digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

The Big Story You May Have Missed During the Obama v Clinton

huffingtonpost.com — I'd like to call your attention to a major story you may have missed: the Senate Intelligence Committee's 200-page "Phase II" report on how the Bush administration used -- and abused -- pre-war intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ColonelTribune, on 06/10/2008, -42/+6Interesting. But isn't that old news?
    • Bith8654, on 06/11/2008, -0/+17It should be old news since phase II was supposed to be out 3 years ago. I don't know it's a little sketchy to me that the report stating the bush admin. lied about the facts leading us to war was supposed to come out during the beginning of his second term when people would seriously consider impeachment, but they waited until his term is almost over to finally release it, and even now it's getting almost 0 media coverage...

      ...but hey what do I know?
  • KiminCA, on 06/10/2008, -8/+85No, this isn't old news. This details how the administration cherry-picked and abused the intelligence to get us into a War (in Iraq) that has not made us safer. Indeed, this war has made us less safe.
    • trntman, on 06/11/2008, -12/+0care to explain why you think the war has made us "less safe."?
      • ideadude, on 06/11/2008, -0/+17Maybe because lots of Americans have died (over 4k soldiers) or grievously injured (over 25k soldiers).

        Maybe because about 10-100x as many Iraqis have been killed and injured, and for each of them there is at least one family member or friend with a (I might dare say valid) reason to hate America... and they lost their job (as unemployment has sored since the war started) and so has lot of time on his/her hands.

        And so despite the fact that no Iraqis were involved in 9/11 (or any other terrorist attack on US soil that I'm aware of) a few of them might get into the terrorism business.
        • YoctoYotta, on 06/11/2008, -1/+8We're also arguably less safe because we've instilled a new (understandable) hatred for American government in millions of people around the world that did not exist before the war, in addition to the millions that already hated our government (reasonably or not) before the wars.
      • doronster195, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2Just trying to be objective here so don't bury me... but, how do you explain the fact that America hasn't been attacked since 9/11?
        • Rabbittt, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3That is more evidence that the threats were exaggerated..
        • aadsfasdf, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6I'd like to sell you a rock, it keeps away bears.
        • natastna2, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Nope, I'm going to bury you.
        • republicker, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Your logic is bulletproof. LOLOLOLOOLOL
          I am sad to be call myself an American when idiots(politicians and civilians) are ruining this great country.
      • bsmeteronhigh2, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4It's really simple.


        The entire region is sort of like a bunch of red ant mounds. We stuck a stick into it and stirred it around. Now we have a bunch of pissed off red ants that hate each other, but most of all they hate the stick.


    • Muyoso, on 06/11/2008, -13/+4I cant believe you insane liberals have me defending Bush, but seriously, at least let your insanity have a bit of truth to it.

      Read the damn report yourself instead of letting some crazy liberal ***** tell you what they cherrypicked out of it. Or since you are most likely lazy, read this:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

      • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -1/+7The rest us, you know the 70% of Americans with a BRAIN, already knew that Bush is a lying, grafting, American killing, scumbag who should be tried for war crimes and high treason.

        The liberals were right. Be a man and admit it.
      • berkeleyblue, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2Muyoso, you may be right, but i suspect that the report was "cherry picked" as well. Does anyone believe that the entire truth is in this report and that nothing was kept from being in it to protect certain interests?
      • copyland, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6yeah right, "crazy" liberals. You mean those ones who were saying this all along? What's crazy is that there is ANYONE left in this country that supports Bush/Cheney/Stupidity.
    • SierraAlpha, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1LEARN TO REPLY! Jesus ***** christ...
    • quomen, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1I blocked ***** political news. Can you post this in the right ***** section. god..
      • copyland, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3lol. wow. feeling a little anal today?
        • Natitude, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1looks like someone has a case of the wednesdays
    • dstz, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4How convenient to forget that it's what Hans Blix and European countries said in 2003. Oh, yeah, Hans Blix didn't work for the US gov so he must have been wrong.. save that he wasn't, and that the US administration and medias and population utterly destroyed him and his career.
  • Arishia, on 06/10/2008, -4/+40The other news you may have missed is the Status of Forces agreement Bush is pushing for with Iraq. Google it.
    • Checkerd, on 06/11/2008, -0/+12For the lazy:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Forces_Agre ...
    • plimpton777, on 06/11/2008, -0/+25I know. WTF. I have to read Digg and watch The Daily Show to hear about this?! As an militant pacifist who was against these wars from the beginning, I want my "I told you so" moment. I want this news to blared was the same ferocity as the lies and drumbeats to war were. Last, but not least, I'd like to send a special shout-out: ***** NBC, ***** ABC, CBS, ***** Fox News, CNN, and the major print media. ***** 'em all.
      • oddtom, on 06/11/2008, -11/+2"As an militant pacifist [...] "

        Is that something like a chaste whore?
        • trntman, on 06/11/2008, -6/+0thank god someone said it. plimpton777 stop pointing your ***** finger. its a waste of time because the people your pointing at obviously don't care. why not do something productive about it? you seem to think you have the mind that can fix all of the worlds problems.
      • isaactwito, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4In related news, props to PBS. I'm pretty sure they didn't screw us over on anything.
    • boostnsc, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1The Status of Forces should have been pretty obvious when the United States signed a 99 year lease with Balad (Anaconda) Air Base in Iraq.

      What do you think we did in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc...
  • QuadZeroRoute, on 06/10/2008, -26/+8Here is the real news from that report! Bush was right!!!
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic ...

    The Senate Intelligence Committee's report includes this conclusion at the end of a terse section on the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's prewar terror ties:

    Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.

    Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.

    Regarding postwar information collected by the U.S. intelligence community, the report reads:

    Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq.
    • swrostmore, on 06/11/2008, -4/+14So in a report about whether all of Bush's statements leading to war were true, you're saying that the "real news" is that one of his statements was true? Hey, I agree with you there, that's news to me.

      But why does that that Weekly Standard op-ed stop there? The very next line in the report says that assertions that Saddam had any sort of relationship with AQ were fabrications, and that true assertions such as Zarqawi's presence in Iraq were used to create the false impression of cooperation or relationship.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6Did you just cite the Weekly Standard?! Wow....
      They're not horribly biased propaganda run by the same warmongers who got us into this mess, or anything like that.....
    • feckineejit, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Hey I can make ***** up too.
  • staffa, on 06/11/2008, -13/+22The blood on our hands for this war is not just measured in the blood of our brave American soldiers, but in the blood of all those who have perished.

    We started a war, for which the only reason given that was materially true, was that Saddam was a monster. We started a war in which the direct result was the death of more Iraq's then than even the monster whom we ousted had managed to kill.

    At least we managed to keep oil prices down!

    • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -11/+2Umm no, by an average of estimates, the US killed less than a third what Saddam did. And you have to realize the deaths attributed to the US include random acts of terror that had nothing to do with the US or any Americans. Most of the people we killed were terrorists.
      • GofG, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3You are simply wrong.
      • natastna2, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Most of the people you killed were terrorists? You and your stupidity make me sick.
    • sporefrog, on 06/11/2008, -1/+8Someone please explain to me why this guy is being dugg down? We're basically responsible for the entire collapse of a country, subjecting millions to living in complete fear in a country with no infrastructure, no security to even go to school, and hundreds of thousands of /civilians/ have died *directly because of the United States/Coalition*. Do some research on what all of our bombing missions and invasions actually entailed -- war sucks.
    • joeanon, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2I disagree. Saddam in the long run was likely a larger threat than a few years of war.

      Killing people is only ONE form of oppression the Iraq's faced under Saddam. He also tortured and repressed specific demographics creating a cast system and rarely investing back into the people.

      In the long run, as Saddam kept Iraq in the family and the rest of the world allowed torture and oppression while happily sipping up Iraq oil, I think it's safe to say Saddam and his dynasty would have done far more damage.

      The sad part is that we didn't just leave after removing Saddam and killing his sons.

      I do feel that since the US put Saddam in power we had an obligation to remove him.

      The real question is why did we decide occupation would be the easiest method.

      Perhaps because it generated the most defense contracts.

      We were responsible for the state of Iraq since we've meddled in their nation at least since JFK and the CIA put Saddam in office.

      These people already lived in fear of their government as many ethnic groups were persecuted by Saddam's Bath party.

      Yes war sucks... like it sucked for the 40,000 German civilians we fire bombed in World War 2.

      However, the people did support this war from the start. It was ONLY after the public saw it going nowhere, unlike the Afghanistan war, that they bothered to care about Iraqi's dying.

      It was the cost and lack of progress, not the deaths.

      AND, when you consider most of those deaths are caused by these demographics that Saddam oppressed fighting against each other, you have to take a different look at the situation.

      Putting Saddam in power and allow him to oppress his people on ethnic divides BUILT this situation up to what it is today.

      They are getting the out their hatred built up over decades of the US and UN supporting Saddam even though he was a murderous, racist dictator. As long as he sold us enough oil, we never cared.

      You're not telling the whole story when you portray Iraq as this stable land of prosperity that was struct down by the US and now hundreds of thousands are dead at our hands.

      No, we've killed a few thousand Iraqi's. They've mostly killed themselves AND I'm confident in saying, this civil war was bound to happen.

      When you knock out a dictator holding his nation together with torture and racism you should expect civil war. Our failure was single handedly taking on this mission and not expecting civil war.

      The way Saddam ran his nation is truly the reason these people are killing themselves. That are in many cases racists who are seeking revenge.

      They have no concept of peaceful protest, they have no leaders like Martin Luther King. They are not primarily targeting US forces. They are targeting their weakest racial and political enemies. This is to be expected as you lift the 50 year rule of a man like Saddam.

      The reason he is dugg down is because he is not addressing the reality that the VAST majority of Iraqi deaths are Iraqi's killing each other.

      The US is trying to function as police and they suck at it. That's why training security forces is and has been the main focus.

      We were fools to disband the existing security forces because we viewed them as security liabilities. Chaos is the real liability.

      Almost all the true failure of this war are in management not ideology.

      Removing Saddam probably had to be done eventually. We just should have done it with far more planning and UN support.

      We did put him into power, it's not as if he is their elected leader and we are pushing our rule upon them saying NO you can't have this torturous dictator as your leader.

      So, if you want to get down to fault, you should go back to when we put Saddam in power and then blame the US for ALL the deaths that happened due to that choice.

      If you do that, you see why removing Saddam wasn't such a bad idea, just HOW they did it was idiotic.

  • ileftfark, on 06/11/2008, -9/+65Arianna Huffington. What a breath of fresh air.

    While she blogged a little blurb on her site, Dennis Kucinich stood on the House floor yesterday for four ***** hours, reading his 35 articles for the impeachment of President Bush. Kucinich > Huffington.
    • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2it was almost 5 hours, and they are reading the articles again on cspan right now.
    • goodkidyo, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1lets hope that this trend continues
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Not that I disagree with you,
      but what's with your tone here? Should all of us who are offended by the president have a giant cage match until the best one is crowned?

      WTF did you want her to do? Magically install herself in the senate and vote for impeachment as well?

      I think that last line about it being our obligation to publicly shame these people, which was written on her genuinely widely read media site, is about as much as we can ask a 'civilian' to do.

      Maybe she could have just posted a snide comment on digg.
  • insanebrain, on 06/11/2008, -10/+5zeitgeist anyone ?? (www.zeitgeistmovie.com)
    • KingCritter, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1Zeitgeist is a pile of *****. Try watching it again with your ***** detector cap on, and you'll see what I mean.
  • mecharabbit, on 06/11/2008, -9/+11Cause for impeachment? To quote George Tenet: "It's a slam dunk."
  • lajaw, on 06/11/2008, -25/+22Another huffingtonpost article on Digg? Why? Can't you lefties read any other site?
    • SteveIsTheDude, on 06/11/2008, -9/+3Because she has big boobs *and* a sexy accent!
      • J16T3CH, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Sexy? Really? I guess I am a moderate
    • behn1220, on 06/11/2008, -7/+7You sure got us with that one!
    • TotalHalibut, on 06/11/2008, -9/+5Bury, move on, cry more?
    • Sfenton, on 06/11/2008, -7/+3If they used their own logic against FOX news, they would bury Huffingtonpost.
    • cnot3, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7But if its on huffington post it must be true! Its not like they are biased or anything.

      Apparently no one else is writing extremely positive sensationalist articles for Obama.
      • gcauthon, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Yeah, it's not like the bipartison senate intelligence committee backs up her story or anything. Besides, WTF does this have to do with Obama?
    • Muyoso, on 06/11/2008, -5/+5For anyone who wants the truth of what the LIBERAL report said:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

      Basically, Bush didnt lie about anything, he used the intelligence that ALL of the liberals had at the time. This is what the head of the liberal committee said in 2002:

      "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
    • copyland, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3"hey look mom, i'm still a ***** coward republican, afraid of everything, responsible for nothing, and probably secretly gay. Can I have a cookie?"


      • lajaw, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2I see you lack enough intelligence to come up with anything more than dribble. Why do you Sodomites always accuse normal people of being secretly like you? Deviancy abounds in the land of Digg.
  • planetdell, on 06/11/2008, -9/+3idiots
    • Ajnabee4U, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1tHIS WOULD BE AT THE top OF DIGG..PLP MAKE THIS #1.
  • winnestow, on 06/11/2008, -20/+12obama wants to take away your liberties see todays news:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/09/obama-among-su ...
    • topherbook, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Wrong. Could you twist that news around just a little bit more? Thanks.
      • Muyoso, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Wait, you just get to say wrong and thats it? I dont think so. He has to answer for voting for such an invasion of privacy.
    • kawaiirobo, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1digg him (and me) down if you like, but I don't want to send in my fingerprints, it is an invasion of my privacy, and though topherbook's statement is a little strong, Obama is essentially an enemy of liberty and free enterprise. I remember when Digg used to embrace civil liberties with Paul, it's sad what this site is now embracing, here's to 1984 chaps.
      • GofG, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2"though topherbook's statement is a little strong" implies that what you are about to say is LESS strong, i.e. "weaker", than what he said.

        "Obama is essentially an enemy of liberty and free enterprise" is hardly weaker.

        Neither statement is true.
    • Rabbittt, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I hope you're not a Bush supporter, talking like that..
  • xtinamo, on 06/11/2008, -3/+43Stewart covered this last night...it really worries me that something THIS newsworthy isn't on the news!

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/22435/the-daily-show-wit ... (yay for hulu)
    • Versh, on 06/11/2008, -0/+8Alarming if not disturbing-- considering 60% of Americans get a majority of their news from television broadcasts. The mainstream standards are quite dismal indeed. (Source from Pew Research Center, 2007)

    • headzoo, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5It shouldn't have to be on the news for action to be taken in D.C. It should be enough that our elected officials in Congress are aware of the report. It will hit the news once they start impeachment proceedings. But we all know that's not going to happen.
  • isparadiselost, on 06/11/2008, -5/+48Left/Right. It's all the same. Both are controlled by corporations and banks. Both blow the smoke up your ass that makes you happy and then both let you down once in positions of power.

    Look at Pelosi? "Impeachment is off the table". WTF? Why the hell is she not having articles of impeachment filed against her? I guess her copy of the Constitution is different than mine.

    Kudos to Kucinich for having the stones to get the ball rolling. Sadly he's going to find his party will leave him high and dry for the buzzards. Can't say I was a huge fan of his but he and Gravel were the only Dems I saw fit to hold office.
    • gavin422, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Remember the last time a president was impeached? Remember how anti-impeachment the whole country was? Do you think even one-third as many Americans would support another impeachment against Bush? The Democrats know that this would completely ruin their chances for the next many years. Sure, it might be the right thing to do, but it won't matter in the long run because we'll end up with another 16 years of Republican presidents.

      I know it's a tough truth, so I won't blame you if you digg me down, but this is a simple issue of short-range vs. long-range planning. We might get sweet, sweet revenge if we impeach Bush, but we won't be holding office anytime soon.
    • strawedberry, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1It's often ridiculous how independents complain about Dems and Reps, but I completely understand their frustration. In a perfect world most knowledgeable people would want a government committed to the people with no corporate dictation. However, this is how the government works. While we all wish that people like Ron Paul or Kucinich who represent this logical group of people were electable, they just aren't. How else do you think Obama would get to power? It's called politics, and they will always be corrupt in some way. The only way Obama can get to office is by supporting the majority of the people. It's fairly straight forward. I'm sure he shares the views of many independents he is just unable to say them because he actually wants to CHANGE something by WINNING the presidency thus he sticks to party lines. Change can only come very slowly, and hopefully, over time, party lines diminish.
    • Delysia5, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0You sound like my son, in that you seem to have no confidence in government. I can certainly understand the feelings of distrust in government, at the moment, I have the same feelings. I suppose where we differ, on this issue, is in the fact that I haven't given up hope for changing it in the future. I thank you for your very insightful comment, though.
  • Delysia5, on 06/11/2008, -5/+7How many people are really surprised by this? What concerns me more is whether these so-called leaders of ours will be made to pay for their crimes against, not only America, but all the innocent Iraqis caught up in their destructive, vindictive and selfish schemes. It really angers me that they have been allowed to do so much harm to this country, by lying, scheming and changing laws in an effort to ensure that they can not be punished for their crimes. It’s really ridiculous when you think about the fact that all it took to impeach Bill Clinton was an indiscretion with a woman. Yet, GW Bush, and his cronies, has run ruff-shot all over this democracy. They’ve been responsible for the totally unnecessary loss of thousands of lives, spent and continue to spend billions of dollars on a war that should have never been waged and can’t be won and ravaged American’s civil liberty as it relates to privacy. Yet, our nation’s leaders have never seriously considered impeaching this man and holding him and others to account. There’s something seriously wrong with this picture, IMHO. And, this report, just like McClellan’s book, comes to our attention much too late to do much about it, except to say, Oh my goodness, how could they; and then watch them walk off into the sunset. I am damned angry and I want something done with these people. If we don’t make an example of them, then we can expect more of the same, or worse, in the future. Then, it will be just what we deserved for not putting our foot down in the first place.
    • MalevolentDust, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Totally agree with you. Just a note though...the phrase is "run roughshod" not "run ruff-shot."
      • Delysia5, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Thanks for that bit of education. I do appreciate it!
  • brownrecluse888, on 06/11/2008, -15/+8Sheeesh!!!!! Thought we were FINALLY done with all the Huff-Obama-Spam. This news is older than my Iphone version 1. Is Kevin Rose dating Arianna Huffington??
    • jwiesenborn, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4the article isn't about obama, it's about an intelligence report that was released five days ago. i only consider a submission to be spam if there are several others like it that all say the same thing; however this is the first i've heard of the report since it was begun several years ago.
  • petebert, on 06/11/2008, -2/+12oh dont worry huffingtonpost, thanks to digg we didnt miss ANY stories. Remember Obama bowling in PA on the front page?

  • JointVenture, on 06/11/2008, -11/+7I want to see Ariana go down on Manchelle Obama.
  • spamcrusher, on 06/11/2008, -9/+3Somebody needs to tell ugly bitch Huffington that the Clinton vs. Obama thing is done. They can begin bashing McCain now.
  • sublimemind, on 06/11/2008, -6/+3I usually dig Huff post but this time she totally stole John Stewarts bit, might as well just post a vid of last nights show

    hm, perhaps I will

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ...
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Sharing political opinions is not the same as stealing jokes.
  • hopeast, on 06/11/2008, -8/+1I'm a little bit country - SouthPark

    Skeeter: I'm a little bit country.
    Randy: Well I'm a little bit rock-n-roll!
    Skeeter: I'm a little for supportin' our troops.
    Randy: And I'm a little for bringin' them home.
    Skeeter: I believe freedom isn't free.
    Randy: No, but war shouldn't be our goal.
    Skeeter: We must defend our country.
    Randy: If it means war, then we say NO!
    Skeeter: Did you forget them towers in New York?
    Did you forget how it made you feel
    To see them towers come down?
    Were you like me? Did you think it weren't real?
    Randy: I like to rock, but I don't wanna rock Iraq!
    The only kind of rockin' America should do is the kind that we can all dance to, yeah!
    Skeeter: We got GPS, ICBMs, and good old-fashioned lead.
    We're gonna show Saddam what America means; that son of a xxxxx will be dead.
    Randy: Why are we fightin' this war?
    There's a man in the office we didn't vote for.
    They didn't give me a choice.
    War is not my voice! Yeaaaaahhhh!

  • cinmrc, on 06/11/2008, -0/+7this isn't really a surprise, the committee simply used fancy words to tell us that the administration lied; which most of us knew a long time ago. But we can't blame the administration itself, legislators failed to question the administration in fear that they might be judged soft on terrorists etc ... and that would hurt their chances of reelected. so, i think we should blame both the Bush administration as well as senators who voted for the war.
  • J16T3CH, on 06/11/2008, -1/+0And Phase I was just the beginning! Unfortunately, there's no accountability in DC anymore, thats you're old man's congress!
  • masterm1nd, on 06/11/2008, -5/+2"right is wrong"

    Lol, does she realize the other ways that can be interpreted?
  • dwightanj, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2Rockefeller seemed really upset about the administrations "definitive statements" about Sadam's WMD. BTW - the article refers to the Majority Report. Partisan rhetoric as usual..... "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
  • ericjohnson0, on 06/11/2008, -11/+8The Bush Team DID NOT skew the intel:

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/6/5/37306 ...

    Link also includes video of Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa) ADMITTING the Democrats LIED about the surge

    So, the truth is out there, if anyone is interested in seeing it.
    • davidhallstrom, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3Don't worry. This is from huffingtonpost. The only people that read it are people who want skewed trash about Republicans, moderates and conservatives. Ever since Huffington and her husband split up she has been trying to get even with him by attacking Republicans.
      • tucsonwc, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3hey it's a neocon sheeple folks!
        In their fantasy land, the economy is great, there is no massive war profiteering from Cheney's company in Iraq, there were WMD's in Iraq, and things are just going swimmingly. And Bush has a 90% approval rating! Everyone who votes republican automatically becomes a multimillionaire and pays no taxes at all!
        Ahhh the sweet life. Oh wait. Reality is knocking on the door. Quick cover your eyes and your ears!

        The Dollar is weak, the country is in massive debt, the economy is in the toilet, Oil is over $100 a barrel, gas is over $4.00 a gallon. The US military is stretched to the breaking point. The national guard is in a shambles and cannot respond to local disasters. Oh, and now we spy on american citizens without warrants, monitor their conversations, emails, financial records et al.

        But hey, at least we support the troops! Unless it involves stop lossing them, not giving them proper treatment in the VA hospitals or offering them a new GI bill for their service to their country.

        Neocon republicunts. Its all about the greed baby!
    • ericjohnson0, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Didn't her husband pack it in to go...uh...pack boys? Is that accurate or do I have the story wrong?
      • copyland, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1like you're going to get an accurate answer here, lol...
    • copyland, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1"lied about the surge"????

      "the surge is working"????

      WTF is "the surge"? It's a marketing angle and nothing more. GOPPERS have found yet another angle to keep you faithful morons towing the line on a policy that was flawed from the start.
      Who the ***** cares if its working? If you use enough force you can get your sofa down your toilet too.
  • davidhallstrom, on 06/11/2008, -3/+8Sorry, but I don't read huffingtonpost. Too many popups and too much junk.
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Linking to the actual congressional report would just get a lot of 'TL DNR' comments now wouldn't it.
  • badnewshotel, on 06/11/2008, -11/+5Why don't you just copy the entire Huffington Post to Digg? Holy crap you left wing Digger idiots are such losers. Stop parroting the same old liberal crap and go get a job.
    • tucsonwc, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4yeah because you MORONS have done such a Fantastic job with the country.
      How do you like your gas prices, the value of our dollar, the state of the economy and our standing in the world?

      We have jobs you asswipe. And we're paying our tax dollars to make the CEOs of Halliburton, Blackwater, Caci, Exxon even richer!

      Siooma you loser.
      • badnewshotel, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2You are some kind of ***** retard. Grow up bitch.
  • Vtorch, on 06/11/2008, -2/+10Why do many people think the Huffington Post is a credible source? LOL.....it's not. Buried as LAME
  • jwiesenborn, on 06/11/2008, -8/+2don't like huffpost articles? there's a little line of text below the title of the submission that says where the article is from. "huffingtonpost.com." next time, pay attention and ignore HP articles instead of posting whiny little bitch comments.
  • ralph12c41, on 06/11/2008, -5/+6Anybody else tired of the same old crap from the Huff puff post here on Digg? This story is incorrect and they know it. It doesn't fit their world view and their insane hate for G.W. Bush.
  • ideadude, on 06/11/2008, -3/+11I find it informative that folks are attacking the messenger (Huffington) instead of the message (Bush lied to get us into war and it's as official as it's going to get).

    No one now can deny that the Bush administration lied to us to get us into war. I'm amazed that so many people have gotten over it already. Why?

    Why have you personally "gotten over" the fact that our president lied to get us into a war that has caused immense amounts of harm and damage and economic toil and etc etc etc?

    I'm seriously interested in responses to that question.
    • ericjohnson0, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3Bush didn't lie, the Democrats did:

      (Repost, since you missed it the first time):

      http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/6/5/37306 ...

      With video goodness of a of Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa) ADMITTING the Democrats LIED about the surge and MISLED the voting public on an Iraq Pullout
      • thrashertm, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5Do you believe the stupid crap you post?

        BOTH the GOP and the Dems lied. It's just that the GOP led the charge, while the Dems followed like the mindless sheep that they are. There probably are some Dems that are just as insidious as Bush and Cheney and knowingly went along with this ***** up war as well.
      • tucsonwc, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6Ah neocon talking points. Ignore the question and misdirect with BS.

        What Iraq pullout?
        The surge involves paying off the Sunni and Shiites to stop shooting our guys.

        There were no WMD's. The CIA knew it, Cheney knew it and the President knew it. But that would not get oil prices up, that would not get no bid contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater and Caci and the rest of the military industrial complex.

        So instead they went with the BS spewed by "curve ball" because it suited the agenda of the bush cabinet who was primed and ready to invade Iraq well before 9/11.

        And if it was not enough to have all these lies, it pales in comparison to the unbridled greed and incompetance of the Bushies in mismanaging the post invasion nation rebuilding of Iraq.
    • cynicgurl, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3The lack of outrage is ridiculous, but not surprising. Apathy has become a way of life. People are more interested in just getting by than taking time out for bigger issues. Acknowledging the truth is too painful, and would require accountability. What of those former Bush zealots? (some who had the audacity to vote for him twice) As if they'd want to admit they were wrong.
  • apophenic, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1Everyone's known this since he started doing it. No one missed anything, it's just not really news at this point.
  • thrashertm, on 06/11/2008, -4/+10Funny reading 10 posts in a row attacking the Huff Post (which I'm not the biggest fan of btw). It's like some right-wing shill site (redstate, wonkette, etc.) mobilized their troops to come bomb this post. Don't they have better things to do like continuing to ***** up America?
    • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2Yea, we could vote for Obama. That would really ***** up America.
  • BigMacMcChicken, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3If you read the report you'll find that many of Bush's assertions WERE supported by the intelligence. They thought it was a slam dunk so they didn't mind pushing the envelope with their claims. I wish people would stop making Bush out to be evil. Misleading? Sure. Overconfident? Definitely. Wrong? Yeah. But nobody wants to bring up that Bill Clinton said the same things about Saddam. Presidents always mislead the public in times of war. Besides, I can't understand why anyone would read a website that Arianna Huffington slapped her stupid name on.
    • tucsonwc, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5No they were NOT supported by the intelligence. The intelligence was spun by the VP's office and Rumsfeld then force fed back into the CIA. Stop lying.

      http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06 ...

      • BigMacMcChicken, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1Man, I'm reading the Rockefeller report right off the PDF, chief. Seriously. You're trying to tell me that I'm not reading these words right now? I can email it to you. Go get it. Stop hiding from the truth. You have created a fairy tale where the evil ogre Dubya is holding the country in a prison, and Obama or Ron Paul ride to the rescue in shining armor. This is real life. It's not what you want it to be, it's what it is. Your article refers to a time when Bush got intelligence from a source in Saddam's government. So he's just supposed to throw out everything his intelligence community tells him because one of saddam's cronies says otherwise?

        READ THE REPORT

        http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/Iraq.h ...

        Regarding the Powell U.N. speech:
        http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s1 ... PAGE 369:
        "
        There were no significant discrepanciesbetween the assessments and intelligence
        reporting cited by Secretary Powell and the assessments and intelligence reporting cited by the IC
        in the finished assessments reviewed by the Committee. The section of this report entitled Iraqi
        Supportfur Terrorism details the intelligence supporting each assessment that was referred to by
        Secretary Powell."


        From the December 2000 Intelligence Community Assessment BEFORE 9/11

        "We judge that Iraq’s expansion of its chemical industry is intended to support CW
        production"

        "We believe that Iraq has chemical agent and stable intermediaries in bulk storage,
        production equipment, and filled munitions that are still militarily useful."

        Feb. 99, NSC, CIA, DIA, etc. joint assessment:

        "We believe that Iraq possesses chemical agent stockpiles that can be, or already are,
        weaponiged and ready for use. The size, location, nature and condition of those
        stockpiles is unknown"
        • MisterNoMoniker, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2That isn't the report that is under discussion, ass.
        • Mindzai, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Did you not see how all of this evidence was presented to the public? Or the insane fear-mongering used to push for a preemptive war?

          Completely unjustified.
        • BigMacMcChicken, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1then which report are we talking about?

          why did we go for pages and pages of comments without anyone posting a link to it? Is it because people are afraid of what's in there?
    • overtoke, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2You see, there is lots of different pieces of intelligence and of difference ages. There is intelligence that contradicts or corrects older intelligence, etc.

      The Bush Admin did in fact cherry pick the statements they wanted to cite, and deliberately removed the statements which were contrary to the picture they wanted to paint.

      Our ELECTED OFFICIALS are TELLING you the Bush Administration are lairs and are giving you the details. Other organizations have documented proof they have lied close to 1000 times.
    • BigMacMcChicken, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1yeah but cherrypicking intelligence is not what people are accusing him of. What percentage of intelligence has to say saddam has WMD before you conclude that he does? 50% 70% Nobody likes to remember that hindsight is 20/20. What is he supposed to do? stand up in front of america and say "we have a lot of intelligence that says he has WMD and we think we should attack him but we also have intelligence that says he doesn't?"
  • happyseamonster, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3This administration will try to invent an international crisis to aid the election of McCain. But, the CIA and the military won't play along and Bush and McCain will fall flat on their faces. Hopefully, they'll get caught red handed and go to jail.
  • shrimp1970, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1please skew this story at http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/7357?sectio ...
  • rockon4life45, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4I CAN'T ***** WAIT TIL WE GET TO TALK ***** ABOUT THE NEXT PRESIDENT
  • nycmac247, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2by former Congressman Dan Hamberg (D-CA)
    San Francisco Chronicle
    February 4, 2008

    If you still think talk of concentration camps - or Detention Centers - is just conspiracy theory, you'd better think again. The documents and laws are real and in place. I have seen a massive FEMA facility west of Mineral Wells, Texas, that housed hundreds of mobile homes at one time.

    http://www.jimmarrs.com/news.php?recordnumber=606

  • mentalmerc, on 06/11/2008, -1/+0Doesn't matter who gets in, Obama or McCain, we lose. McCain is a raging mad mofo who curses out his fellow senators, votes against everything that would be beneficial to veterans, and even spearheaded legislation that threw an Indian tribe into a toxic waste dump.Obama is just as aggressive as Bush policywise, a fact that hardly anyone seems to have mentioned. This guy is the type who will smile as he kills you. He has threatened to go into Pakistan without the country's approval, have background checks for all Americans. I don't know why Black Americans like the guy. He was the #1 campaigner for senator Robert C. Byrd, a guy who called the Black peoples creatures from the darkest wilds and who was a former member of the KKK. These things I've just mentioned are just mere samplings. Read this and prepare to say plenty of what the *****.

    http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/buy ...
  • doctor49152, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Why cant Bush and Company be tried in another country under the Geneva Convention and then branded war criminals to the rest of the world?!?!?!

    I'm sure the rest of the world doesn't have its head up its own ass while screaming 'LALALALALALALALA!!! I'M NOT LISTENING!!'
  • cpadayachee, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1This isn't exactly new but it's amazing how long it took for the media to pick up on the story or even better yet how little the media has focused on how the current administration faked their way into advocating war.
    • Mindzai, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1It's not surprising. The admin and the media are part of the same establishment control.
  • pajeff2, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2The words "Senate" and "Intelligence" do not belong in the same sentence
  • amightywind, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3Aren't you scumbag liberals satisfied that we are at the threshold of victory in Iraq? The US has wiped out Al Qaida, crippled the muslim militias, and quieted the cities. Iraq is poised for a brighter future. President Bush, Sacker of Cities, should be given an old fashioned Roman Triumph!
    • gavin422, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Weak troll. Move along.
    • cointelproof, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0You seem to have conveniently forgotten a few truths about the situation in Iraq.
      1. A third of the population are in need of emergency aid.
      2. The infrastructure has nearly completely collapsed.
      3. Daily suicide bombings killing innocents and coalition forces.
      4. 60-70 percent of Iraqi children in Iraq are suffering from psychological problems.
      So pray do tell how you are "at the threshold of victory in Iraq"?
  • Anonchrist, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Every comment page is the same... Will anyone stop posting thesaloon.net in their vain attempts to discredit huffingtonpost.com. One is left and the other is right, but both are sensationalist blogs.
  • BillE3, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Bill Clinton fired as many field agents from the CIA as possible and reduced their budget. You know, balancing the budget and all. After all is it not better to depend on spy satellites. It is no wonder the intelligence data was faulty. Hillary had to side with Bush (or the other way around?) before the invasion. If she did not join in, she would have had to point out how she and Bill set the stage for bad intelligence. They had just spent 8 years there, she knew what was going on.
  • arcticJKL, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1What's next we learn that FDR lied to the American people about the threat played by Germany?
  •  

    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.