digg

Join DiggAbout

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

The Truth About the War

nytimes.com — A new report shows clearly that President Bush should have known that important claims he made about Iraq did not conform with intelligence reports.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 55mph, on 06/06/2008, -9/+87"The report was supported by only two of the seven Republicans on the 15-member Senate panel."

    Till the bitter end these morally corrupt Politicans will deny the truth even when they are faced with corraberated evidence.

    They have no interest in the truth. Only in their agenda.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 06/07/2008, -8/+2The NY Times has been reporting factual information for years now!
      • hivoltage815, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4The NY Times also has reported plenty of nonfactual stuff too. Don't make them sound like they don't have their own agendas.
    • dbzer0, on 06/07/2008, -0/+15What did you expect. Here, the Nazi leaders were denying the Holocaust while amongst the dead bodies of concentration camps...
  • LoneRanger85, on 06/06/2008, -40/+15Well, that's what you get when you listen to those LYING Democrats.

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

    "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

    "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

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

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

    "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
    • 55mph, on 06/06/2008, -5/+13True enough. There's no party difference for the Liars. We have a one party system now that every single Politician is paid off by the same special interest groups.
    • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -12/+8It seems that your negative digg tally is evidence of people not wanting to hear the truth.
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -4/+15Correct me if I'm wrong, none of those people you quote would have had access to the intelligence information George W. Bush had in 2003, information which contradicted George W. Bush's public statements.

      If you want to show that Democrats' false statements were morally equivalent to Bush's Iraq lies, you are going to have to prove that the Democrats you quote also had information at the time which contradicted what they were publicly saying.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2Let me ask you...

        What kind of intelligence would prompt all these Democrats to state AS FACT that Hussein had WMDs?

        It's not like this intelligence was simply rumors and assumptions. There must have been hard facts.

        Did anything change when Bush took office? Nope...except the politics.

        It's not like politicians, such as these Democrats, have never changed their tune simply for political power reasons.
        • jaxcs, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Did anything change? yeah, Iraq allowed inspectors in and they couldn't find any WMDs.
    • Cranq, on 06/07/2008, -1/+8Sure, both parties are *****. But the Repubs are ***** beyond what the Dems are. The Dems bought the story, but it was the GOP that polished the turd for all to consume.
    • jaxcs, on 06/07/2008, -6/+4What does this list show? Absolutely ***** nothing. What you need to show is that these guys knew differently and lied about it. What you show is that Bush's lies worked. ***** moron.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/07/2008, -5/+4"What does this list show? Absolutely ***** nothing."

        It shows EVERYTHING. But, some people are sooo partisan and will defend their political party to the death that they will ignore proof right in their face.

        ...and then call people names and use bad language when their lies and hypocrisy are shown for all to see.

        C'est la vie.
        • jaxcs, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that person would be you. I've read your posts, it's unbelievable that you, someone to the right of Nazis would call me a partisan. What is it with the besieged mentality? Everyone has an agenda except for you, right. you, you are a truth teller. Get over yourself. yeah, I called him a ***** moron.... because he's a ***** moron. Saying it shows everything doesn't make it so. why don' you respond to my claim. No, that would mean confronting reality, can't do it.
    • stinkymonkey, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5I think everyone will agree that those people did play a part. They never asked the right questions or quite frankly, did the right thing. And they were wrong.

      BUT.....

      There is a major difference between them and Bush - This information came from Bush. And a lot of the conflicting information never made its way to Congress.

      Bush needed to be honest and forthright - and he wasn't. He set the tone, he set the agenda, and he set the stage for war, and nothing was going to stop him. The United Nations tried to stop him and we blasted them as insignificant. Countries like France wanted to give diplomacy a chance and we changed a food item to freedom-fries.

      The culture Bush created in Washington was that of fear, and I'm not talking about the fear of the "terrorists". I'm talking about dissent. If you dare say anything, you would be labeled a terrorist lover or un-patriotic. The Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed Bush was from Texas and most of the country went ballistic on them. They showed a very mild form of dissent, and they payed a huge price for that.

      Bush wallowed in this type of fear, mastered it, bathed in it, and got off on it.

      Even when the war started, if you said anything bad about him you were adding the terrorists. It was a sad time in our history.

      Sadly, America will forget this lesson and the next war will be sold the exact same way unless Washington changes. I hope Obama changes this type of culture in Washington. I hope he gives back the monarchy to the people. I really do.

    • biotch, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5Sorry Lone... but the majority of those quotes come from congress members and others who were lied to by the Bush administration just like you and I. And a UN weapons inspector hardly counts as a "LYING democrat". The invasion taught us that Clinton's strategy kept Saddam's threat to a trivial level without the need for a full scale 600 billion dollar quagmire invasion. The Senate report illustrates the Bush administration's calculated dishonest remarks regarding more recent and detailed intel, at times completely fabricating assertions and/or leaving out important information countering Bush's case for war. There is no doubt that by far the vast majority of supporters and promoters for an actual invasion based on these lies came from the republicans. Therefore the majority of the blame lies squarely with them.
    • frisk415, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but they weren't the ones who had the final say.
  • edstate, on 06/06/2008, -33/+7And it certainly didn't help that Saddam actually WANTED us to think he had WMDs.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 06/06/2008, -7/+10Evidence, please.
      • HanFastolfe, on 06/07/2008, -3/+0Saddam's own behavior is testimony to his intention (actions speak louder than words). At no point did he allow the unfettered access to UN inspectors as required by the UN. As much as Hans Blix was against war, and stated how Iraq was improving in it's compliance. He could not state unequivocally that Iraq was in compliance, and had allowed ALL the access the inspectors has wanted.

        There is no great mystery in this, it's simply not magic. Other nations (S.Africa, Poland, etc) have abandoned their WMD programs (stockpiles) to the satisfaction of the international community. It's not like Saddam had to re-invent the wheel. The precedent of how to cooperate with the international community was established, he need only follow it.

        Saddam didn't enjoy the presumption of innocents in this matter, the burden of proof was entirely upon him to comply. His recalcitrances in this matter can only be seen as desire to make, `someone', believe that he still had the weapons he wasn't supposed to have. If you have a plausible explanation as to why he wouldn't be truthful (i.e. Hey, guys, I don't have what you think I have. You wrecked it all. But, hey feel free to look yourselves stupid trying to find them. When you're done, how's about lifting them sanctions?) I would like to hear it.
    • alapoet, on 06/06/2008, -4/+22Not only did Saddam NOT want us to think he had WMDs -- he actually opened Iraq to multinational inspectors to proven that he didn't.

      None of which deterred George W. Bush in his rush to take the oil fields, of course.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -7/+9Yep, he really snatched up those oil fields. Now we're thoroughly benefiting from all that oil that now belongs to the US, which enables our gas prices to keep plummeting to record lows.
        • Waiting2awake, on 06/07/2008, -3/+11You silly rabbit. You, the average guy, was never going to benefit. They benefited, doesn't mean you were ever supposed to. You are merely the cheering section for them.

        • biotch, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8Who ever said low gas prices were part of the plan?

          Take a stab at how many billions of dollars, that have actually been reported, the US has paid Halliburton alone.
      • TonyQClifton, on 06/07/2008, -5/+2whoah, totally wrong.

        1. Saddam never gave inspectors full freedom to inspect where they wanted, he had them escorted to pre-determined locations that were pre-approved by him. He didn't meet any of the conditions set by the unanimous UN resolution. Hence, he got *****.

        2. take the oil fields??? have you see the price we're paying for oil lately? Are you an idiot? We got ZERO oil from this war, ZERO.
        • jvittetoe, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1lollers. We went to turn the ***** spigots off!
        • biotch, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6hah... before you call someone an idiot consider that lowering gas prices was never part of the plan.
          The Bush administration repeatedly echoed that this war would be paid for by Iraq's oil production.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1What oil?!? Are you insane? Gas is now up to over $4 per gallon.

        Please, and I sincerely mean this, stop wasting your time and your brain at Thinkprogress.com.
        • biotch, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Gas prices are not an indicator that Bush wasnt going after oil. First off, the war has not gone as planned. Second, if we secured their oil, what makes you think these companies wouldnt rip us all off. An entity willing to profit off a war waged on lies would be willing to rape the US citizenry of its money any day.
        • JimmySpaza, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1@ biotch

          With all our military over there, it would be relatively easy and simple to take the oil fields for ourselves.

          The war IS going as planned as far as deposing Hussein and establishing a police presence in the region. It's just far more complicated than Bush anticipated.

          If we secured the oil for ourselves, then the oil companies could rip us off. That is true. But, THAT is not what Alapoet said. He said that Bush rushed to take the oil fields. THAT is bullcrap.

          Look, I don't trust Bush, the Arabs, nor the oil companies. But, let's not lose all credibility with this "Bush wants the oil fields" conspiracy crap. If you do, then when you actually have facts on your side, no one will pay attention and trust you because of your history of posting bullcrap.
      • HanFastolfe, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2"Not only did Saddam NOT want us to think he had WMDs -- he actually opened Iraq to multinational inspectors to proven that he didn't."

        Hans Blix would like a word with you:

        "Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

        From: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcri ...

        The "not even today" part is very telling by someone who should know better then you, or I. Bilx does report the Iraq cooperation was increasing, but he could not state Iraq was in compliance. Saddam had more then enough time (12 years) to comply, what was demanded of him was well known, and not a secret.

        I'm not exactly sure what you base your assertion on. Could you please supply a cedible citation to back it up?
    • edstate, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6Among other places, that recent 60 minutes piece about it? ...look, I'm not saying the administration wasn't hell-bent on going in there, evidence or no. They certainly were. I'm also not saying more couldn't have been done to prove that WMDs were/weren't there... it's not even a discussion that multiple intelligence agencies dropped multiple balls, they most certainly did. All I'm saying is that have been several accounts/reports that Saddam (stupidly) went along with the insinuation. Which didn't help things.
    • ordig, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3This is partially true. Saddam wanted Iran to think he had WMD's. He was more afraid of Iran thinking his regime was weak, then he was of the US toppling him. But he was basically trying to hide the fact that he had no WMD's from the world community, because he saw the Iranians as more of a threat to his regime than the US.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2Anyone who thinks Saddam saw Iran as more of a threat to his regime than the U.S. is a damned fool.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3Well, Iraq and Iran had been skirmishing for land and resources for decades. To say that Hussein viewed Iran as a threat is not that off the mark.
  • JKap, on 06/06/2008, -26/+17The truth about "the war" is that it is intentionally-engineered chaos and that it is unconstitutional and immoral.

    But many of you O-bomb-a koolaid-snorters will soon enough download your talking points and assume the same kind of blind loyalty and cognitive dissonance demonstrated by neocon supporters of this unholy "war" and their Dear Leader.

    O-bomb-a's big Iranian adventure/Israeli proxy war will be the price the you pay for your blind allegiance to the fraudulent left-right paradigm of the War Party.
    • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -12/+4Unconstitutional?
      • JKap, on 06/06/2008, -2/+9Crack open a copy of the Constitution sometime and you'll see there in Article I, Section 8 that only Congress has the power to declare war, that of which there has not been passed by Congress since World War II (despite numerous "undeclared" "wars" like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq I & II (really just the same "conflict" started by Bush I and continued by Clinton), and countless other, smaller "conflicts").

        Also, the Constitution prohibits the Congress from delegating its rightful powers to the Executive, such as in the case of the extra-constitutional "Authorization to Use Military Force" (AUMF) in Iraq that has been used by the President and the many disloyal members of Congress to justify the framed-up and engineered chaos in Iraq.
        • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -10/+3"Congress has the power to declare war"

          I'd argue...as would a number of constitutional scholars...that authorizing funding for a war is essentially a declaration of war. That is, unless you can crack open your copy and find the definition of a declaration of war in the Constitution to clear this whole thing up with.
        • bphicke, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5When put to an official vote, a declaration of war was overwhelmingly opposed. Being too spineless to withhold funding for the "war" does not equal a declaration of war.
    • texasag03, on 06/07/2008, -10/+0There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the military.
      • Corvidae, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6That's like saying Air force generals can order the bombing of countries on their own say so. They have to be authorized by the president. The president has to be authorized by congress.
      • bphicke, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Does texasag stand for Texas Aggie? If so, it explains your ignorant comment.
        • JimmySpaza, on 06/07/2008, -5/+1Ad hominem attack. The usual standard for whiny liberals.
        • bphicke, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1You obviously haven't looked at my history.
    • Patori, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2I hate you all.
  • rawg, on 06/06/2008, -2/+63Let's not forget that the media were complicit in pushing these lies and derelict in their collective duty to provide objective information to the American people. I'm not making excuses for the Bush Administration but they couldn't have done it without the drum beating from the mainstream media.
    • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -3/+9Yep, they had to push it along. They already had their reporters locations thoroughly scouted for the best possibly live coverage.

      I still regret not ever getting my Geraldo beheading video I was wishing for.
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1Shame on the media for not somehow acquiring the classified intelligence information that Bush had access to, which directly contradicted his case for war.
      • fiftystorms, on 06/07/2008, -2/+0Yes, I'm Surprised Hillary didn't give them access to it considering she had much more knowledge about it than lmost anyone else being that most of the intelligence used was collected during her husbands administration. And now we are just starting to learn what a critical role she played in her husbands administration and how much of the day to day decision making she was involved in. Wat, why did she support the war... or didn't she? I bet she does now that the surge worked. History is awesome, I just hope you're all around long enough to see the articles about Bush being right.
    • spaniardhobo, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Sad thing is the rest of the world knew before it started what this war was all about. News casters here, before the war started were already pointing to "fixed" intelligence information, and the lack of real proof of wmd existence. Even they dissected various speeches from Rumsfeld and Bush with contradictive information and blatant lies.

      Everyone over here started with the typical US bashing, because in the light of our press reports it was clear that your government was upto, and people were astonished with the blind support that government was getting from their citizens.
      • justice7, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1where is 'here'?
        • nofrickenway, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0His name is Spaniardhobo, I'm going with Australian.

      • nosecohn, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Exactly right. I was in the US, but reading a lot of foreign press at the time. The news media in almost every country but the US were clear that the "evidence" was mostly hype and there was no immediate threat or need for war. That's why millions of people around the world demonstrated during the run-up, and why none of them were surprised when the WMD turned out to be non-existent. The complicity of the American press was absolutely despicable.
    • DRFU, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1This is a best reply to a President Bush smashing topic. How easy people forget about something that happen just a few short years ago. I'm glad to see that someone has learned something from Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, and not to believe everything that someone consumes in todays media.
  • westbay1, on 06/06/2008, -3/+42It's amazing what you can accomplish when you have a stronghold over certain media outlets.
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -1/+14Not to mention a covert propaganda campaign piping Department of Defense talking points straight to all major networks via "independent military analysts."
  • RainbowApe, on 06/07/2008, -5/+8well, come have your say when he's in london.

    http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content ... ;Itemid=1
  • obscenesteve, on 06/07/2008, -14/+0Who is this Bush character? Typically i enjoy a little bit of bush, it helps get me off.
    • JimmySpaza, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1The only bush you'll ever see, dork, is the one outside your front door that yo momma makes you cut with the weedwacker.
  • QuantumBios, on 06/07/2008, -2/+12This guy put it best - Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient, Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired
    http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisar ...
    please
    Read it, digg it, and pass it on to friends and others.
    "Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
    • jvittetoe, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3war is a racket, should be required school literature.
      • mr5150, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2war is a racket, should be required school literature.

        I second that, Sir!

        Very informative....i bookmarked it too.
  • plimpton777, on 06/07/2008, -3/+34The truth is, you were warned that it was full of *****, and you ignored the protesters, the world community, the UN, and most New Yorkers. We wouldn't be in Iraq without this stupid Neocon rag.
    New York Times, Go ***** Yourself.
    • fiftystorms, on 06/07/2008, -7/+0Wow, hasn't the NYT actually admitted their liberal bias? I mean seriously adorned their liberal merit badges proudly on their sleeve for all to see. They are heavily liberal, right??? Everyone knows that... right? Who was the last republican they endorsed for president??? Does positive news About Bush or Iraq that is typically front page news in most newspapers ever make it before page 16 in the NYT. Did I totally misinterpret what Plimpton was saying here, because I red it as the NYT was a mouthpiece for the republican party? Or is Plimpton just as far left as Obama and Karl Marx that even the NYT seems right wing?
      • nosecohn, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I think he was focused on the Judith Miller scandal, where the Whitehouse leaked pro-war stories to the press, and then behind the scenes, confirmed their own leaks via anonymous sources. The NYT had a series of front-page stories, picked up and redistributed by other news organizations across the country, that turned out to be false, pro-war propaganda that came directly from the Whitehouse. It was a shameful lapse of journalistic integrity for the Times.

        The neo-cons did another clever thing... they used outlets like Fox News to shame the so-called "liberal media" into being less critical of the administration. Any time another news outlet reported something that could be considered questioning the pro-war policy, they were cast as hyper-left and unpatriotic. Most of the news organizations have now admitted that this had an effect on their coverage.
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Several million people protested in London. But no response from the government. They ploughed on anyway...
  • davidhallstrom, on 06/07/2008, -8/+3Talk about misinterpreting facts. The contents of this report have been so twisted and used out of context that one can only assume that the Times writer had his own agenda when writing this piece. It is a shame that reporters are no longer neutral and objective. They are supposed to report the news not twist the news to fit their agendas.
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3What exactly is "out of context?"
      • eliot2000, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Either the congressional report is about a shrub starting a false war with a rock, or the commenter wants to defend administration policy, but has absolutely no way of doing that while incorporating actual facts or details.
  • TonyQClifton, on 06/07/2008, -13/+17THE most biased news source in the WORLD.

    couple of points here..

    1. from the article - "The report confirms one serious intelligence failure: President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials were told that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and did not learn that these reports were wrong until after the invasion." Bush and Cheney were both told, along with congress that weapons were there. That's the bottom line. That's why congress (including Kerry and Clinton) voted to go to Iraq.

    2. this article has a LOT of conjecture, here are some examples...
    "he could have learned the truth if he had asked better questions or encouraged more honest answers."
    "It seems clear that the president and his team knew that that was not true, or should have known it — if they had not ignored dissenting views and telegraphed what answers they were looking for."
    "Claims by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld that Iraq had longstanding ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups also were false, and the Senate committee’s report shows that the two men knew it, or should have."
    SHOULD, COULD, MIGHT? Is there ANY fact in this article? any non-subjective, substantive proof of anyone lying? WTF?

    3. another admittance from the editorialist (like pulling teeth) "The report said Mr. Bush was justified in saying that intelligence analysts believed Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. "

    4. the article ends with this...WTF?? "We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq." THEN WTF IS UP WITH THE TITLE??
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -2/+111. Bush was told that Saddam might still have weapons, or he might not. Congress was told that Saddam HAD weapons and we knew exactly where they were.

      2. The "conjecture" you refer to is fully substantiated by the Senate's report.

      3. Some analysts believed Saddam had weapons, others didn't. Bush simply chose to believe the analysts that supported his agenda.

      4. Why do you think the title "The Truth About the War" contradicts the statement "we cannot say with certainty whether Mr Bush lied about Iraq?"
      • TonyQClifton, on 06/07/2008, -7/+1did you even read the article or the quotes above?

        THE CONGRESS HAD THE SAME INTELLIGENCE REPORT

        READ AGAIN YOU APE

        "The report confirms one serious intelligence failure: President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials were told that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and did not learn that these reports were wrong until after the invasion."

        not MIGHT OR MAYBE OR HMMM ***** PERHAPS, ***** YES DUMB *****

        CONJECTURE can't be SUBSTANTIATED or it wouldn't be ***** CONJECTURE DUMBASS

        THIS is the digg title/description

        "A new report shows clearly that President Bush should have known that important claims he made about Iraq did not conform with intelligence reports."

        clearly written POORLY as this article has NO SUCH evidence
        • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5The congress had WHAT same intelligence report? I "read again" and I still have no idea what the ***** you're talking about. Your post reeks of desperation and GOP talking points, or as the author of this editorial puts it: "sophistry transparently intended to protect Mr. Bush."
    • Belin, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6It is an opinion article. In their opinion section. It expresses some opinions of the author. They are backed up by a few facts.
    • jaxcs, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3You don't understand the article do you? These conjectures you write about are substantiated by the report. The editorial is not making these conjectures, it's the overall thrust of the report.
    • hobgobbler, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1It's an editorial, stupid
      • TonyQClifton, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0packaged as a news story, "hobgobbler"
  • vanebeard, on 06/07/2008, -2/+12I really don't care anymore. He lied, his friends lied, congress is a bunch of spineless aristocrats, blah blah blah. Wake me one someone is actually in jail over this *****.

    • Bittermanscolon, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2It will never happen if everyone says that! "just wake me up when someone else fixes the problem". DO SOMETHING PEOPLE!! Call your Reps! Say something!!!
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah why don't you be the force that puts these people in prison? It won't happen otherwise.
      • chorley, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0Here here -- it's your apathy that caused this mess for the rest of the world (us)!

        You were too baked and distracted by Halo and Paris in '04 when you could've fixed this by voting the ***** out of office. Instead, your silence was heard around the globe and now things are worse for us all.

        Get off your fat asses and do something!!
      • TypeEE, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1We paid tax and this is a police's job.
  • xieodeluxed, on 06/07/2008, -0/+18Man, i keep thinking that "War" is used too much.

    It should be "Occupation"
    • solidcube, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1annexation?
    • redslash, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2True that. The "war" ended several years ago, when Saddam's government toppled. The occupation, unfortunately, carries on (and on and on and on...)
    • stranglethorne, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Attempted conquering?
      Invasion?
  • Archimboldo, on 06/07/2008, -7/+4Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, and a great many other Democrats made very similar statements to the effect that Iraq had WMD. Germany, France - all believed Saddam had WMD. If Bush "lied," Rockefeller, who is now condemning Bush, "lied."

    As far as no connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, Iraqi's have captured documents from the Saddam era showing that Saddam was financially supporting Zawahiri and talked about joint operations with him.

    None of these were mentioned in this biased report. It is a pure political piece.
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5I think you are trying to say that believing a lie is morally equivalent to lying...
      • Archimboldo, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1I'm not saying that. Maybe you intended to say _they_ (Bush's opponents) are trying to say it.

        Believing evidence that later turns out to be false is not equivalent to lying and certainly does not imply intentional deception. But saying "Bush lied, people died" makes good press for political opportunists.

        For the record, I thought going into Iraq was a mistake, but I am not hoping for failure and do not believe it is honorable to just abandon Iraq after shattering their government, even though trying to follow through is costly.
        • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Believing evidence that later turns out to be false is not equivalent to lying, that's very true. That is is why Rockefeller's parroting of Bush and Cheney's false statements were not "lies."

          On the other hand, an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue is a "lie." As documented in the recent SIC report, Bush and Cheney repeatedly made assertions they knew to be untrue.

          Therefore, when you equate Rockefellers' belief of Bush's false assertion with the lie itself, you are making the argument that believing a lie is equivalent to lying.
        • Archimboldo, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1The SIC report had speculation, but no proof. What "documentation" are you talking about?
    • kanabiis, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Yet none of those nations invaded Iraq, or attempted to invade Iraq.

      It's one thing to believe, it's another thing all together to jump to conclusions and commit a violent act based on a 'belief'.

      Let me put it to you another way, you and I are neighbors, I think you have been throwing ***** in my yard, I don't have absolute proof, but the bags are all near the fence that boarders your yard, you have a dog, and it could be his *****. All our neighbors think it might be you too, but nobody has concrete evidence.

      One day I decide to burn down your house because I'm convinced its you..... but it turns out I was wrong.

      Do you honestly think that I should get away it because hey, everyone else thought you were throwing the ***** too??
      • Archimboldo, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Burning down a house, which has no good aim is one matter, toppling an evil regime is another. Your analogy is laden with extra little things that are not apt. Your agenda is showing.
  • Scotty87, on 06/07/2008, -1/+16http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
  • solidcube, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8This whole thing seems to be heating up, in a big hurry.

    The honeymoon is over. Too bad it's lasted 8 years. It's shading rapidly into unrest, and I wouldn't want to be any of the party apparatchiks right about now. I'm really thinking there are going to be warcrimes trials if Obama gets in.

    And if they want to pull shenanigans of one sort or another, they can go right ahead and do that, and suffer the consequences which will be worse and worse the longer they are delayed. As it is, it's going to be a real hot long summer. I just hope nothing should happen to Obama, because if it does the gloves will be off.
    • crowbar77, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7"I'm really thinking there are going to be warcrimes trials if Obama gets in."

      Don't hold your breath.
      • solidcube, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4You think the senate democrats are happy about what's gone on for the last 8 years? Bush has run roughshod over them for the better part of a decade and made them look like total asses.

        I don't entirely buy into the "one party" meme. Time will tell, and we'll know very shortly what the score is.

        I do know this: many of the democrats are some very nasty people when ***** with, who don't ever give up. A good example is Harry Reid.

        When they have a massive majority, which I think they will very soon, I think it's going to be time for the belt to come out. They have the chance to absolutely destroy the GOP and get a Democrat majority for the foreseeable future. Do you really think they're not going to jump at the chance?

        McClellan's book is one of many cracks in the dam and the weather is starting to look rather sanguine...
        • nosecohn, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4The problem is, many of those Democrats voted for the war.
        • solidcube, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Yes I know they did, and that's ***** up. But remember the situation they were in: a combination of trickery and a Potemkin "mass movement" built on lies. Many of them voted for the patriot act too, and that's ***** up as well. Many of them may have had close personal reasons. Remember the anthrax? Nobody was sure, at the time, where that came from but it sure looked like it came from the Bush administration, and it was difficult at the time to see how much power they really had. More and more, that crowd is looking like an isolated splinter faction.

          Times have changed. Hard to believe it's been 8 years since Bush took power.
      • celticspringers, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2if obama gets in, he´d be elected on promises of a new consensus and healing old divisions. There´s no way he´d open up a can of worms with a war crimes investigation and drag his administration into a partisan conflict. Obama would probably rather look forward.

        Bush will be judged savagely by history. Realistically, thats the best we´re gonna get.
  • wolf3973, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1hindsight is... hindsight is... hindsight is?
    • jvittetoe, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7there were plenty of people telling you the truth from day 1. you just weren't looking.
    • biotch, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1By far the vast majority of people who were decrying this invasion from day one were democracts. Republicans have to try to understand what its like to be talking to everyone about how the war is a bunch of non evidenced BS from day one only to fall on deaf ears for YEARS. FIIIIIIINAALLLLY only after there is virtually 0 ways to come up with some asinine excuse, people start to come round after years of frustration. Will Smith once said "Somehow I told you so just doesn't quite say it." and THAT just doesnt quite say it either.
    • Akufen, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1An excuse from someone who was yelling "that's leftist conspiracy talk" not so long ago?
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/07/2008, -1/+9The official source of government lies was the
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_special_pla ...
    headed up by Israeli spy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith

    There are better sources for this info than Wikipedia.
  • Jamihabs, on 06/07/2008, -8/+4This article is an editorial from a far left newspaper about a report that was put together by far left senators in an election year that ignores the fact that every credible intelligence agency around the world, and the Clinton administration thought Sadam had WMDs. Despite all the lefts attempts to re-write history, I noticed the editor had to include this sentence in the very last paragraph of the article “We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq.”
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2Buried for referring to J. "Bush's favorite Democrat" Rockefeller as a "far left senator."
    • swj719, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0Ok, that's ONE of the democrats... now the others?
      • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3that's the CHAIRMAN of the committee.
    • jaxcs, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Just out of curiosity, what do you consider a moderate paper? If the NYTimes is a crazy leftist paper, why did they pay the legal costs for their reporter (Judith Miller) who came out for the war?
    • bipolarruledout, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0Troll
    • hobgobbler, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1NYTimes is a far left newspaper, Newscorp and the NYPost told me so

  • remo2012, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2Here is the real Truth....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNdUV1vysAc
  • skipperczt, on 06/07/2008, -6/+0It's all for the oil that we all so desperately need, Bush and Co. can't tell you that though, because nobody would want to sacrifice their lives or their childrens lives for that, but thats where we are at in the resource game. We are running out of energy as we know it, nobody wants to admit it, but we are doomed to shrink back to the pre-oil era unless we come up with a way to power our lives without oil. I was opposed to the war, but now see it as a means to an end, a way of hanging on to our long commutes and our air conditioned lives, before the inevitable reality of population shrinkage from hunger (our modern farms are almost exclusively oil based in their efficiency) and cold and disease (modern medicine is also oil-based). I feel for the next generation, they will be a transitional generation on the way back to the horse and buggy but with much conflagration to get there.
    • Bittermanscolon, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Worst though process EVER.

      Ever heard of the sun? OMG, unlimited energy! I know what you're saying.......Solar doesn't generate enough power to make a difference......

      You think that if we dumped enough money into Solar or wind, that we wouldn't come up with better solar products? It looks like there is no future for more green energy, but that's because no one has learned to make MASS amounts of money through it yet. Money drives, money talks.

      Make a fantastic solar product, and you're the next Oil Baron. Think about it.

      Unlimited power, in wind or sun.......and no one is stepping up to the plate in a big way......yet.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/07/2008, -2/+18Never forget that the New York Times and the Washington Post were instrumental in "catapulting the propaganda" for Bush. Remember Judith Miller and her lies. These two rags are just tools of the propaganda machinery.
  • Dan137exe, on 06/07/2008, -8/+5How clumsy of me; it appears I have stumbled my way into the editorial section of the New York Times when I was looking for raw facts and the truth.
    • perkoff, on 06/07/2008, -1/+0YOU TELL THEM!! Shouldn't you be talking to god?
  • Jamihabs, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Apparently, John Edwards also misled the American people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2JfndMusfc&eurl=ht ...
    • perkoff, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1He was too busy talking to people who Crossed Over.
  • Nintendesert, on 06/07/2008, -4/+4So what? This is the problem with the left in this country, it took years to get over Florida and many still haven't. We are in Iraq, it doesn't matter anymore why or how we got in it, we are in it. So we either need to fix it or get the hell out. But instead of trying to do that all we have is this unending focus on whether or not someone might have or did lie to them.
  • okie4life, on 06/07/2008, -6/+4The war is Clinton's fault anyway. Digg me down all you want. If Clinton hadn't ignored what was happening during his presidency, we wouldn't be were we are today. He was just to damn busy gettin his rocks off with the hot intern. And I know quite a bit about this being of military upbringing and having served in the freakin sandbox. I blame Clinton's "lets just see what happens" attitude for everything that is happening now. And for more info, I am not a Bush supporter. I think a monkey could do a better job, but the war simply isn't entirely his fault
    • jaxcs, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Come on, it's mostly Bush's fault. He wanted this war and he pushed for it. He didn't like the intelligence he was getting and so he set up his own line of intelligence. That's balls and it's what we were all sold.
    • perkoff, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1No way, the military loon is blaming Clinton.

      So you're blaming 9-11 on Clinton, and Clinton made Bush invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11?

      You military kooks need to shut the ***** up. I've had family in all branches of the Military, not everyone who joins up becomes a brainwashed loon like you.

      Don't only think before you speak, try doing it before you type.
      • Bittermanscolon, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1He's not necessarily a military guy......but saying so to distract you in thinking Clinton is important, when you're right. Clinton has nothing to do with 911. Bush is the guilty guy there.

        When did you see the first plane hit WTC1 again Mr. Bush? Right before going to read to those kids? Wait, that footage was not released until the next day......wait a second......

        etc etc etc

        www.pentacon.com
      • okie4life, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Calling me a loon doesn't change anything. Clinton did ignore the warning signs. Or are you stupid enough to think that all of this started pomptly upon Bush's inaguration? And who was it that pushed for action before this war started. It couldn't have been the American people who were yelling for action to be taken. And we have been involved with Iraq and Al Queda way before now so stop thinking this is all new. It's just new to the media
        • jaxcs, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Just so you know, Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden. 9/11 also happened a year into Bush's presidency so to blame Clinton for 9/11 is really too much.
        • okie4life, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1So now we are going to say that in less than one year Bush screwed up so bad that it waranted a terrorist attack, of which was carried out by Al Queda who have been known to partner with Hussein. And then Bush went to Iraq because he wanted to not because of any other reason. And now this faulty intelligience ***** is coming out. Open your eyes really big and try to see the WHOLE picture. I agree that we shouldn't be there, but we have been there for decades not years. Come on people. We have been occupying that country like we occupy Germany and Korea. We have just started pulling in heavy machinery and more troops recently. Iraq has always been a hotbed and a ticking bomb. Welcome to the explosion baby and stop trying to blame this on one president or something that one man did or didn't do. These are COUNTRIES at war. Not two people.
        • jaxcs, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1You need to get your story straight. First you say it's Clinton's fault, then you say it's a problem going back decades. What exactly are you saying? All of our interactions with other nations have a historical basis. Unless there is a new problem or a new nation, the problems a sitting president faces are all inherited. Going on your first claim, why is it clinton's fault? Clinton didn't create Bin Laden, Bush number one had the CIA support him. Maybe it's his fault? After a while, the problem has to be owned no matter how fair or unfair the situation. Reagan gets the nod for having freed the US hostages in Iran even though his presidency was only hours old when it occurred. Carter freed them, but he was no longer president when it happened. The history books, however, will forever be unkind to Carter.

          You also say that we have occupied (Iraq?) for years. This is flatly untrue.
    • bipolarruledout, on 06/07/2008, -1/+0We get it... the facts MUST be biased. There is no other explanation.
  • Shaman760, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7And when are the trials going to happen in the world court? Probably never.
  • nick111, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7Yea, we all know this - and most of us knew it before the war had even started.

    Nothing will happen before the election. After that, lets send these people to prison.
  • timmyt78, on 06/07/2008, -4/+0anyone know where i can a free blog that does not share my personal info or try to take my views or opinions and profit off them?
    • bipolarruledout, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0Pardon my going all capitalist and whatnot but how do you expect them to make any money? Blogs don't host themselfs. If you don't like ads then your going to have to pay for hosting like everyone else. If others like reading it perhaps you can sell ads to cover the cost.
  • timmyt78, on 06/07/2008, -5/+0anyone know where i can a free blog that does not share my personal info or try to take my views or opinions and profit off them?
  • redslash, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6Good job New York Times! Five and a half years late, but still!
  • DarkReign16, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8Too bad the new york times was part of the drum beat war machine that led us into Iraq into the first place. Their opinions often reflect whatever the majority opinion happens to be. Sadly.
    • xwfilm, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Including the blunder of endorsing Clinton.
  • perkoff, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8He had to lie because of Terrorism. TERRORISTS!! You hear me? It wouldn't have been safe for him to say the truth because of the terrorists. You see he had to lie because of terrorism. We don't want another 9-11 do we? Nope we don't want another 9-11 so that's why we went after the country with zero people on those planes. They had no one on those planes but after we invaded Iraq people in the country started shooting at us. TERRORISTS!!! Not like if the gold old boy USA got invaded any of the people who are free to bare arms would be shooting at the people who are occupying our country. Nope, we'd be nice to them and welcome them in. I'd love to be bombed out of my home, and if it happened I would not shoot at the people who made me homeless, I'd welcome it with open arms.
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2I've told my friend this and they've said, "No, it was Osama". Apart from pointing out that he wasn't on the planes and therefore not involved on 9/11, I also pointed out that he had in fact denied responsibility on two occasions. The occasions where he admitted responsibility were shown to us by the CIA and the authenticity of the videos is questionable. And they have already shown on countless occasions that the Central "Intelligence" Agency are not to be trusted.
  • OohChit, on 06/07/2008, -5/+2WHY BOTHER WITH THIS?
    WE ALL HAVE GET BACK TO "WHAT DOES HILLARY WANT?".
    That's all I've been seeing on the msm...
  • mr5150, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7The neo-con, pro war, oil hungry whores who pushed for the occupation of 2 nations should be impeached for their collaborative manufactured lies. Let the mob (public) decide what to do with these murdurous thugs when found guilty. Death is too good for these *****....perhaps send Lord Cheney and his Chimp for a walk accross an Iraqi desert with a small canteen of water an a 6 shooter like in the old westerns and see how well they emerge after a week in that place.
  • bhone17, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1Been there, done that. Just glad I made it back. FTN
  • WolfDV, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8the truth ... War is big business
  • RaDeus, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3time for the war-crime list:
    War of aggression (Iraq-war in general)
    Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer (gitmo)
    Settlement of occupied territory (ever seen the US Iraq embassy?)

    hope Obama (or McCain) turn over a few of the current administration to the Hague when the time comes...
  • APOI, on 06/07/2008, -1/+10It's pretty easy to connect the dots here. We're talking about the "connect-the-dots that you find on the back of the Denny's menu with a crayon" easy. Bush planned regime change from the day he stole the election.

    Paul O'Neil - O'Neill: Bush determined to invade Iraq from Day One. (2004)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaFE0mywaek&feature ...

    Alan Greenspan - Blood For Oil
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FyT2zWgVtw&NR=1

    Scott McLellan - What Really Happened
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljk6BUuZTaI

    Now we get this report from the Senate Intelligence Committee ( Intelligence Committee??) that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice lied about the facts that led us to the war in Iraq. It seems to me that one after another, the puppets are starting to turn on their master. It's only a matter of time before we start hearing about what really happened on 9/11 and who was really responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Who really benefitted from those attacks? Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda? According to the FBI website, they still have no proof that he was responsible for 9/11 and he certainly didn't benefit from them.

    Let's see...who benefitted from those attacks? The Military Industrial Complex sure made out nicely. George Bush was relelected in 2004 largely based on his ability to "protect the nation" from "the terrorists". Remember the commercial with the Wolves stalking us from the woods? The Wolves are already in the hen house people.

    Where was the Air Force on 9/11, when communication with 4 US Airlines was lost and the planes were no longer on their scheduled flight path?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzYd7Iq9xyM

    9/11 - The Myth and the Reality - Professor David Ray Griffin on the motivations behind 9/11. This speech took place before all of the Bush Insiders began coming forward with insider information on the lies that took us to war with Iraq and Afghanistan.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydPbYIyjKEo&feature ...

    What about WTC Building 7? It was not hit by a plane and was the first steel framed building in history to collapse due to a fire.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISW9sXP_Sik&NR=1

    I think it's pretty clear that there was some sort of Government complicity in the attacks on 9/11. It really pisses me off that there are people who completely ignore the scientific facts because they just refuse to believe that the the Government can be involved in and lie about the attacks on 9/11 that killed American lives, but they CAN believe that they were involved in and lied about the attacks that followed that killed American and Muslim lives. It also pisses me off that anyone that believes in this is a conspiracy nut and whenever one of the MANY highly respected professors, scientists, military officers, CIA insiders and others appears on TV to discuss the attacks, the interviewer, especially FOX news, Tucker Carlson and Glen Beck will compare the 9/11 conspiracy to UFO's, bigfoot and other ridiculous *****, while simultaneously putting up pictures of Aliens and ***** and playing that spooky music, during a serious discussion.

    The 9/11 Commission was ***** and I hope that people will start coming forward with information, just like they are with Iraq, because I think that's what it would take to get these criminals to stand trial. We all know nothing is going to happen to them just because they lied about going to war with a bunch of dirty muslims to steal their oil. But if they were caught lying about attacking their own country...We might finally see some real justice.

    Flame On!
    • hivoltage815, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2I disagree that Al Queda got nothing out of 9/11. Radical Muslim extremist are in a holy war with Christians and Jews, attacking a central financial center that includes high profile civilians is a strategic target in such a war. They harmed the United States for sure, and if you think about it, they got more than they bargained for because of the Bush Administration driving the country apart.

      But anyone that questions their government is a patriot in my eyes, not a crazy person. I am still not convinced it was "an inside job" (scientifically), but I respect that opinion and with more evidence would be open to it. I will admit that the evidence is somewhat persuasive, but I also know that anyone can find evidence for anything if they are blinded by their own bias.
  • eliot2000, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Does anyone know which rock Digg's sudden wave of vitriolic and extremely long winded neocon commentators are crawling out from? If you do, could you please tell them it isn't working?
  • Arcueid01, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5I really wish we would quit debating this ***** and impeach them and try them already. It needs to happen to establish what the people do to representatives that so flagrantly break the law.
  • dcd722, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1I WAS THE ONE WHO SURVIVED!
  • IIAmusedII, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Ok, so they fudged the truth a little about Iraq. Deal with it.

    IRAN however really, really truly has weapons. We better go to war with Iran. It'll be different this time. I promise.
    • DaviDaviDaviD, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1No, it never is different. We loose thousands of men on both sides, millions of civilans and massive debt. It is NEVER different.
  • dopre, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1The truth shall make them jailed.
  • built2spill, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1While I appreciate the mounting evidence against the case to go to war, none of this is surprising. It was a sham from the start, even Eminem, FFS*, knew it YEARS ago.

    http://ae4rv.com/temp/eminem-mosh.mov

    *For ***** Sake
    • hivoltage815, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Are you kidding, did you just reference Eminem in political debate?
  • Nbonez5, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1The George W. Bush Presidency will go down in history as a violent treasonous regime that attempted to do nothing less than destroy our nation
  • hivoltage815, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1I've said this exact thing from the start. Maybe if the Bush administration would have just been honest and said Hussein was a tyrannical dictator who threatened the security of Iraqis and Israelis and possibly America if they ever got the capabilities then we may have gone along with it. But instead, they felt they needed to lie about WMDs and links to Al Quada and now made themselves look terrible on the other end. The whole administration has been surrounded by so much secrecy, they are most definitely the biggest PR disaster in history.

    But I guess you have to be secretive if you think what your doing would be unpopular or unacceptable by the public.
  • Calcularius, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Solutions:
    1) Impeach
    2) Murder
    3) Spaceship to Mars
  • Ablue, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0I think, in a general sense we all live in a state of apathy. There isn’t much that would shake me into action, and all though I may be disgusted by the corruption and the crimes of those in government I have never taken to the streets to act with civil disobedience.This brought to mind thoughts I have about trends I see in modern politics. I feel that politicians make good use of the public’s general apathy to allow them to develop the old phrase “it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission” into “it is easier to do whatever you like and just ignore the outcry or divert attention elsewhere”.

    The adage is that if a politician does not satisfy the public then the public will eject him in the next election. This is not effective in modern politics, for a number of reasons.

    1.
    The party in power may be ejected in an election if they betray the public who elected them, but often actions of the party may not be initiated by the party. There are many advisory groups that may push their agenda onto the party in power, not to mention lobbyists. These parties would no doubt try to influence whomever is in power.
    2.
    Often elections are won on the campaigning done around the election. I would like to think that on the day I would take into consideration the entire term of a party/candidate before I would consider to re-elect. But I think all too often we are distracted by shiny things. Distractions that are introduced or rhetoric shouted will make you forget about anything else.
    3.
    Maybe you are not in office for a long time but a good time. You can do all the things you may know will get you into hot water but you do them anyway as the repercussions do not outweigh the benefits.

    There needs to be a symbiotic relationship between the public and government. When there are not serious repercussions for illegal actions either the public or the government will try to circumvent the law.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 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.