morons
    Americans who voted for Bush twice = proud morons
    • theskyman, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6The sad thing is there are still Americans (about 30% to 35%) who would still vote for Bush. That is truly scary!
      • KDX200rider, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0The really sad thing is the way people like you are fed crap and you eat it up like steak...Wake UP.!!
    • TimDigg, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Don't let Tennet off the hook


      Tennet = Spineless bastard who wanted in on the action

      he knew damn well there were no WMD, but he felt it would keep him out of the loop if he said otherwise....

      Paul Pillar = poor soul who got tossed in

      I thought the most interesting aspect of all this was the battle between CIA and DOD...
    • soulkitchen, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Bush is NOT an easily influenced idiot. For *****, when will everyone realize that the guy uses his idiot mask to convince you that he's harmless. He is just as involved as Cheney.
      Ask yourself: If Nixon had posed as an imbecile, would the public have turned on him?
      • KevinRWright, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I don't know man. This doc sure gave evidence to the contrary. If you are inclined to believe that this is pretty much the truth, which we really should since PBS has a very well respected track record, then you can't dismiss the fact that Bush was painted in a very similar fashion to Idi Amin.
    • KevinRWright, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6I agree for the most part, but I think you are being too kind with Powell.
      The man stood up against them time and time again in private, but then when it mattered most, he delivered that damn speech to the UN that he KNEW wasn't true. It's like a greek tragedy, a principled and moral man faced a decision that isn't just once in a lifetime, but one that almost none of us would ever had to make, and he lost his spine and let down the country.

      He could have spoke out in public early on and resigned. If Powell would have resigned BEFORE we went into Iraq, basically saying I want nothing to do with this, dont you think the American public would have raised some eyebrows much earlier on and would have started asking questions?

      I feel most angry at him, because I held him to a higher standard.
    • SwedishNinja, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1LOL ad hominems.
    • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Wow, that was actually a pretty good summery, although I'd probably agree with Rumsfield that Rice is a glorified Russian historian, or at the very least a lay down.
  • Groovydoo, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8The fact that he has no remorse indicates to this arm chair psychologist that he has a de facto personality disorder, perhaps even psychopathic tendencies. He lacks empathy, responsibility, an inability to accept blame or fault, and asserts how "right" he is even when a preponderance of facts and/or public disdain dispute his poor choices.
    • allfatherblack, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Governments dont have the liberty of saying "Oh whoops we were wrong!" Look at China. Thats just growing into Red, Chopstick-using America but they still call themselves Communists. Why? Because you cant just say "Hey all this ***** you guys said was making you miserable for years if not decades if not centurys? Guess what? We think its ***** too!" Im not saying that their right to conceal it; just that it would take some serious Hitler--sized juevos to stand up there and say that.
      OH *****. WHATS THAT!? A comment regarding Hitler in some complimentary manner!? OH SNAP. I must be a bigot! Well sir, suck my *****. He was a douche, but that doesnt change the fact that he did some pretty amazing ***** and had some huge figurative balls (despite evidence that he might have been impotent or gay).
      • hierophantus, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Why the hell did you run that comment off the rails like that with the "Hitler" irrelevance and defensiveness?

        Anyway, there's a HUGE difference between admitting you mishandled a single invasion and admitting that the last 50 years of your entire governmental and social structure were fundamentally wrong. Your analogy is way off even before your comment implodes.
    • KDX200rider, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Are you talking about Bill or Hillary?
  • KnightMareInc, on 03/27/2008, -3/+12digg the actual story from the PBS site, not the spam.

    http://digg.com/television/FRONTLINE_Bush_s_War_PB ...
  • 7yler, on 03/27/2008, -8/+3I'll be honest, I'm no fan of GW, I disagree with him politically, ideologically, and personally. I wouldn't want him as a friend, colleague, associate, or acquaintance. I resent his divisive politics, 50% +1 does not a legitimate leader make. He's governed to serve his base at the expense of those who opposed him. For this I blame his architect and closest adviser, Karl Rove represents all that is fundamentally wrong with contemporary politics. That said, this series was inherently biased, though calling something biased is not a critique, nor is a baseless ideology grounds for public policy. I look forward to reading my children's history books when the truth finally comes out. I'm confident we'll all have egg on our face, for no matter which way I look, left or right, the only thing I see is hypocrisy. And as a final point, can we all look up the definition of liberal; Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society. So yes, I'm a liberal, and very, very, biased toward it.
    • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I don't think it can be biased if it's based entirely from truth/facts.

      I don't mind being proven wrong and I prefer the truth as much as the next guy but are there particular scenes or parts of this documentary that show it's bias?
  • redxninja, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6Hmmmm....yellow cake.
  • mfc5200, on 03/27/2008, -4/+10I just added PBS to my list of charities I donate too...

    There is nothing wrong with mainstream media, I understand where they are coming from, they do stories based on what they think the ratings will be...Hence, it's up to individuals to fund projects that are based on trying to deliver unbiased truth.
    • allfatherblack, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Yes there is something wrong with that. Keeping or helping people STAY ignorant is (in my eyes) a literal crime against humanity. Ignorance begats unnecessary violence, bigotry, etc. Mind you those are extremes but Im sure you get where Im going by now. Now, no one said the media owes anything to the people; it doesnt, its mostly private business. But the PEOPLE owe it to themselves to eradicate sources of UNknowledge like FOX News and the like. And Im not attacking Fox because its a Red channel; but they literally lie to their viewers and that SHOULD be some crime. Every hillbilly that beat up an Arab due to 9/11 owes a little of their ignorance to the media who, rather than jumping on and saying "The terrorists were Afghani but dont necessarily reflect the views of their people...", the first thing they did was plot how they could create more headlines from the one they were given. QUICKLY we went from an obvious but unexplained terrorist attack to CNN asking us "Should we go to war with Iraq?" SHOULD YOU BE ASKING THE MASSES OF ONE OF THE LEAST INTELLIGENT COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD? No. And if anything, it was the "will" and "drive" of the people who took this country to war. We all want to blame Bush but GUESS WHAT. It WAS NOT BUSHES FAULT. He is an idiot, and literally criminally persecutable to the extent that he could/should be executed for treason, but its the American people that held up there half empty Millers and proclaimed "Take us to war Cap'n Bush!", giving him permission to do so. WE WOULD NOT HAVE STARTED THIS WAR IF WE HAD NOT SUPPORTED IT.

      Bush didnt start this war; you did.
      • 140Suffolk, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Please give one example of Fox News lying. Be specific. Opinions of commentators don't count. False "facts" only, as that is what you Diggers accuse Fox News of spreading.
        • neognostic, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2There have been a number of times cited here on Digg, where a Republican politician does something immoral or is arrested, and they show on the screen where it is a Democrat who is in trouble. I'd call that lying.
          • 140Suffolk, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I believe you are sincere. But I have watched Fox News from 6-7 EST almost every night for 7 years. I've never seen that happen ever.
            On the other hand, in my local Democrat dominated paper, this week when they reported on the indictment of Detroit's mayor, they neglected to include his party. Which is Democrat.
        • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Considering most of fox news is all opinion and commentary I think it would be hard to prove that they do lie under your requirements.

          So I guess by your standards they don't lie.
          • 140Suffolk, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1What a cop out. I read the NY Times, some mainstream news mags. And Fox News.
            But a lie is a lie. It's not a matter of my "standards". Some things are reported, but are not facts.

            I listen to BBC too, and I can pick out lies on a regular basis. In fact, recently BBC was caught lying again . After the recent Palestinian attack on the Israeli school, BBC reported that Israel retaliated by bulldozing the house of the family of the terrorist. They even showed footage. Turned out to be a lie. Number one, it didn't happen. Number two, the "footage" was old of another incident, thus false. And BBC has admitted this. I'll send you the links if you like.
            I challenge any of you girls to show me something on that level with Fox News.

            PS - I think Israel should have leveled the house and salted the ground. But that's just me.
    • KDX200rider, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0What the HELL is wrong with you? Journalism is supposed to be unbiased. You are giving slime like Dan Rather a pass? He tried to use his position to influence a presidential race, you OK with that???????
  • cbugher, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8I love when people say things like "I wonder how the history books will portray Bush". I believe it was Napoleon who said "What is history but a fable agreed upon".
    • allfatherblack, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1No ones agreeing on this fable. I promise there will at least be some note of how dislike Bush was in the history books, since your kids and maybe yourself even will be writing them
      • TimDigg, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2and who pays your check.....

        the people book pubs...who are owned by....

        see where I'm going?
  • redxninja, on 03/27/2008, -11/+5I read through some of the comments in the discussion section....Here is my favorite.

    I am writing this letter as a responce to your video.
    I am a O.I.F III vet. I am a republican. I voted for Bush when I was 18 in 2000 and again in 2004. If the man was running again in 2008 I'd vote for him again.
    You spend all this time talking about what went wrong. Yet at the time of this film the surge was already almost 8 months in. Numbers showing it's success have been evident. Iraq is no longer on the front page of all the nations news papers. Yet you barely give this 15 seconds of your time.
    There is a reason Bush won 2 elections. There is a reason why we are still in this war. There is a reason why Congress can not pass any legislation to end the war. Because the War is supported by enough of the American population. People forget that war is just another form of politics.
    The world is a mean and evil place. The majority of the U.S and Western European populations don't understand this. Because it is not on thier front door. However, ignorance of a problem doesn't mean it isn't there. The U.S and a select few of it's allies have chosen to bring this evil to the populations front doors. Peace is only the absence of war. Peace is only obtained when a fight is detrimental to one sides survivial. A open hand gets a closed fist.

    Kellan McDonald
    Minneapolis , MN
    • dshey, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Thanks Kellan.... but I missed your point.
    • smotpoker1, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2I hope your sterile hate to think you go around breeding more stupids like you.You miss the point of he raped America.
    • Nanite, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Wow, people are digging you down for just quoting someone who supports the war. I have a hard time thinking that "the War is supported by enough of the American population" as kellan is quoted as saying. I don't know ANYONE who supports the war, maybe they're embarrassed to come out and say it now that it's 100% quagmire. I also have a hard time thinking anyone could believe that things are getting better. Any progress we make that is so loudly trumpeted by the right is just erased a month later when the insurgents regroup. We can't win, and I think people are finally coming to grips with that. I can imagine the anger on Pvt. Kellan McDonald when we finally get our guys outta there, he's one of the traitors that would rather see a million troops die than admit the 'libruls' were right.
    • inajeep, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3I respect the articulation of your post but reject your opinion on this war. Iraq wasn't a necessary target other than political and possibly monetary reasons. The fact that the Bush Admin doesn't admit it and continues to mislead and BS the American public is disgusting and some would say treasonous. Whether the majority of Americans supporting the war or not is not the reason why we are still there. We are there and continue to be there is because the current administration wants us there, the new democrats also didn't have enough power or gonads to stand up against the administration and execute the will of the people. While I don't like polls nor believe they offer an accurate gauge on people as a whole, all of them point to the lack of support and/or respect for this Administration. I judge by actions not words. War is most cases should be avoided and only used when necessary, otherwise you fail morally and as a civilized society.
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3"There is a reason Bush won 2 elections. "
      He convinced folks that only he can protect us.

      "There is a reason why we are still in this war. "
      If we leave they'll be in a bigger mess -that we caused. we have a moral responsibility to put their country back together.
      "There is a reason why Congress can not pass any legislation to end the war."
      See above and most of them are too chicken ***** to say otherwise for fear of being thought of as "unpatriotic".
      " Because the War is supported by enough of the American population."
      No, it's not. I want out as soon as we can. Again see above.
      "People forget that war is just another form of politics."
      true.
      "The world is a mean and evil place"
      We, the US, had a hand in making it so.
  • kd1s, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Both parts can be found here. Why those weren't linked I have no clue.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
  • PhilMoskowitz, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6If you don't jail these people, America will never recover. I'm deadly serious, you'll sink under the denial of this period in history and become a minor nation steeped in corporate brainwashing. You'll come full circle and become what you were founded to be. A chattel house of cheap labour.
    • SwedishNinja, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1That's what we've got China for, chief.
  • alski707, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7I posed this on the upcomeing in the video section, but i'll repost it here:

    Absolutely stunning, looking in from outside (both outside the Whitehouse, and from outside of the US) I never would have thought that so much power and influence over everything from politics, policy, wars, military tactics and economy to basic matters of life, death, and the freedoms of the peoples of multiple counties separated by thousands of miles would all come down what is simply everyday "office politics" on a grand scale...

    When you have the then United States Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor (Powell and Rice) basically exiled from the Presidents "inner circle" and effectively unable to hold any real influence over the direction of a nation of 200+ million people, you know the system is broken.

    Maybe most of this is old news to Americans, but I found it pretty damn surprising, although with hindsight it shouldn’t have been...
    Monkeys wrapped in suits.
  • mfc5200, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7I just watched the first part.

    The CIA, pentagon, White House, Capitol, etc etc, where evacuated? They didn't feel secure? Jesus, I can't imagine if there was an actual large scale attack on this country. What the hell does that $500 billion defense budget go towards? They couldn't defend themselves from a few low moving, large, bulky, subsonic, commercial aircraft? I had always wondered this, but this video really drove the idea home.
    • dshey, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Seems that day that "conveniently" there was a NORAD exercise which took 99% of our defense system 1,000 miles away from those bulky air crafts.
    • SwedishNinja, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1"What the hell does that $500 billion defense budget go towards?"

      Mostly pensions, veterans benefits, and maintaining our nuclear arsenal. You can't very well knock planes out of the sky with VA nurses and Minuteman missiles.

      ...or can we?
      • chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Pensions and vets benefits come out of the VAs budget. That isn't part of the Pentagon's budget. Nuclear material is paid for by the Department of Energy, again, not on the Pentagon's budget. The $500 billion truly is wasted. Every year.
  • Chip53, on 03/27/2008, -15/+3Spam, buried.
  • Swivelstick, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1How much did the likes of Tony Blair and John Howard really know? Accountability doesn't just lie with Americans as many outside the US also believed the FUD.
    • TimDigg, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3What blew me away was how Cheney was in the room when Blair met with Bush
      • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You can't have a talking puppet with out a hand up it's ass!;)
  • negrospiritual, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Available for download:
    http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=bush%27s+wa ...
  • ordig, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7I suspect that elements of bush's cabinet, if not bush himself, never intended to "win" in iraq, but rather declared war for political/economic control of the US. How else can you explain Rumsfeld's "war tourism" strategy and the total lack of resources to hold and rebuild iraq. I find it hard to believe that this can simply be attributed to ineptness. I think these people knew exactally what they were doing.
    • highwebl, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
      Donald Rumsfeld
      • KDX200rider, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Thats all the war did last. We are now in the occupation stage. I hope you see the difference.
    • youareretarded, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Have you ever met someone who is so full of themselves that they are difficult to talk to because they see things so differently than you and when you point out facts that contradict their views/observations they always have nonsensical comebacks?

      If you have then you know how Rumsfield's mind works.
  • Hangly, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3I watched the first two segments of this, and I think they actually kind of softballed it.
    Maybe it's just PBS's way to be as tactful and non-confrontational as possible.
  • zardoz73, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8I've started the first one, it's really, really, really well-made. As are all of Frontline's documentaries. 5 stars. I just wish more people knew about Frontline.
  • pedo, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2while this did provide a good overview of the last few years, there wasn't a lot of new information in it. other documentaries have already covered this. for example: HIJACKING CATASTROPHE, NO END IN SIGHT, etc.

    i recommend other episodes of FRONTLINE, like PRIVATE WARRIORS and NEWS WAR...

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
  • Herolint, on 03/27/2008, -6/+4A war, no matter how unpopular, cannot be illegal if those making the laws vote for it.
    • truthmatters, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3The Iraq war is illegal. There were no WMD's and no tie between Saddam and 9/11.
      http://www.counterpunch.org/bacher05302003.html
    • chicofaraby, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Congress can't make a war of aggression legal. Ask the Reichstag.
    • exomni, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Well spoken! Heil Hitler!
    • oscenester, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2We attacked a sovereign country without UN approval.

      "On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." [4]" -taken from wikipedia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Securi ...

      The world does not recognize our laws. We are not the end-all be-all world police.
  • alfsborg, on 03/27/2008, -4/+11This is only the beginning of the impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. Look at what was done to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Look at how the major media bought in to the lies and deceit. Faux News reports on nothing. NBC (owned by GE/big defense contractor) has very little news of this caliber. CBS (owned by Westinghouse, another big defense contractor) reports on nothing. They are all in on the fix. TIME FOR ALL SHEEPLE TO WAKE UP.
    • UnderLoK, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1It isn't reported on non-stop because that is how America does war. This isn't something new, American's don't want to listen to depressing news day in and day out 24/7/365 even if it is our friends and family dieing over there as we speak.

      On the Constitution and Bill of Rights... Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you honestly think this is the first time we have gone to war for the wrong reason? I think you have us confused with the Sweeds because we are brutal, vengeful, and one of the bully's. We always have been and more than likely will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Do you honestly think our fuel prices were so low because we were nice? Do you think we had a large portion of the rubber market because we were nice? Do you think we have missles all over Europe because we are nice? You my friend are a Sheeple and you are the one who needs to wake up.

      I agree that things need to change and I would like to believe that they will in time, but I think you have it all wrong. This could be a turning point in our history and become the end, not the beginning.
    • oscenester, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1It would be the highest crime of all for this President to finish out his term with his office still in place. I refuse to believe that a liar, bigot, and criminal will be forever "cherished" as a president, given access to top secret documentation, provided a secret service security detail, a presidential retirement benefit, and any sort of respect for having completed his term.

      It's an outrage that it has taken this long for people to wake up and smell the *****.
      Bush stinks.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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