What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
87 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -19/+82Perle is totally correct. Here's the tie Perle refers to:
Saddam Hussein -> Rumsefld -> Cheney -> Wolfowitz|Perle|Kristol -> Bush -> Bin Laden Family -> Osama Bin Laden.
That's as direct and first-hand as it gets. Perle should know.
Neurenburg trials would be fine by me, but I'd also be find trying BushCo first in America and then in Iraq, sentenced under local law. - shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -11/+70Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Poindexter, Michael Ledeen, Douglas Feith all need to be called up before Congress to answer questions about America's foreign policy before and after 9/11.
- jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46What gets me about the "Saddam Hearts Osama!" justification is these guys HAD to know it wasn't true. The fundamental organizing principle/idea of Al Qaeda is to overthrow secular Mid Eastern governments. America is just a side-project, what really matters to them is putting a Taliban-style government in control of the Sunni holy cities and rooting out the surrounding secular, pro-western, and Shiite governments. Zawahiri (the real brains of Al Qaeda) studied under Sayyid Qutb who spent his life trying to overthrow the Egyptian government for not being Islamist enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
So the whole idea of Al Qaeda being in bed with the secular, socialist Iraqi government is absurd on the face of it. Anyone who knew the single most basic fact of Al Qaeda would've known radical Islamists don't team up with a government they're trying to overthrow. I refuse to believe these people (Cheney and the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight) didn't know that, they simply aren't that stupid. Except maybe Doug Feith. But the others clearly made a calculation that whatever the outcome of invading Iraq turned out to be, it would justify the moral poverty of subverting the country's grief and anger over a tragedy to their own unrelated purposes. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+55I think something along the lines of the Nuremberg trials is going to be needed, considering how many people have been involved in this deception.
- diggerydood, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36We need to get a set of Neocon playing cards made up - with images of the major US players in this debacle.
- bjornski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27And he warned Bush of them.
And Bush did nothing. - InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Al-qaida never tried to overthrow Saddam, but then again, al-qaida wasn't operating in Iraq either. However, fundy Islamists did try to overthrow Saddam and Saddam put the major beat down on them. Saddam's govt was very oppressive towards Islamic fundamentalists. He viewed them as a threat and dealt with them accordingly. There's no way he would form an alliance with them as Bushco and his supporters are trying to suggest.
Keep in mind also that al-qaida is not a single organization, but is a collection of independent groups with different objectives linked by a common religion. - Srcc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I was a college freshman at GWU in DC when 9/11 happened. It was a crazy morning, and, among many other things, 9/11 cancelled my 10:15am US politics political science class that day. On 9/13, when we finally got to meet, the semi-famous professor said (not verbatim) "I was talking with my friend at the White House, and he says that we're definitely going to attack Iraq. The team from Bush 1 wants to go in and take him out because they were deprived of the chance to do so in Desert Storm, and they're already drawing up plans to do it. Just a matter of time."
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17These people lie about everything.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Not quite, Bohica. Clinton was somewhat busy with the mob trying to _lynch_ him and all those claims of "wag the dog" that undermined much of what he tried to do.
When he did, in fact, launch missiles at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan among others, Republicans said it was just to distract us from Lewinsky. Nice job GOP. Clinton does something you now think he should have done more, but you slammed him for it then and now for completely opposite reasons. Hypocrites. - UrbanVoyeur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Uh, Tony Snow, you were saying?
Something about the administration never linking Iraq to 9/11. Could you repeat that one more time - the TRUTH was so loud I couldn't hear you. - Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -20/+34Not going to happen as long as a significant chunk of the American population thinks it's their religious duty to support the republican party.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@notstoppingus, no one claimed ABC fabricated it. That's where your senses are failing you. But where did ABC News get it? We already know that some money-grubbing Italian informants were the ones who fabricated the "yellowcake" reports. It seems likely this had similar origins, and was promoted and disseminated similarly by Cheney's men.
The news media was hoodwinked, clearly. They got a story from "anonymous" sources. They asked BushCo for confirmation, and BushCo said "yes, we received the same story." Done. Confirmed. Except that if BushCo planted the story, or knew it was false, that's all the conspiracy you need to result in this story published at ABC News and taken as fact.
As far as they were concerned, they'd done their job. But it's still a con. A neocon.
As for listening, lots of people, even on digg do listen and admit when they're wrong. - warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Watch "The Power of Nightmares" on Google video. It will make the Islamists and Neo-cons motives crystal clear
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@notstoppingus,
It's the "no one will be able to convince me" part that concerns me most. Why bother coming to a forum then, if not to listen as well as speak?
As for those tenuous ties, they've all been disproved, debunked, and almost outed as to their true sources. Yes, MSM articles got it wrong too -- but they came from sources in the administration. Tenet said he would have loved for there to be ties, but there were none. Period. It just never made any sense. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@notstoppingus
Rumsfeld met with Hussein at the behest of the government of the United States, what does that mean? I know, he was our friend back in those naive days of the eighties. My point is, just because Bin Laden asked for an audience and Hussein sent someone to the meeting does not link Hussein and Bin Laden together in the manner the Bush administration wants. - bjornski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15No he wasn't. He was being accused of "wagging the dog" by the Republicans on a fishing expedition into his trousers.
/you beat me by seconds, Entropyman
//great minds.....take no wooden nickels.
///oh wait.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22Perle and Cheney have late night dinners snacking on crude-oil marinated ribs of impoverished middle eastern babies
- purdueAl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Lets also not forget that Perle and other neocons where SUPPORTING Sadaam during the Reagon years. They supported him right through his worst atrocities in the '80s. It wasn't until he disobeyed his masters orders in Washington by invading Kuwait that he became an enemy.
Here's an interesting debate he had with Chomsky back in '88 at OSU:
http://ftp.radio4all.net/pub/archive/05.29.04/01162004_chomskyperle_1.mp3
http://ftp.radio4all.net/pub/archive/05.29.04/01162004_chomskyperle_2.mp3 - Feanor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@nostoppingus:
One meeting with bin Laden once? And the only reason being to air some religious material in the country? I don't think that's enough evidence for 3347 soldiers dead, another 24,314 wounded? Countless Civilians dead and injured? I don't think that one shady link is enough to hold us in this bloody campaign. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13And Clinton wanted to storm their camps with special ops instead of just lobbing missiles.
Had Bush, military man as he is, friend of the Generals, mover of men, finally taken that bold step prior to 9/11, we might have answered the questions "where, how and when" the terrorists were going to attack on 9/11. Knowing (by the intelligence we _had_ gathered) that they were planning to, but not asking the next obvious questions is criminally incompetent, if not worse. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12That's not at all what I said. You apparently didn't even understand my post well enough to repeat my arguments faithfully. I'm not sure how I'm going to get this across to you.
For evidence of fraud, watch the interview with Tenet again. He clearly wanted there to be evidence, because if there was evidence of a connection, he's off the hook (and that's the purpose of his book -- to protect himself).
He admits there is NO evidence. period. If the director of the CIA who favored the war in Iraq and still does says there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, there is NO link.
Those articles all came from disreputable sources and were only printed because they had the Administration behind them, and the only conspiracy necessary is within Cheney's office. That's more than enough in this case. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16The fact that the public reaction to this and the endless other crimes is so mild, is exactly why they keep doing in and keep pushing their crimes to the next level. Go out and break something.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Really, JJSays? The PLO is hardly in favor of imposing Sharia law, for example. Not that I'm a fan of them, mind you. The only thing they have in common is that they hate Jews.
Lumping people into one big group is exactly the reason we went into Iraq not understanding the civil war that was about to break out once we removed Saddam and disbanded the army.
To deal with the world, we have to first understand it. And understand geography, religion, and differences even in tactics is critical to getting anywhere. Holding onto such a simple-minded view is exactly why we're in this mess. - Srcc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Sailor, you're just plain wrong. Go and read Richard Clarke's book. We did go into Afghanistan, but only after Rumsfield and Cheney said that we SHOULD be going into Iraq instead. I personally believe that they needed some time to find a pretext, so they decided to actually fight Al-Queda for a while.
We did not depose the government of Iraq. That is what the unnamed official was referring to and you know it.
I worked for Congress before the authorization, and read COUNTLESS articles, memos, etc. referencing WMDs as the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq. Your contention that the causation is off is just ridiculous. What about Powell at the UN? What about the longstanding inspection battles? What about the hundreds of interviews that the administraton gave citing weapons of mass destruction? What about the "proof in the form of a mushroom cloud"? What about the countless house and senate floor debates on WMDs? You're just plain wrong.
You say that congress voted unanimously to authorize the war. This is also just plain wrong. 25 (as I recall it was 25) members of the Senate voted not to authorize. A portion of the house voted against it as well. You're essentially contending that Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy voted to authorize the war.
As to your contention that my professor was lying to me, well, you should know that he is a well known, mostly conservative member of the DC political scene. How else would he have inside White House info? While I can't prove he wasn't lying, I have substantially more reason to think he was telling the truth than not. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9So when does the preemptive strike against Kevin Bacon commence?
- Nogger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11We can't prove it, be we FEEL it. Sound like straight from The Colbert Report.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"He [Abu Ayyub al-Masri] probably entered Iraq in 2002, before al-Zarqawi, and may have helped establish the first al-Qaida cell in the Baghdad area."
That's a mighty large "probably" and "may" in this statement. Of course it cannot, nor will it ever be, corroborated with fact. This is conjecture and proves absolutely nothing. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
Hmm, Al Qaeda chemical weapon factory, funded by Iraqi Oil for Food money, bombed by Clinton. - VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@EntropyMan
Absolutely under local law! I'd love to see the leaked video of THAT "trial". - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18There's no way Bush and Co will be put on trial in the Hague or anywhere else outside the US. I was discussing this with my American friends last month. They made the point that even though a huge number of people dislike Bush and would like to see him sent down, they also wouldn't stand for another country (even if it's representing international law) meddling in their affairs. So although the proportion of people wanting to see Bush stand trial is probably quite big, the proportion willing to have that happen abroad is probably tiny. And I can't believe there's any chance he'll end up standing trial in the US itself.
- mardukvmbc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It gets even worse. Saddam told the US that he was going to invade Kuwait, and was given a vague response and the impression that the US wouldn't make a big deal about it.
Then when he did roll into Kuwait, Bush used the invasion to attack Iraq. Saddam was set up.
Check out http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3182 or read "Rule By Secrecy". - jdotter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@EntropyMan
Oh so, so close...
The link needs to be 6 degrees or less. The correct link would be...
Saddam -> Rumsfeld -> Cheney -> Bush -> Bin Laden Family -> Osama Bin Laden
Thanks for playing though!!
Bonus Round - What's the real reason we are in Iraq now that two causes for the war have been proven wrong or outright lies?
a) Stay and clean up the terrible mess we have made.
b) Continue like we were right until everyone else believes it.
c) Finally start fighting terrorists in Iraq since they were late to arrive.
d) Continue looking for Osama bin Laden in all the wrong locations. - Leviathan777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Anyone who uses the term "dhimmi" is automatically, permanently stained as a raving idiot.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ sailor
And you too screw around with the facts. The Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to an impartial third country to stand trial, and the Bush administration told them no way. You're the real zombie around here. - DTJunkie07, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They have to lie. Once you get caught in a lie the only way out is to lie again and so on and so forth. I think their currently on lie number 423,678 right now by my estimates. I should note that I stopped counting about a week ago because my counter broke during the Alberto Gonzalez trial. Still looking for a new one, but man did that thing explode..nearly took my hand off.
- Leviathan777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I came here to do the Kevin Bacon thing in case no one else had. But since you have, let's also not forget:
Saddam Hussein met Donald Rumsfeld
Donald Rumsfeld works in the Bush admin
Bush ran Arbusto, with funding from Salem bin Laden
Salem is one of Osama's 17 brothers
See? So they did have ties. - themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So it turns out that Saddam's cousin's friend, who's friends cousin's friend, who's aunt's friends' nephew who has a friend that has a cousin twice removed knows Osama.
- quisp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6What they didn't tell you back then was that Saddam also had ties to Kevin Bacon.
Saddam Hussein was in Dix, Les (2003) with Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela was in Malcolm X (1992) with Matt Dillon
Matt Dillon was in Loverboy (2005) with Kevin Bacon - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18There are enough war crimes and crimes against humanity taking place to land every member of the Bush administration in prison for life.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12I agree with you, except for breaking something, that's terrorism nowadays and could get you a trip to Gitmo.
- hotsake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's funny you mention that... http://www.deckofbush.com
The links to the card images no longer work, but try this to get an idea: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=deckofbush&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
You can throw URL strings (pointing to the images) at the Wayback Machine, but why bother! For there is also http://www.bushcards.com . - spiderfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@nostoppingus
blah blah blah stupid liberals blah blah blah
Below is that famous photo op: Rumsfeld and Saddam
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld_saddam.gif
Any comments, justifications? Oh right, we're America, we do no wrong. No Stopping US right? Yeah, a perfectly arrogant US central point of view. I guess that meeting that took place DOES justify the rest of the completely fabricated (that's proven by the way) information coming from this administration. Take both hands, grip just behind your ears and pull your head from out of your ass. If you are so up-to-date on the news why not browse for the myriad of stories that contradict and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this administration (regime) fabricated HUGE amounts of fake data on everything from climate change to the "war on terror". If you missed any of that you can always just quote that one story from MSN you like so much. If you say it over and over it becomes true...just ask Bush/Cheney, they've still got 29% of you fooled. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Clinton knew who Al Queda was. He knew all along.
- quisp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We have to take out Matt Dillon first! I think he's more of a threat, and more closely tied to Saddam!
- ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz are some sleazy, murderous, ***** suckers. (And what's Cheney doing with them anyway? He's not even Jewish...)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Bush administration has said from the very beginning. "It doesn't appear that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attack. However, it does appear the Regime has links with al-Qaida."
Oh, but of course, don't let the truth get in the way of your blind (perhaps demonically driven) hatred of Bush. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I remember a Frontline program aired before 911 showing satellite photos of an area in Baghdad believed to be a terrorists training grounds. The place had a section of train tracks with train cars on it (the train tracks started and ended on the site and didn't connect to any railway). Also, they had a commercial airliner at the site and very obviously no runway. Frontline essentially said this is a terrorists training site. The program hasn't been rebroadcast and no one talks about it. Very obviously it doesn't fit into the Democratic and culpable MSM Machiavellian agenda.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3At least he WAS a link, until recently.
http://www.digg.com/world_news/Al_Qaeda_leader_in_Iraq_DEAD - wstrucke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2now we know what they really meant was that saddam was within six degrees of osama
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 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 