What is Digg?105 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+79I keep watching her - expecting some sign of life... but she continues to amaze --.
Does anybody else expect her to pull off her face and swallow rats whole???
What a stepford stooge she is.... [and I am NOT a democrat but a self loathing conservative at the moment... looking for alternatives not compromised by the Tel Aviv contingent] - tofagerl, on 10/12/2007, -7/+53EVERYWHERE else in the western world, once a government official lies to the public, that's it. Not only are the not re-electable, they're usually fired by the end of business.
But not you guys :) - SimonKay, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51"EVERYWHERE else in the western world, once a government official lies to the public, that's it. Not only are the not re-electable, they're usually fired by the end of business."
I agree. The republicans and the religious right are destroying America. And it is ignorant citizens who are giving them the power. - Joseppi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45It's time for these people to put up or shut up. Present the evidence.
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33Fox News is the government's propaganda channel. I think we can safely ignore everything they and their guests say on that channel.
- kazem, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29SyDigg....you're going to trust a person because they went to Stanford? So you'd naturally trust Bush b/c he went to Yale? I know some people who went to Stanford that you wouldn't want to trust. I also know that sometimes it's in a person's best interest to lie. I find it surprising that you'd rather trust a single person (rice) than trust a committee that researched the matter. Where do you think she gets her intelligence from.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Dont worry, here in Canada we just elected a neo con. We're catching up..
- anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28"Yeah and you know more than Condi Rice because you are a former Stanford provost, former national security adviser, and current Sec of State? You know more than Condi Rice because you have the highest clearance level and is privy to ALL of classified documents? Thought so."
No, I have a sixth sense for republican *****! - Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Say it enough and it becomes true right?
- doctorcaligari, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24After that comment, I will never be able to look at Condi again without thinking of the old "V" miniseries from the 80's. Good work, telluride!
- zenmouse, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24She didn't get the memo to stop that particular line of *****.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21George Tenet is going to be this administration's scape goat.
They are all pointing to him now. Dick Cheney did the same on Meet the Press.
Funny thing is that George W. Bush didn't say that when he gave George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Dec. 2004.
George W. Bush said, "George Tenet did a superb job for America. It was a high honor to work with him, and I'm sorry he left," and that Tenet resigned "for personal reasons" (Reuters, June 5, 2004).
So Bush and his cronies will not take any accountability on going to war under false pretenses. Even at the expense of the thousands of American soldiers who lost their lives and poor suffering families.
But they will do one heck of a job with the blame game.
Here's a video showing the lies ...
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/phony.html
It's time to impeach George W. Bush. Let's get it started ...
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/liberal_shop/1174718 - cphuntington97, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"religious right"?
Don't you mean... Christian Fascists? - scottc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Did you watch the video? The truth sometimes comes out. In this case the Fox journalist didn't let Condi get away with her lie. She tried to say that new intelligence corrected the old, and he came right back at her and pointed out the truth.
- TexMexMatt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14When CIA says that there is no link then there is no link. I trust CIA far more than I trust you SyDIGG.
- bjammin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Actually you guys are just amateurs ... we in Australia have John Howard who has been caught lying on many, many occasions and still gets re-elected.
I can only conclude that people don't really care if they are being lied to, as long as they are scared enough.
There used to be a web site cataloguing Howard's lies, but it disappeared ... there's an archive here:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/43234/20041007/www.johnhowardlies.com/index.html - youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Why have the democrats changed their stance?
Probably because newer and better intelligence has come out and when better intelligence comes out and it contradicts the previous intelligence you tend to change your mind on the matter.
Sticking to your guns doesn't mean you are right, it means you are thick headed.
"They will not address your post because they cant"
They wont address it because no one has given a reason why Iraq was attacked and not other terrorist harboring nations. - CoryTrevor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Listen up kids. Pay attention this time... IF they had ANY hard evidence AT ALL. It would be running on repeat on Fox news and talk radio, adnausium. The reason it isn't is because they have nothing. If they had anything they could use, Karl Rove would have no problem putting people's lives at risk by exposing it to further the cause. He has already done so in the past.
I've had enough. I am a Republican and all I can say to you people who are still making excuses for these people is, "***** you, this is MY party. Get out." - youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Before you can fix a problem you have to admit there is a problem.
Americas waiting for the admission so they can get to the fixing. - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@SyDIGG
"Here are what some well known Democrats said before the Iraq War ..they must be all liars too:"
The issue is not what was said years ago. People were speaking based upon knowledge they had at the time -- and its understandable that they made false judgements based upon this.
The issue is that with much more knowledge available now, that Rice continues to make these mistakes ignoring the basic truths. - Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Hey SyDIGG, time to move on to another article. No one's drinking your Kool Aid on this one.
- iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@CBTF & @anonydigg
I didn't vote for Stephen Harper and I cringed when he was elected. But aside from scrapping the Kyoto Protocol (I'm hoping their yet to be released plan is more effective), what other issues has he screwed up on? I'm just curious because IMO he hasn't been doig a bad job so far. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"When CIA says that there is no link then there is no link. I trust CIA far more than I trust you SyDIGG."
before the war the CIA said there were WMDs - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@SyDIGG
Your comments should be addressed, as you pick on some good points. I'll have a go here...
"Here are what some well known Democrats said before the Iraq War ..they must be all liars too:
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) saw a ``substantial connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.''
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CN) reported that, ``I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.''
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ``[Saddam Hussein] has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.''
The Clinton Administration's legal indictment in Federal Court against bin Laden in 1998 claimed, ``Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.''"
Being British,I don't know the full story of who supported the war, and who didn't, or who believed the intelligence, and who didn't, but here in the UK, there is a growing number of polititians who supported the war and the intelligence at the time, but with the passing of time, and the release of new information throwing doubt on the intelligence, are now questioning it, and the people who used it to further thier aims.
Rice is still stating there is evidence, when the senate report says there is not. Do you have access to information they did not? Maybe you should pass it on to them. Maybe they have discreditted the info you have as more spin? Just a possibility...
"Here are some connection between Iraq(Saddam Hussein) and al Qaeda from pre-war intelligence and documents covered after the Iraq War:
Al Zawahiri who, with bin Laden helped issued the fatwa against the United States, was in Afghanistan with al Qaeda fighting the US and was injured. He fled to pre-war Iraq and has subsequently led the insurgency against the Coalition and the new Iraqi government. Al Zawahiri was no stranger to Baghdad. He consulted with Iraqi officials during a visit in 1998 and received $300,000 for his efforts. It takes an ideologically-blinded eye not to see at least professional terrorist courtesy between Iraq and al Qaeda in al Zawahiri's Iraqi visit, his refuge in Iraq after fighting in Afghanistan, and his present leadership of the Iraqi insurgency."
All evidence point to Al Zawahiri being in the Kurdish-controlled north (our allies in the invasion), not Saddam-controlled Iraq. He was reported to have been in a Bhagdad hospital at some point, but no-one is sure of this, or if there was any collusion between him and Saddam.
"The US government has released information from interrogations of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba indicating an al Qaeda detainee had traveled to Pakistan with an Iraqi intelligence agent to blow up the US and British embassies. That plot was thwarted."
I will not take any information 'learned' from tortured susects as gospel, and I urge you not to do so either.
"Captured documents from the Iraqi Intelligence Service indicate that they regarded al Qaeda members as useful assets. One Iraq Intelligence Service memo urged ties to al Qaeda and specifically averred that, ``Cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreements.''"
May well be true. CIA worked will Mujehadeen (including Bin Laden) in Afghanistan as well. Are they complicit in 9/11 too?
"The Iraqis provided asylum for Abdul Rahman Yasin who was involved in the 1993 al Qaeda bombing of the World Trade Center. Iraq did not plan that 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but was apparently happy to protect someone who did."
Yasin was an Iraqi citizen, so it stands to right they sheltered him. He was also an American citizen, born in Indiana.
There is ansolutely no evidence to support the claim he was an al-Qaeda member. He belonged to the "Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion" in his words, and did it because he wanted the US to stop it's support for Israel. Of course, no matter who he worked for, he was a terrorist, so your last agrument, although not quite factually correct, makes a good case all the same. But this in itself (one man's actions) is not reason for invasion. - KUKBAHLAM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The same case can be made for North Korea and Iran. We did not go into Korea because they do not occupy a region with significant natural resources. We did not go into Iran due to the high probability of the entire region descending into chaos. Sadam was not well liked in the area and this made him the easy target. I believe that Bush thought that this war would bring stability to the region. Not for the Arabs but for those in who are truly in control. The threat of energy independence is one that scares the ***** out of American aristocracy. The system we have now allows a withdrawal of gas and thereby a removal of individual mobility if we had a major crisis or uprising. The status quo was a major reason for the Iraq invasion. Keep in mind that the only power left that the American government fears is the American people. We are mean and well armed. Add "mobile" to that and we become very dangerous.
- AfghanVet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are...26 DIFFERENT, homogeneous organizations in the government that make up the Intelligence Community. They very in capability from collection all the way to collection, analysis, policy and covert direct action. Indeed, taking information from any ONE source is always troubling, but that is exactly what was done on MANY occassions.
The PROBLEM is the structure of the Intelligence Community and LACK of integration of information and analysis; much of which is made incredibly difficult by the structure. - thecapuchin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12She must have stock in Listerine. With the amount of ***** she spews, she needs it.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"EVERYWHERE else in the western world, once a government official lies to the public, that's it. Not only are the not re-electable, they're usually fired by the end of business."
Name any country and I'll prove you wrong. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The same case can be made for North Korea and Iran. We did not go into Korea because they do not occupy a region with significant natural resources..."
Actually, we haven't gone into North Korea because Clinton gave them money/aid that they used to develop a nuclear weapon. - Plotinus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It is on record that Al-quieda and Saddam DID meet several years before the war BUT the meeting was less than productive; they hated each other - he was a "godless marxist socialist" and they were "religious fanatics". After that they never met again.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Technically, there were ties between Saddam and Al Queda. Then again, there were and still are ties between the US and any other number of extremist factions still intent on killing Americans.
First most is our recent "forgiving" of Libya's Colonel Qaddafi. This guy was directly linked to killing over 200 people in the Lockerbie Flight 103 terrorist attack, as well as many other attacks.
Then again, no one is interested in talking about the gray areas, all they want is black and white. They're content with expounding on their ignorance in a vain attempt to bully their "opponent" to give in. It's nonsense. Just like Cheney's bizarre and vapid rehash on Meet the Press this morning... absolute empty headed nonsense. - gd007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8she has direct information from god.
- anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@iggee85
Consider softwood sellout, Anti-Terrorism Bill C-36 which is equivalent of the American Patriot Act (also allows wiretaps on citizens), Canadians' confidential banking info being compromised by CIA, and the classics: pot, abortion and gays. Add to that being a pussy when Canadian soldiers get killed by so-called friendly fire. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@syDIGG :
Nobody said Democrats didn't lie. Nice strawman argument. - Melcorind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Plotinus said "It is on record that Al-quieda and Saddam DID meet several years before the war BUT the meeting was less than productive; they hated each other - he was a "godless marxist socialist" and they were "religious fanatics". After that they never met again."
I don't know about this being on record, but one of the aims of Osama is an ending of US/Western influence in the middle east. Saddam was our ally until he invaded Kuwait and ran a secular dictatorship, he would have been one of Osama's main enemies. If anything this war has given Osama what he wanted (including souring the US/Saudi relationship - why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?).
Also the importance of Al Zarquawi has been blown out of all proportion. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good ol' Scott Ritter. I like him, really.
"I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program" - Scott Ritter - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What a douche bag! He got kicked out of Iraq by Saddam in 1998 and says the following:
"I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program"
"The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with."
But then later in an interview with an anti-war activist:
"[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance."
They had no evidence because they were freaking blocked. This guys is seriouslly full of crap. - djscott1021, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3WMD's
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 - spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Clinton felt the same way before Bush ever took office...
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
Furthermore, there is actually some evidence that suggests a link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda - kazem, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Ok, stop spreading that link. It's a poor documentary.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@bnolsen
"Just because people out there repeat over and over again that Saddam wasn't connected with Al Quaeda doesn't make that true.
Come on guys, stop drinking the media coolaid, find some facts."
and by default...
'Just because people out there repeat over and over again that Saddam was connected with Al Quaeda doesn't make that true.
Come on guys, stop drinking the government coolaid, find some facts.'
Works both ways, and both sides are so far up there own asses that there is no way any form of reasoned debate can be had any more. No-one believes anyone on the other side. They are either 'lying power-hungery scare-mongers' or 'unpatriotic terrorist-appeasers'.
This is the state of Western politics.
How great are we...!?!? - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, what a fortuitous coincidence that 19 Saudi dilettantes and their hangers-on should pull off 9/11 just when PNAC said we needed a "Pearl Harbor."
- hutchike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not so - in England we still "enjoy" Blair's presidency :-/
- labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@SyDIGG
"Here are what some well known Democrats said before the Iraq War ..they must be all liars too:"
Cut and paste from above, as you must have not read the reply.
The issue is not what was said years ago. People were speaking based upon knowledge they had at the time -- and its understandable that they made false judgments based upon this.
The issue is that with much more knowledge available now, that Rice continues to make these mistakes ignoring the basic truths.
"He fled to pre-war Iraq and has subsequently led the insurgency against the Coalition "
How does this link Saddam to Al-Qaeda? Of course Zawahiri returned to Iraq after leaving Afghanistan, as that is where he was employed for many years. As another posted mentioned, he was in the Kurdish controlled Iraq to the north. He did not waltz up to Saddam and give him a hug.
"Al Zawahiri was no stranger to Baghdad. He consulted with Iraqi officials during a visit in 1998 and received $300,000 for his efforts. "
Al Zawahiri was a terrorist who was sponsored by Saddam during the 90s. However, just because someone is a terrorist does not mean they are a member of Al-Qaeda.
Here is something closer to the truth. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. During the 90s Zawahiri worked for Saddam. After 9/11 Zawahiri joined with Al-Qaeda, using it as a tool to strike against the west. He went back to Iraq after the war started to work on fighting the west. - BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@labmouse
Quoting Chomsky is like quoting David Duke......no credibility (or 'creditability', as you would say). - d1ricks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Clinton Leberman and Rockefeller, all agreed with the liar. Whats the point? The more people that cover for a lie the more true it is? do you think that they don't have reason to promote this disgusting shameful and criminal war?When it comes down to power and corruption do you think they are any different from the war monger and chef?
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Here's a solution: Don't believe anything they EVER say. They will all cook up intelligence for personal gains.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6labmouse...
but its not ok to be the president and believe the same intelligence in the past? - Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The invasion of Iraq was posited by Rumsfeld and others early into the Bush Tenure. The events of 9/11 merely played into their hands, giving them a chance to pursue an agenda, separate from and more important to them than their war on terror.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1She's hot. But she's a neocon, and gay. So whatever your were thinking about her, fuggedaboudit.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 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