Of course that is to provoke us to support staying in Iraq which is what we will do anyway with our bases and legions of non-combatants and consulates and CIA and special forces settling in... Disinformation at it's finest to keep the colonialization in motion for like McCain said a hundred years or more. Iran is being surrrounded... and special forces already busy... the problem is here at home the class society being formed with heavy domestic security may or may not be securing it for us, depending on how rich you are...
and don't forget the bomb, bomb Iran beach party being planned thanks to McCain for telegraphing that one in graphic manner...
It is just more of the Bushworld.. that is a think tanks attack a long time in the thinking and which may or may not be tanking... you can imagine the fun they have talking up water boarding to as if that is the pinnacle of maniacal behavioralist cold war brain washing ... use a board and lots of water... right
These leaks show peoples true opinions unedited to the world, The only people who have something to fear from these leaks are people who say one thing in private and another in public.
The only reason politicians are acting as if it's such a massive threat is because they've spent years creating a veil of secrecy around themselves and in one leak it's entirely destroyed.
This leak should be how democracy works, their should be no secrets from the citizens. Democracy only works when the people voting can make informed decisions.
Whoops! you accidentally left out how WikiLeaks also shows that Obama knew all along that Israeli concessions had nothing to do with stopping Iran's march to nuclear weapons. Yet he persisted in linking the two, even though it raised the risk of an atomic conflagration.
Uh kelly, when someone submits a story from the NY times, they don't submit ALL stories from the NYT simultaneously. There is also a lot of staff in these documents about the UK royal family. And about China and North Korea. But those are different stories.
Feel free to submit a story ab out Obama if you feel free, but do not play silly buggers.
I would trust GW to feed my cat if I was out of town and he offered ...
I can't say the same for very many other presidents of late.
I don't trust GW for much else ... but then again, I'm not so naive to think that the president elect really runs things when they are in office.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The very idea that anybody wants to run for that office makes their character suspect. Megalomania, egomania, superiority complex. the list of flaws that make someone want that job means I wouldn't trust them with 20 dollars to go across the street and buy us a soda.
As soon as you get that job you are guaranteed a book deal after you are done. If you make it two terms then you get two book deals. Even if you don't win you can get a book deal as long as you were popular enough or popular enough with stupid people.
Now we know why the right-ringers are bashing these leaks so much. (Along with the left-wingers currently in power). Anything that bashes Bush is enemy to them.
FTA: The accumulating evidence at the time showed that Iraq lacked a nuclear weapons program and did not have biological weapons either.
That's a bulls**t line made up of 100% 20/20 hindsight. The evidence at the time was nill, Saddam wasn't allowing weapon inspectors in to do their jobs. Russia, France, Germany, and UK intelligence all stated that he had weapons, so that is what we went on.
I think everybody is acutely aware that the intelligence was flawed, but that is the job of the President. Cohen actually originally supported the war, and now chooses his own revisionist version of history. Well....sorry bud...but you'll never be as important as any President, and it's pretty childish of you to sit behind a keyboard and throw darts, when you have no dog in the fight.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No sir: 100% of the evidence from the weapons inspectors and all of the weapons inspectors themselves insisted that the Bush administration was wrong about the Iraqi weapons programs. At worst, they simply asked for more time.
Also, the US intelligence agencies were all of that opinion, save George "slam dunk" Tenet, and reported being pressured from the White House to find some link between Hussein and bin Laden. Some career professionals even resigned in protest. Meanwhile in GB, there was Hans Blix (who died); the infamous "Downing Street memo" and the "sexed up" intelligence reports.
I just listed nine things that you can look up and find from objective news services. Stop watching Fox "News", or at least add some variety to your sources.
Regardless of your 'personal' belief, the only body that can authorize war in America is the Congress, and they voted to allow Bush to send in the troops. Without their authorization he would not have gone.
In hindsight was he wrong about the weapons? Yes. Of course. That doesn't excuse the blame being spread around. It seems that the only people Democrats want to hold responsible was the President. Kerry? Clinton? Absolved.
Look up the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This was drawn up before Bush was ever in office. It is the basis of Congress giving the President authority in October 2002.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You quoted the article ("The accumulating evidence at the time showed that Iraq lacked a nuclear weapons program and did not have biological weapons either"), calling the quote "a bulls**t line made up of 100% 20/20 hindsight."
I pointed out that there was ample evidence and almost universal belief otherwise, meaning that the quote is correct and without bias. This isn't a personal belief, it is fact, which is why I gave nine points of interest for you to check from objective (non Fox "News") news sources.
Yes, the authorization was granted by Congress after Powell's show at the UN and the Bush administration's media blitz. The patriotism of those members of the house who doubted the administration's pleas of, "Just trust us" was called into question. They were asked to, "Just trust us" because the administration would not release their evidence...the very same evidence that Colin Powell said was "bulls**t."
Please don't respond again without making a clear point on our first two comments.
The point that is being made is that at the time there was no 'mounting evidence saying anything other than he did have WMD'. Had that not been the case, there is no way that 85 Democrats would have authorized Bush to send in troops. Nor would Russia, France, and Britain also say that he has them.
Also, please post some reference points to your great news sources. Let's see how unbiased you really are. Notice I haven't posted one thing from Fox News, but lets not let that get in the way.
You have a very simplistic argument, when politics, the country, and war are much more in depth than you can imagine. If you think that 300 members of Congress, Colin Powell, Bush, Cheney, Putin, any other foreign leader would bet their future on bulls**t that now is so clear you are an idiot, it wasn't clear at the time and anybody who says that is was is lying. Funny how hindsight is always 20/20.
The initial post was 100% in relation to the author of the piece. Do some research on him and you'll see that he used to be in favor of what he now bashes. He's a journalist, not a politician, and his is 100% free to change his mind. But in an OP-ED piece if you decide to do a 180, you should disclose.
What's in the past is done. You want to hold others responsible, hold this guy for his opinion as well.
How does that poem go ," if you can't be a tree then be a bush but be the best bush you prossibly can". Unfortunately our bush turned out to be a weed.
I hate it cause it is more of an egotistical exercise on the founders part rather then doing anyone any actual good. I have yet to see anything worse than what is already known from reading the news
You are right, but golly gee, it is a bank. I am not happy with the banks or Wall Street. I just got my $65 settlement from my Merrill Lynch (BofA) fraud case. The account has been closed, now. They did work for their interest, not mine. What the bank owned, they bought for customers.
My new bank, Regions, just sent me a bill for $150. It is their charge for having access to money, a line of credit, for my business. I have no loan at all. Just pay us, $150 for fun and bank profit. I am looking at moving everything again. It is a scam, they say, WE ARE SMALL BUSINESS FRIENDLY! $150 in profit, worth of friendly!
I'm not really sure what the story is trying to say. I didn't see any evidence of obfuscation, but it does make for a sexy headline, even if its not substantiated in the article.
"A politician lying? I'm shocked!"
"The government not telling the truth? No surprise there..."
When is our participation in democracy going to stop being so benign?
When is it going to stop being a joke for a US citizen to talk about their rights? They're the only thing that separates us from every other country; all those places you'd have us go if we 'don't like it here'.
shyloveNov 30, 2010
Of course that is to provoke us to support staying in Iraq which is what we will do anyway with our bases and legions of non-combatants and consulates and CIA and special forces settling in... Disinformation at it's finest to keep the colonialization in motion for like McCain said a hundred years or more. Iran is being surrrounded... and special forces already busy... the problem is here at home the class society being formed with heavy domestic security may or may not be securing it for us, depending on how rich you are...
and don't forget the bomb, bomb Iran beach party being planned thanks to McCain for telegraphing that one in graphic manner...
It is just more of the Bushworld.. that is a think tanks attack a long time in the thinking and which may or may not be tanking... you can imagine the fun they have talking up water boarding to as if that is the pinnacle of maniacal behavioralist cold war brain washing ... use a board and lots of water... right
saumzNov 30, 2010
a politician not tell the truth, say it isn't so :)
specimen7Nov 30, 2010
Well nobody likes an obscured bush.
sepelesterNov 30, 2010
A burning bush is mighty popular though.
phydeaux70Nov 30, 2010
It's only obscured because it's digital.......
....the only kind that many Diggers will ever see.
sepelesterDec 3, 2010
I think you're wrong, but I guess you're here because you're identifying with that notion?
dsmxNov 30, 2010
These leaks show peoples true opinions unedited to the world, The only people who have something to fear from these leaks are people who say one thing in private and another in public.
The only reason politicians are acting as if it's such a massive threat is because they've spent years creating a veil of secrecy around themselves and in one leak it's entirely destroyed.
This leak should be how democracy works, their should be no secrets from the citizens. Democracy only works when the people voting can make informed decisions.
kellydehnNov 30, 2010
Whoops! you accidentally left out how WikiLeaks also shows that Obama knew all along that Israeli concessions had nothing to do with stopping Iran's march to nuclear weapons. Yet he persisted in linking the two, even though it raised the risk of an atomic conflagration.
breadfredNov 30, 2010
Uh kelly, when someone submits a story from the NY times, they don't submit ALL stories from the NYT simultaneously. There is also a lot of staff in these documents about the UK royal family. And about China and North Korea. But those are different stories.
Feel free to submit a story ab out Obama if you feel free, but do not play silly buggers.
kellydehnNov 30, 2010
Sorry. I'll step in line and go through the digg advanced imaging technology screening from now on.
breadfredNov 30, 2010
nah no advanced imaging technology needed. Its the same as making a Palin comment on an Obama thread - should not happen and yet it does.
Closed AccountNov 30, 2010
I would trust GW to feed my cat if I was out of town and he offered ...
I can't say the same for very many other presidents of late.
I don't trust GW for much else ... but then again, I'm not so naive to think that the president elect really runs things when they are in office.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thubanNov 30, 2010
The very idea that anybody wants to run for that office makes their character suspect. Megalomania, egomania, superiority complex. the list of flaws that make someone want that job means I wouldn't trust them with 20 dollars to go across the street and buy us a soda.
jts10Dec 1, 2010
As soon as you get that job you are guaranteed a book deal after you are done. If you make it two terms then you get two book deals. Even if you don't win you can get a book deal as long as you were popular enough or popular enough with stupid people.
dirtyfriesDec 1, 2010
It's good to know your criteria for trusting our leader is his ability to feed your feline. You clearly have your priorities straight.
volfie99Nov 30, 2010
Now we know why the right-ringers are bashing these leaks so much. (Along with the left-wingers currently in power). Anything that bashes Bush is enemy to them.
PulpsmithDec 1, 2010
Including the law.
phydeaux70Nov 30, 2010
FTA: The accumulating evidence at the time showed that Iraq lacked a nuclear weapons program and did not have biological weapons either.
That's a bulls**t line made up of 100% 20/20 hindsight. The evidence at the time was nill, Saddam wasn't allowing weapon inspectors in to do their jobs. Russia, France, Germany, and UK intelligence all stated that he had weapons, so that is what we went on.
I think everybody is acutely aware that the intelligence was flawed, but that is the job of the President. Cohen actually originally supported the war, and now chooses his own revisionist version of history. Well....sorry bud...but you'll never be as important as any President, and it's pretty childish of you to sit behind a keyboard and throw darts, when you have no dog in the fight.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerDec 1, 2010
No sir: 100% of the evidence from the weapons inspectors and all of the weapons inspectors themselves insisted that the Bush administration was wrong about the Iraqi weapons programs. At worst, they simply asked for more time.
Also, the US intelligence agencies were all of that opinion, save George "slam dunk" Tenet, and reported being pressured from the White House to find some link between Hussein and bin Laden. Some career professionals even resigned in protest. Meanwhile in GB, there was Hans Blix (who died); the infamous "Downing Street memo" and the "sexed up" intelligence reports.
I just listed nine things that you can look up and find from objective news services. Stop watching Fox "News", or at least add some variety to your sources.
phydeaux70Dec 1, 2010
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020924-usia01.htm
Regardless of your 'personal' belief, the only body that can authorize war in America is the Congress, and they voted to allow Bush to send in the troops. Without their authorization he would not have gone.
In hindsight was he wrong about the weapons? Yes. Of course. That doesn't excuse the blame being spread around. It seems that the only people Democrats want to hold responsible was the President. Kerry? Clinton? Absolved.
Look up the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This was drawn up before Bush was ever in office. It is the basis of Congress giving the President authority in October 2002.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerDec 1, 2010
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
You quoted the article ("The accumulating evidence at the time showed that Iraq lacked a nuclear weapons program and did not have biological weapons either"), calling the quote "a bulls**t line made up of 100% 20/20 hindsight."
I pointed out that there was ample evidence and almost universal belief otherwise, meaning that the quote is correct and without bias. This isn't a personal belief, it is fact, which is why I gave nine points of interest for you to check from objective (non Fox "News") news sources.
Yes, the authorization was granted by Congress after Powell's show at the UN and the Bush administration's media blitz. The patriotism of those members of the house who doubted the administration's pleas of, "Just trust us" was called into question. They were asked to, "Just trust us" because the administration would not release their evidence...the very same evidence that Colin Powell said was "bulls**t."
Please don't respond again without making a clear point on our first two comments.
phydeaux70Dec 2, 2010
The point that is being made is that at the time there was no 'mounting evidence saying anything other than he did have WMD'. Had that not been the case, there is no way that 85 Democrats would have authorized Bush to send in troops. Nor would Russia, France, and Britain also say that he has them.
Read this from cnn and CBS: http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-27/us/saddam.cbs_1_saddam-hussein-wmd-fbi-agent?_s=PM:US
Also, please post some reference points to your great news sources. Let's see how unbiased you really are. Notice I haven't posted one thing from Fox News, but lets not let that get in the way.
You have a very simplistic argument, when politics, the country, and war are much more in depth than you can imagine. If you think that 300 members of Congress, Colin Powell, Bush, Cheney, Putin, any other foreign leader would bet their future on bulls**t that now is so clear you are an idiot, it wasn't clear at the time and anybody who says that is was is lying. Funny how hindsight is always 20/20.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=25309
phydeaux70Dec 2, 2010
The initial post was 100% in relation to the author of the piece. Do some research on him and you'll see that he used to be in favor of what he now bashes. He's a journalist, not a politician, and his is 100% free to change his mind. But in an OP-ED piece if you decide to do a 180, you should disclose.
What's in the past is done. You want to hold others responsible, hold this guy for his opinion as well.
confuciussayNov 30, 2010Submitter
I feel that Wikileaks is turning into the TMZ of world politics...and I don't know if that's a good thing
roofviewDec 1, 2010
How does that poem go ," if you can't be a tree then be a bush but be the best bush you prossibly can". Unfortunately our bush turned out to be a weed.
readmymindDec 1, 2010
The authoritarian right hates Wikileaks because it poke holes in their convoluted concept of American exceptionalism and presumed moral superiority.
blacklabelsarDec 1, 2010
This was the correct answer.
x9002Dec 1, 2010
I hate it cause it is more of an egotistical exercise on the founders part rather then doing anyone any actual good. I have yet to see anything worse than what is already known from reading the news
cowboyrickyDec 1, 2010
Bush works for the "Ministry of Truth" - George Orwell 1984
u2canfailDec 1, 2010
So far nothing wiki has released has surprised me. But I am hoping the B of A stuff is mind blowing! (Hate the banks and Wall Street.)
x9002Dec 1, 2010
Unlikely based of past "leaks"
u2canfailDec 1, 2010
You are right, but golly gee, it is a bank. I am not happy with the banks or Wall Street. I just got my $65 settlement from my Merrill Lynch (BofA) fraud case. The account has been closed, now. They did work for their interest, not mine. What the bank owned, they bought for customers.
My new bank, Regions, just sent me a bill for $150. It is their charge for having access to money, a line of credit, for my business. I have no loan at all. Just pay us, $150 for fun and bank profit. I am looking at moving everything again. It is a scam, they say, WE ARE SMALL BUSINESS FRIENDLY! $150 in profit, worth of friendly!
lucas123Dec 1, 2010
I'm not really sure what the story is trying to say. I didn't see any evidence of obfuscation, but it does make for a sexy headline, even if its not substantiated in the article.
cajunmetalDec 1, 2010
"A politician lying? I'm shocked!"
"The government not telling the truth? No surprise there..."
When is our participation in democracy going to stop being so benign?
When is it going to stop being a joke for a US citizen to talk about their rights? They're the only thing that separates us from every other country; all those places you'd have us go if we 'don't like it here'.
dcwriterDec 1, 2010
Wikipedia founder comments further on WikiLeaks: www.thelantern.com/campus/alum-speaks-out-against-wikileaks-1.1813044
PulpsmithDec 1, 2010
It's too bad we don't have the rule of law in America.