What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Norton 2010
80’s metal band Dokken vs. a chicken. Who would win? view!
everyclickmatters.com - The question has finally been answered, and we’ve got it on tape. See the showdown.
60 Comments
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Bush makes Clinton look like Superman. The man cannot open his mouth without tripping over his own past lies. Bush is easily the worst President in US History.
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34Is that why you guys keep marking these stories "inaccurate"?
- paulvcarter, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36Bush is a liar, but we knew that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23"The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East."
Wait so iraq had something to do with 9/11?[/sarcasm] - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18There are many that say
"if you do nothing you are part of the problem"
"where are all the protests like for vietnam"
"I think it's high time for a general strike, mass demonstrations and civil disobedience. "
Problem is, IT HAPPENS EVERYDAY but the corporate media wont cover it. DId you see all over the news he 1/2 million proteswting in NY?
or the 1/2 million that protested in D.C.?
OR the 200,000 in san fran a few weeks ago? These are not small protests. .5 million is a whole lot of people in one area.
WE ARE HAVING MASS DEMOSTRATIONS>> THE SO CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA REFUSES TO COVER IT. - PopeRatzo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21We keep seeing the same lies from Bush and the same comments here. Have you had enough yet? Are you ready to do something about it yet?
I think it's high time for a general strike, mass demonstrations and civil disobedience.
For starters. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12FYI the largest anti war protest during vietnam
500,000
or 1/2 million - steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@Hawkeye17 agreed-Bush is an imbecile..
@greymaxcat...why do you care so much about Clinton's sex life STILL...and although in politically correct terms maybe that would be described as sexual harrassment...but if sexual cigar play happens between two consenting adults, I don't describe that as harrassment, I call that kinky - oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13First off it isnt sexual harassment because she enjoyed it and initiated some of the sexual encounters. Secondly I would take a sex addict president in a heartbeat over some one who takes away the rights people died for and sends my relatives to fight in a war nobody wanted!
- MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"WE ARE HAVING MASS DEMOSTRATIONS>> THE SO CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA REFUSES TO COVER IT."
That's so true. What's funny (or sad) is that when someone sneezes on the koran, the media has no problem showing that silly protest. - jkavvy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@greymaxcat
After a very expensive witchhunt that lasted 8 years, the best the Republicans got on Clinton was lying about a blowjob.
Bush has ***** us into a costly war and record deficits. He refused to testify at the 9/11 comissioin and we've yet to have any serious inquiries into Bush's pre-war handling of Iraq. It's nice to have a Republican Congress and a population where a sizeable percentage actually believes we found WMD's and that there is a solid link between Saddam and 9/11. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10> why do you care so much about Clinton's sex life STILL
Because it's all they have on the man. The fact is he was an excellent president and was focused on terrorism and most righties know it. However, they want to keep bringing up Monica Lewinsky in some desperate attempt to distract us all and keep us from remembering that Clinton was ordering military attacks on bin Laden and naming him by name.
For those of you not interested in the Fox News propaganda and Clinton's sex life, check out these links that pretty much prove everything Clinton has said and proves that the Bush admininstration blatantly ignored the warnings. Pass the links around to your right-wing friends. They'll be up all night tying themselves into knots of illogic trying to reconcile this with the claims that Clinton was "wagging the dog" or was ignorant about bin Laden and terrorism.
http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/asbombing/clintonwash.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec98/clinton2_8-20.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59781-2004Feb21.html - chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7this is guanteed to be marked inaccurate just based on the title, whether or not it actually is..
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7GWB started the "sound bite" president type. He could not do non-scripted interview because he needs to regurgitate the GOP talking point daily memo he receives.
- Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Of course every politician lies.
But compare Clinton's lie of getting sexual favors, to Bush's lie which started a war that costs us billions of dollars and over 2500 US soldiers.
Lies are not created equal. - AllnightChemist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@greymaxcat
True, but nobody died. So at least he was a harmless joke, right?
Then he balanced the budget and reduced the trade deficit, but I didn't really think that was that funny... - steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@azenone- I LOVE freedom...freedom for Americans..freedom that my Constitution guarantees me. Freedom to think my president is an imbecile.
I will repost 2 quotes I love
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations" James Madison-framer of the Constitution
"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their polices is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive. " Henry Steele Sommanger, Historian - toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7all politicians should have to be under oath when making an official statment to congress and the american people. if this was the case then we would have the least corrupt government in the world.
- nchambers42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@greymaxcat
The president is a warrior (or should at least pretend to be one). Warriors do stuff like that. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5PowerCow: "Wait so iraq had something to do with 9/11?[/sarcasm]"
You're 100% right, but...
Sadly, to a lot of people in North America, the Middle East is just a big desert with camels and terrorists running around firing guns in the air and screaming about Jihaad. They have no idea that there's a difference between the snow-covered mountains in Iran and the deserts of Saudia Arabia.
To try and expect them to understand that the people in this region are very different from one place to another, and that the whole region is pretty calm and just living their lives is asking too much (apparently).
So yeah, we know Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedies on 2001-09-11 but to many people if Arabs and/or Muslims die then that's enough to quench their thirst for retaliation. They don't care if they're Arabs in Iraq or Afghanis in Afghanistan, as far as most are concerned they're just towel-heads living in the sand. - makido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm kind of a digg noob; can someone explain to me how a story gets marked as "possibly inaccurate"? Diggers should have to qualify marking something as inaccurate; e.g. specify exactly what is inaccurate, not cited, etcetera. It seems silly to me that every single political or quasi-political article gets marked "possibly inaccurate" and diggers have to wade through hundreds of posts to maybe find out why.
For example, this specific blog post has a misleading/inaccurate (some would say, rhetorical) title, but the information presented is not inaccurate. In fact, many other news agencies have reported the same things, including Fox News ( http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep24/0,4670,USIraq,00.html ). If you take just the meat of the article, and not the comments below or the title above, the information presented is factually accurate.
If stories are going to be marked inaccurate, the person who marked it should be accountable. There should be reasons, justifications, peer review, and discussion. At least, the person who marked it as such should have their name posted. After all, submitters have their name posted. They're accountable. The same should hold true for these individuals. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Anger is often used to cover a lie." And fallacious arguments are often used to deceive and misrepresent the facts (or truth).
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4its scary that he can justify ANYTHING with 9-11.
- Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4care to discuss any other lies by Clinton that have been as big of a ***** up as the current president's lies then?
- ketha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5People marking this inaccurate have to stopped.. come on Kevin and the rest.. .can't we at least have a heavier barrier for political stories... republicans seem unable to face the truth about their terrible war and the lies that were told to get there... disagreeing with something is one thing, ignoring the facts is quite another.
- jkavvy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@steinbeckgirl
The neocon rebuttal would be that Madison and Sommanger hate America and support the terrorists. - crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The smarter you are the more kinky you are.
Maybe it's that need to learn and try everything you can. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I apologize deeply for the length of this post. After reading this review, I felt it especially pertinent to this discussion, and wanted to post it here. It is a review of the book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," by Richard A. Clarke, which is posted on the book's page at Amazon. It is particularly relevant to this discussion!
I hope you find just this review educational, as I did. Again, I apologize for the length. :(
========
As the sitting White House National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism on the President's National Security Council for more than eight years during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, former intelligence analyst Richard Clarke sat in the literal catbird's seat to observe as well as participate in the national security apparatus in action. As a consequence, his new book detailing the specifics of the government's progress on the war on terror both before and since the advent of 911 is provocative reading indeed. The portrait he paints so convincingly is that of a Bush administration populated by political ideologues and characterized by shooting from the hip at targets of opportunity. Thus, no one within the new administration wanted to believe in the frightening evidence of a mounting Al Qaeda threat in the weeks and months before September 11, 2001, despite the persistent warnings of advisors like himself.
Instead, they seemed preoccupied, as former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neil suggested in his recent book, with regime change in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Astonishingly, the morning after 911 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested attacking Iraq in the total absence of any evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to the attack on New York City or Washington, since Iraq represents a target-rich environment, as opposed to Afghanistan, which has so few. President Bush himself cornered Clarke and attempted to pressure him into finding a link between Hussein and the attack on the World Trade Center on 911 attack. To Mr. Clarke, the Bush administration was intent from that time on to use 911 as a convenient excuse to attack Iraq, something they seem to have desired to do from the very outset of the administration.
Indeed, Clarke's impression of the modus operandi of the so-called "Vulcans" such as Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld is one of a previously set ideological agenda, of having a predetermined objective to attack and conquer Iraq, and then attempting to use the events of 911 as justification to proceed toward that objective. Indeed, the available public record suggests as much, with not only Mr. Bush, but also Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, as well as Mr. Rumsfeld trotting out a garden variety of ostensible rationales for invading Iraq in the post-911 time frame, all the way from the original "Axis Of Evil" comment in the 2002 State of The Union speech to the spurious linking of Saddam with Al Qaeda to the use of nerve gas against the populace some dozen years before to failure to comply with United nations resolutions since the 1991 attack by the international coalition that deliberately stopped short of regime change due to fear of destabilizing the region.
Mr. Clarke has more than enough criticism to go around, and both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush find themselves seriously criticized and called to task for their lack of appropriate action, given what Mr. Clarke feels was the clear and present danger the evidence he offered indicated. So this book is no simple hatchet job against the Bush administration, as it casts aspersions on both sides of the political fence in terms of ascribing blame for our present set of circumstances regarding lapses in national security. Yet he reserves special scorn for the current administration, given its self-serving and somewhat cynical use of the 911 events to turn the political landscape upside down. What Clark describes as being tantamount to treason is the fashion in which President Bush has politicized the situation for short-term political benefit without taking serious and meaningful action to actually meaningfully combat the set of threats themselves.
Most surprising to Clark is the way in which the Bush administration has done so little to accomplish relatively inexpensive and yet quite effective action against the terrorist threat, such as strengthening the infrastructure or beefing up border security, while hugely increasing the administrative manpower and salaries of personnel within agencies such as Homeland Security, which do little to actually counteract terror threats. Like many observers, Clarke believes the war in Iraq is at best a distraction from the real threat, robbing the country of valuable resources with which we could much more effectively protect ourselves and extend the reach of American power to combat terrorism.
Meanwhile, he views the growth of terrorism and the extension of its world-wide capabilities with alarm, suggesting that our ineffective military actions as well as our inattentiveness to key details which would bolster internal security have led to increased danger and higher threat levels rather than the reverse, and wonders aloud how long it will take for this nightmare scenario to play out with potentially devastating consequences. He is utterly amazed that Bush attempts, through a cynical and self-serving media campaign, to convince Americans we are winning a war on terror we are not really fighting well at all. This is an absolutely riveting read, albeit in less than stirring prose or striking narrative. It serves as forewarning that we are on a wrongheaded and very dangerous path, and that it is high time for a course correction. I highly recommend this book!
======== (written by Barron Laycock/"Labradorman") - liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9@flernk, did you stop to think that some of us find it funny to see the anti-bush stories marked as inaccurate? Yes, we know Bush lied. So did Clinton. So has damn near every other president I'm sure. So have you at one point of time or another. As well I have. It just becomes funny for some of us to see these stories come in day after day after day. But I suppose the likes of you whom are saving the country take it very seriously. Oh well.
Digg me down. I'm ready for the bury.
At least this was posted in the Political Opinino section. Kudos for that. - steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You're kidding right?
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I actually *look* for inaccurate stories (in the political/opinion/world news sections) -- it is a guaranteed fun read in the comments/discussion section, because I know who the ones were who got together to mark it as 'inaccurate.'
Once it's marked inaccurate, I know it's closer to the truth! :) - ArcticCelt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My bet is that he thinks it means "lunatic destruction power trip", When you replace it, everything he says now makes sense. See for yourself.
The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the "lunatic destruction power trip" agenda in the Middle East. - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If there was anyone in the US left who has any courage, please let that patriot buy a Barret .50, train with it, take a position with the expectation to die and take a bullet to the head of your dictator, George. W. Bush and kill him. Or by whatever other means that work.
Since I was a kid I always heard stories about what you would do if you travelled back in time to 1925 and you had a gun and knew where Adolf Hitler was. The situation is identical if a bit harder.
Kill him. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Examples_of_Republican_hypocrisy_on_moral_values
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3nobody cares because it doesn't personally effect them. When they do a draft then you will see young people getting pissed.
- OdinThor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If people really wanted to piss off the Republicans they would vote Lincoln Chafee for President. A liberal republican who always sides with democratic liberals would leave the republican party dazed and confused. In fact, I am not even sure you can find many democratic senators more liberal than Chafee. The GOP would bitch. The Democrats would say to the Republicans "What are you complaining about? There is a Republican President." Meanwhile, President Chafee would be attending peace rallys, smoking dubes, and playing folk songs with an acoustic guitar during presidential addresses. I can picture foreign policy consisting of sitting indian-style, holding hands, and singing Kumbaya.
In order to get Chafee to be president, he has to get through the Republican primary.As is stands now that would never happen. To be successful, all the Democrats (or enough of them) would have to disaffilliate then register as Republicans and vote in the Republican primary. I know, I know, a lot of work to piss off one party. - azenone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You forgot Poland!
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Damn straight Bush is a liar. Just like Clinton, just like Bush Sr., just like Reagan, just like Jimmy Carter, just like Ford, just like Nixon, back before that I get a bit hazy. The 60's you know... (I was a little kid)
Its called SPIN, and every damn politician out there joins in. The politician you hate most, and the politician you love. They all SPIN the ever lovin' ***** out of about anything you can think of.
A good politician can look you straight in the eyes, with the most sincere face since Moses, and tell you that his ass is made of uranium and he loves you. - floppyparty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would love to have someone ask Bush what his definition of Freedom is. Freedom is not a simply, catch-all, best-for-everyone concept. "Freedom" carries different meanings for different subjects. Hell, Pure Freedom is anarchy lol. I dont think that's what we want....
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, so read the complete story at the Los Angeles Times for yourself:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel24sep24,0,2161892.story?coll=la-home-headlines - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ketha --
Inaccurate stories* are the best... they are probably closest to the truth, and being marked "inaccurate" just makes them easier to find, and I know the stories and the discussion will be an enjoyable read.
* I am referring to "inaccurate" in the sections such as political/opinion, world news, etc., as opposed to the technical sections. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what a ***** moron... is it surprising tho? no... nor would I be surprised if bush stood up on stage and tried to convince you that he has no nose.
- dognose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your report is incomplete.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060924/2006-09-24T230854Z_01_N23197513_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-TERRORISM-DC.html - steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jkavvy-brilliant!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why have I yet to see the actual leaked paragraph anywhere?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4buried:( damn neos
- justncase80, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2agreed.
- OdinThor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I would guess that the majority of politicians are liars. They are savy in getting us to believe one side is demonic and the other can do no wrong. I hope people will begin to understand that even if one side really sucks, it doesn't mean that the other side doesn't suck at all. The reality is both parties suck (and they are both full of gifted and not so gifted liars). Too many of you drink the Jonestown kool-aid from your respective parties.
Many politicians, these souless wonders, have chosen their party affiliatian based not on their beliefs, but on their greatest chance to get elected. They will espouse the party's platform as well as what polls dictates so that they can stay in office (even if it is against what their belief system is --which is obviously for sale). This might include backtracking on earlier statements or lying. Getting elected/staying in office is paramount, everything else is secondary or an afterthought.
I know the popular thing now is saying "Bush sucks" (I would agree, but it is a half-truth). To be fair, all those bumper sticks on Dems cars should read "Bush sucks ... more than us!" - azenone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3steinbeckgirl, why do you hate freedom?
- azenone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"Mission Accomplished"
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is