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.209 Comments
- cynicalgirl, on 10/12/2007, -28/+121Does anyone believe anything this woman says anymore?
- da5idblacksun, on 10/12/2007, -26/+90I don't. Never did. She's a hardcore liar.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42All I can say is:
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. Now, the ...
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.
RICE: Given that - you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -14/+43so doing nothing counts as doing something now?
can't wait 'til I tell that to my boss. - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -16/+44More lies from the most untrustworthy Administration in US History.
- Tollboi, on 10/12/2007, -14/+34I want to know who the right wing uses for PR under bush. I mean who's ridiculous idea was it to try and blame Clinton for 9/11. I suppose its just one more political bomb that has blown up in republicans faces.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Why don't you do us all a favor and buy and read the report.
In the pre-9/11 section there is not even a mention of actions taken by the Bush administration. That section ends with the Clinton administration!
It isn't even intellectually honest to report that the Bush administration did nothing, it just makes no mention of the Bush administration. - Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32@right75: Clinton lied about getting a _blowjob_ from an intern, not lead us into a _false war_ and create a decifit like never before AND make the entire world totally ***** hate the US.
- allanpat, on 10/12/2007, -22/+36why did the Kieth Olberman video slamming Bush get buried, but this makes it to the homepage instead?
http://www.digg.com/videos_people/MSNBC_s_Keith_Olbermann_SLAMS_President_Bush - piper999, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24@cynicalgirl
Unfortunately and depressingly there are people who believe it. Rice and people like her say whatever the hell they want and somehow it becomes 'true' for a large percentage of the population.
"The first casualty of war is truth" - George Orwell - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16It's sad, though, that so many believe the administration's line on these matters.
Hell, there's a massive percentage of we U.S. citizens who still "know" that Iraq attacked on on 9/11 so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that these same people are willing to swallow the somewhat smaller lie of "it's that adulterer Clinton's fault and not the fault of our current Commander and Chief." - halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@Tollboi
I don't know. The whole "Blame Clinton" routine seems to be working nicely. By the time November comes around, they'll be blaming the Iraq war and all it's subsequent disasters on Clinton. At that point, the Democrats will be doomed, unable to get elected because "This mess is all their fault."
It's a sinister plan, and it looks like it's working. - medication, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13riiight... Here's what "condy" told the commission: "After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton administration on many national security issues during the transition. The president-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al Qaeda network." (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/)
Here's what she's quoted saying in the Post this morning:"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda" (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_ian_bishop____________post_correspondent.htm)
Granted that the briefing may not have provided a "comprehensive" plan but the quote was in response to Clinton's statement that his administration "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy". (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_ian_bishop____________post_correspondent.htm)
So the insinuation that I read was that al Qaeda was not covered. - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I have a question. If as the right claims, clinton did nothing, then how can being "as agressive as Clinton" mean anything?
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Sadly, it doesn't have to BE inaccurate to be marked inaccurate. Since content is left up to the users, there should be a way for users to dispute the marking of inaccurate.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton/index.html
CNN's version. Less biased, but still makes the jlegum's point. Posting from these left-wing blogs is not a good way to convince people of anything. Please use more reliable sources and people will be more likely to believe you.
Think about it from the other perspective. If you don't believe anything Rush Limbaugh or even Fox News says, why do you expect people to believe you when you post from thinkprogress.org - phreakintheroom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I don't see how anything that is both a direct quote and an opinion can be "inaccurate"...
- Enchirito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Politics aside, i've come to realize that a lot of diggers just don't understand the comment moding system's purpose. It's not "do you agree with this comment?" It's more "Is this comment a valid contribution to the discussion of the article".
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Didn't Clinton say that the 9/11 commission's report had "errors" in it?
Funny how it's preached as gospel by people who don't even believe everything it says... - wild, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9And the sad reality is, whether people are getting into a lame push for one side of the aisle or the other, at least they give a *****. And that puts them above your apathy.
- razor150, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Highborn, the 9/11 commission was made up of republicans and democrats who were no longer in office. There are political bits in it, but from the very nature of the commissions make-up it couldn't skew to far right or left.
So, is it truthfull? I don't see why any one of them had reason to lie since all of them are out of politics. - edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17I don't believe anyone in the government anymore. Rice is a lying shoe whore.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -18/+24@cynicalgirl
Conservative Extremists swallow everything she says like a porn starlet in a bukkakke flick.
Don't dismiss her. Doing so will allow the Conservatives to paint you as an "Elitist Liberal" and write you off just as dismissively. - razor150, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15I'd have to wonder as well, since the 9/11 commission and the facts disagree with her.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Okay fleisch, I accept:
>What a bunch of jerks - totally consumed with C.Y.A. (cover your a$$) Of course Clinton dropped the ball - he had 8 years to do the job compared to 8 months.
False. Show me any reports in 1992, 1993, 1994 that Al Qaeda was a serious threat.
Okay, now that you're caught in that lie about eight years, you have to start actually looking at the details.
Let's pick one attack and focus on that: the Cole bombing. It happened just six or so weeks before Bush took over. The report linking it to Al Qaeda came out after Clinton left office.
Please detail Biush's response to that attack. (You see? Talking points can't hold a candle to facts.) - amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17And the pseudo conservative zealots will have this marked as inaccurate in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
- jhusband, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I'm amazed at how politically one sided DIGG is. All you have to do is say I like Bush and you'll get dugg down. The truth is many DIGGERs are liberal dems. There's nothing wrong with that. But there's nothing wrong with being a Conservative Republican either. DIGGING someone down doesn't enhance understanding. It only proves your bias.
- garthvh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Why does digg allow stories in the opinion section to be marked inaccurate?
What a stupid design decision, opinions are opinions not true or false. - radixus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yes after 9/11 Bush was Aggressive. Sending troops to Afghanistan and going after the ones responsible. The point she is neglecting is that Bush suddenly pulled the reigns and went after Iraq instead of finishing the Afghanistan job.
He pretty much let them run to safety with this invasion plan, which last time I checked has not disrupted the Terror Network as he claimed. - Enchirito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're right, It's not new, and it has always been the duty of the general public to choose the lesser of two evils.
- edifus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It doesn't matter if people believe it now. All they have to do it keep repeating it over and over and the masses of people will eventually believe it.. because they said so. Just like all the other propaganda they've spewed out about 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and soon to be Iran.
Most people watch the news or read the newspaper and think they're getting all the news. I like to read the foreign press just to see what news the mainstream US media isn't reporting on due to their corporate/political alliances. - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@garthvh
While I agree with the spirit of your remark, there are false opinions, and just because someone may have the right to hold their own opinion does not give any validity to that opinion.
No matter how tolerant you try to be, someone who thinks the earth revolves around the moon is holding a false opinion, just like someone who thinks that George W. Bush is ordinary, man of the people, cowboy-rural-type. I can't prevent someone from holding such an opinion, but those opinions are, nevertheless false and inaccurate. - SaintStryfe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Boo politicans.
Hurray Beer! - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm
Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
“I don’t want to comment on what happened on President Bush’s watch. That’s for the 9/11 Commission to do. We not only attacked his training camp in ’98 and tried to get him. I signed several authorizations to use lethal force against bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” says Mr. Clinton.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/60minutes/main624848.shtml
(The report critizied BOTH Clinton and Bush for not doing enough.)
"Mr. Clinton denies that his decision to launch missiles against bin Laden in Afghanistan and in the Sudan was an attempt to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. He also told 60 Minutes that he launched the Afghanistan attack after the CIA told him bin Laden was in a training camp. It turns out he wasn’t." --------- Acting on bad intelligence? How many people died then?
To quote Clinton again:
“In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process. Now, having said that, we are where we are,” says Mr. Clinton. “And I think the most important thing now is for all of us to support a stable, peaceful, and pluralistic Iraq. And it looks to me like the administration is moving in that direction.”
Hows that? - MysticSavage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Proof that if you say something loud enough and often enough, people will accept it as truth.
- rafgar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Personally, I've gotten to the point where I don't believe a damn thing anyone says about 9/11 unless they can back it up with hard evidence. Between people trying to cover thier own asses, people who think little green men were involved, and people spouting lies that no one with 2 brain cells to rub together would believe (I'll leave it to the reader to decided who falls in what catagory), I've come to regard the whole thing as one big mess with no one telling the whole truth.
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Well, the mole is doing a terrible job, because people are actually buying some of this *****.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@bs101
That's what I'm saying! Clinton wants to cite the 9/11 report and Richard Clarke like they are the de facto sources for information when they support his argument, yet they (the Dems) refute arguments using the 9/11 report as a source or when Richard Clarke himself said there was no transition plan on Al Qaeda. - tucsonwc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Read my lips: "No new Taxes".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Bush was on vacation most of the time pre 9/11..
well you can argue his brain is still on vacation but i was talking physically. - spraguep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7The problem is that most republicans just don't get it. They make themselves look like total misinformed morons on this site; and I just dig them all down because I get bored of reading the same stupid *****.
Say something intelligent, that's well thought out and back it up with facts.
In this thread alone there are people equating Clinton's lying about a blowjob to Bush lying about starting a war. This is of course a totally insane comparison. No one ***** died from Clinton getting his dick polished. - tucsonwc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Should we belive Faux News then?
Face it. Bush and Cheney's number one goal on assuming office was to invade Iraq.
9/11 gave them a pretext to do so.
Bush's Sect of War had under 100 US troops at Tora Bora. Why was that?
The Taleban is resurgent in Afghanistan, rather than obliterated. Why is that?
Bush's Sect of War overrode the JOC about troops needed to secure Iraq and demoted him for saying so. Why is that?
Iraq is now a complete and utter disaster. Why is that?
Is Bill Clinton at fault for all of those actions? Or is the Republican controlled Government and by that I mean ALL branches with no checks or balances to blame?
Just how does your brain work? - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Here's the history of Al Qaeda summarized so anyone can easily remember:
1. HW Bush started the Mujahedeen, with Pakistan and Saudi help.
2. Members of the Mujahedeen became Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
3. Clinton continued the US policy of supporting the Taliban (not Al Qaeda).
4. 9/11 made it impossible to continue to support them.
5. Bush decided to attack Iraq for the hell of it.
Yes, Bush did just about as much as Clinton. But the real story is that they were both following policy set down by Bush-Reagan.
REMEMBER THAT! - Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Wait, first the Clinton administration didn't do enough and now Bush was as aggressive as him?
Boo politicians. - Metman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thank you. At least I have some faith now that at least one person who comments here actually read the 9/11 Commission Report. Judging by a lot of the other comments it is obvious those that have not are far greater then those that have. I would also like to point out that that same report also criticizes President Clinton as well for not taking more action against the threat.
- labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@mcfoo
Rice has been caught before contradicting President Bush directly. An example of this was dugg last week.
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/CAUGHT_ON_TAPE_Administration_Misleads_America_on_Iraq_Al_Qaeda_Link
While name calling is childish, it is accurate in this scenario. Rice has been caught lying and therefore her creditability has been compromised. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5antoniojvr has lost the basic perspective on reality, much like other idiots everywhere, so that he doesn't recognize that there is an actual truth. rather, morons of his ilk would have you 'believe' that everything is a matter of opinion. The key concept here is 'believe'...they are all about mere beliefs / ASSumptions, rather than any semblance of reason.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton/index.html
CNN's version. Why does this biased think progress crap keep getting posted. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats the problem, they don't think about that when they post ThinkProgress articles. Their usual rebutle is "facts are facts no matter who says them." But post an article from Fox News.....watch out!!
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So even when Clarke and the 9/11 commision report critizied Clinton for not doing enough, are those lies too?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 207 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