What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Keith: Best Buy Employee and Possible Singing Sensation. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One employee proves he has the chops and the passion to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
158 Comments
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21This needs to be on the front page at the same time as "Bush knew there were no WMD in 2002"
http://digg.com/politics/Bush_knew_Saddam_had_no_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Heads will be exploding from the cognitive dissonance. - iching, on 10/10/2007, -12/+26He is delusional as was another tyrant at the end of his dictatorship who also suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This delusion about no WMD's reinforces his narcissistic sociopathic disorder that by denying reality, he is proven right. We have a problem Houston.
- freezeout, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Bush also believed Jesus told him to invade Iraq and that Brownie was doing a hell of a job
- kenvsryu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16He still puts out cookies and milk on Christmas eve.
- aikimann, on 10/10/2007, -13/+22Unfortunately, it's impossible to prove a negative. So, we'll never know whether or he had WMD and got rid of them, or never had them to begin with.
(Despite this statement being impartial and true, it will probably be interpreted as right-wing propaganda and dugg down) - kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Actually, it is quite well documented that Saddam did have WMDs and the capability to produce them up until around 1996, though his although the Gulf War had dramatically degraded both stockpile and capability.
- Insightful, on 10/10/2007, -12/+20Not surprising, see page 458 of the Draper book where Bush repeated his conviction of existence of Tooth Fairy to George Bush senior all the way until his departure for the White House in 2001.
To this day, he is still continuing his fruitless search of the WMD and the TF. - StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Its like OJ still searching for the true killer.
- SeekerDarksteel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11But...but...Digg TOLD me Bush knew! Now they tell me Bush DIDN'T!
TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE, DIGG! TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE! - adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to prove that there are unicorns there? You make the assertion, you prove it - just like Bush must - and can't - because he's full of ***** - just like you.
- morningmatters, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8It's sad but many Americans still believe that Saddam's WMD's had been found and that Saddam did 9/11, today.
- liquisoft, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12I have and still do believe that Bush is genuinely not a horrible person as many people believe. I just think he's bad at his job and doesn't want anyone to know. So he surrounds himself with people he thinks are his friends; people he can count on to direct him towards the right decisions. But those people are oftentimes not his friends at all. They are usually selfish individuals out to further their causes. Cheney is one such person.
So Bush gets told certain things by his pals, and he believes them. After all, why would his friends lie to him? Despite evidence to the contrary, Bush still believes Iraq had WMDs, all because he was convinced that they did way back in 2001 and holds onto that belief like most dimwitted people do. What I mean is, many "not too smart" people hold onto beliefs they formed many years prior and are unable to waver from their initially-formed opinions because it means they'll have to adapt to a new way of thinking. These people get set in their ways and sort of go through the motions, much like a robot would. So Bush is just going through the motions of being a post-terrorist attack President, and is unable (or unwilling) to waver from his mode of operations.
I think if Bush had been surrounded by genuinely intelligent and caring individuals, people who supported the Constitution and were champions of human rights, this administration and our experience over the past 7 years would be far different. But unfortunately for us, Bush is a very poor judge of character and we are paying the price for it. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers." Field report, May 27, 2003. Pentagon-sponsored mission by nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. The technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html
Also a British intelligence report. The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html - papashawn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6also on the front page of digg: "Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction"
Now I'm no repub, but let's get our stories straight, shall we? You obviously can't have it both ways. - nrtikman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Gen George Sada on Jon Stewart Show:
GENERAL GEORGES SADA: Well let me tell you, it was not misunderstanding between the cultures, but t was the Saddam intentions and Saddam wanted to rule that part of the world. He was always going to go for weapons and of course he had weapons of mass destruction that he had managed to hide and to mislead the United Nations countries.
STEWART: This is obviously the most controversial part of the book. In it you say that right before the invasion of Iraq Saddam had his weapons of mass destruction taken to Syria.
SADA: That’s true. He had them there before Americans came and liberated the country. The weapons were transported to Syria by air and by ground.
STEWART: That would seemingly get the Bush administration off the giant hook that it appears to be on. Why wouldn’t they pursue that line of evidence? Or have they? It seems like for us it would be hard to understand that that really happened. Given that the whole world was looking for those.
SADA: I am sure in the coming days the authorities are going to tell the public and tell all Americans after they will have all the evidence in their hands and they can verify everything to the Americans.
STEWART: You still feel, now this is first-hand knowledge of yours? Somebody told you this? You’ve seen it in documents? You’ve seen it on video.
SADA: Oh yes, the weapons of mass destruction I have seen them myself because you see I was the number two man in the air force. Then I know how they were used against our nation. Of course—
STEWART: But in the later ‘90s after they thought they had rid them of it, you still saw them.
SADA: After the ‘90s they were there. How I knew they were there, after they were transported the pilots who transported they told me.
STEWART: The guys that flew them …
SADA: The guys who were responsible.
STEWART: How do you fly a weapon? Isn’t that a large thing or do you put it….
SADA: No. They are raw materials; some of them are like barrels, yellow barrels, of course, with skulls and cross bones on them. - redlantern64, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Actually, if you READ that story, it tells you that Bush was given good intelligence that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but he ignored it and chose not to believe it.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10And since then the intelligence was that his WMD program was in mobile weapons labs that could've been driven across the border in the days before the invasion.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You can't prove that something doesn't exist indefinitely, but you can damn well be sure that a specific item is not in a specific place during a specific time period. Think about the last time you lost your car keys. You probably looked in the last place you remember putting them. Maybe you did not see them there. You kept looking and moved some stuff around to make sure it wasn't hiding under anything, but you still don't see them. Do you then look somewhere else and ask people if they moved them or do you keep staring at that spot because you know they were there and you can't prove that they are not there for sure? How long would you keep staring at that spot before you come to the realization that they are not there? Now Iraq is a lot bigger than a kitchen table, but WMDs are a lot easier to find than car keys. Bush has been staring at that same spot looking for the same thing for years now with no evidence what he was looking for is there or that it had been moved. He even ignored evidence that said that it wasn't there. Its about time he gets the hint that they are not there and they were not there when we invaded. Now if we could only get someone to hide Bush's car keys, the word might be a safer place.
- toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Seriously, can't we invoke the 25th Amendment? I've read @ consortiumnews.com the analysis of a shrink who identifies all the familiar symptoms. This man is absolutely delusional. And yeah, I know Cheney would be the (official) Prez but we gotta do somethin
- TheHamBeast, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6It's hard to take these editorials and the people who digg them seriously. As of right now there is an article in the top ten which says Bush knew there weren't any WMD in Iraq. If you're going to try to discredit Bush then at least do it consistently and save yourself some embarrassment.
- StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Its a nonstory. Of course we are being attacked. Look what we've done to the world. Do you also want us to put up a story about soldiers being killed in Iraq every day? Where are all those stories?
The yellow elephant brigade has enough supporters. If we're in so much danger from Islamists, and we're '***** libtards' go sign up and fight instead of calling for everyone else to publicise the danger they pose.
The "Islamists" pose far less of a danger than Bush and his ilk. Why some of us are so frightened of small groups of uneducated men with homebrew explosives when you are in more danger from the economy collapsing due to overborrowing from China I have no idea. - jacquesm, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9it's all over the news, why repeat it here ? Besides, it doesn't really prove anything other than that every country has their nutjobs, and that we can deal with them with good police work, no need to call in the military.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You want sources? Here's a few:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/ - gillilandboy, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17I am going to get dugg down for this but.....I think they did have WMD of there and Saddam got word of it and had them hidden so we couldn't find them or moved out of the country.
- StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7In many cases, once one has looked hard enough, and SHOULD have by now found a unicorn had they been there, not finding one is acceptable as proof.
Its a debated area of logic, but when one walks in a room the size of a closet and can't find an elephant, you have for all practical purposes proved there is no elephant there. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Don't be an idiot, the "mobile weapons labs" never existed. The only mobile labs found were used to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4And the date of that interview was March 22, 2006. A lot of days have come and gone... yet no evidence that the WMDs were moved. What a coincidence.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8This isn't so ridiculous. I think Bush figured going in that Saddam had to have *some* WMDs somewhere, even if most of the intel said he probably didn't. Most people did. It's actually somewhat surprising that there were zero--none--that we found, other than some old expired nerve gas. It does look like there weren't any after all, but obviously this is somewhat like a scientific theory--it's accurate until something proves it wrong.
- robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4 No it is not a ***** stupid thing to say. We KNOW he had WMD's he USED them on his own people. Do you not remember that? Just because he was able to scramble and hide them doesn't mean anything. So as long as you can ditch them when 'inspectors' show up, everything should be peachy? He violated U.N. resolutions 37 times, he invaded Kuwait. Do you think he massacred huge numbers of his own people with lollipops??? Take your tin hat off for a minute and understand who your REAL enemy is. Go commiserate with the terrorists about how evil the U.S. is and see how long it takes for them to chop your fool head off. Wake up man.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3True, except 'the people' don't elect presidents. The electoral college does.
- Kajun, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9Have you not seen the proof that he did have WMD's that he used on people who lived in his own country? Where they went when we invaded is the question. Im sure they will surface somewhere sooner or later.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I always love the irony when an anonymous coward insults somebodies courage. "StaticThunder" how macho...
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9"we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. [Iraq Survey Group Interim Progress Report, 10/2/03]
“we’re very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons. … I don’t think they exist.” [Former U.N. inspector David Kay, 1/26/04]
“The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003.” [Iraq Survey Group Report, 10/7/04]
"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
-George Bush, 2004 - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4my point is the situation was different a decade ago - there is RECENT intelligence which proves Saddam had no weapons programs or stockpiles post-1996
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why is it that the most intelligent, interesting, and important interviews come out of a comedy show? *sigh*
(I'm not putting down the Daily Show, as I love it. I'm just saying...) - Jamihabs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Bush wasn't the only one to believe Saddam had WMDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffreedomagenda%2Ecom%2Firaq%2Fwmd%5Fquotes%2Ehtml - zombiedepot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What?
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Therefore everyone who believes something despite evidence to the contrary is always right?
yawn - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually they relied upon the Constitution itself. If it was upheld then Bush couldn't do this.
- robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 If you think Saddam was some sort of trustworthy good guy, and all you can do is lock your teeth in the WMD bone, I give up. There is A LOT more going on here than WMD silliness. Why are you not even willing to be fair enough to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein was a brutal maniac? It doesn't take much research to understand that much. If you want to hate Bush, that's fine, but the fact that you have blinded yourself to the tyranny and brutality of Saddam and want to characterize him as 'trustworthy', is just crazy. You clearly have lost your grip on reality. I guess it's probably easier that way. "Bush is evil, everybody else is his victim" doesn't require much thought. Oh well. This IS Digg after all.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"to think that he used them and then just never made or possessed others is stupid."
Thats it, then. The international intelligence community is stupid, and you alone are smart. QED. - lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Im evil like that
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You've covered the entire set there though. It is possible to prove something not to exist if you can account for every element in the set.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4ABC Nightline reported the following on June 9, 1992: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”
- bedamned, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5He is playing with the peoples lives and sadly lot of americans still support him.
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11Much of America already lets belief trump rational analysis. So, this is not surprising.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Is "you cant prove he didn't do that, so therefore he did do that" any better? Take a guess at which principle the US justice system operates on.
- rogueifer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6IIMMMMMPEEEAAAAACCCHHHHH
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Surely you meant to say " where they went during months of inspections before we invaded".
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thanks for letting me know what I think.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is