What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
51 Comments
- sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34Those who argue that crap like this coming out from the GOP is OK are putting their party above their country. To argue that is is not technically a lie is total bunk when one considers the purpose: to make people think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. This is politically convenient for the GOP but far from the truth.
- mebby, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32Of course, we must remember that the Bush administration had "links" to Iraq. I seem to remember Mr. Rumsfeld happily shaking Saddam's hand in the time period after Saddam used gas to kill people. And, under Mr. Cheney's watch, Halliburton did business with Iraq during the 90's - by the "French" Halliburton companies. Hmmm...
- NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16A government that cannot admit mistakes (or in this case lies) is doomed to fail. They're making us appear weak to other nations when they do this *****.
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Direct link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1343269 people including our US troops didn't deserve to die.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14So you're defending this administration's lies by posted quotes of democrats who "lied"? I see.
First of all, none of those people would have taken us to war with Iraq. Not a single one. Did some of them back up the president when he decided to take us to war? Yup. But there is no way in hell any of them would have done it themselves. It wouldn't have even occurred to them. Why? Because Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Second, it doesn't matter if it's a Republican or a Democrat doing the lying, they must be held responsible. The GOP did their best to kick Clinton out of office for lying ABOUT A BLOW JOB. They wanted to make sure everybody knew that he wasn't above the law.
Yet now that their boy is caught breaking dozens of laws, including multiple parts of the Constitution, holding people accountable is no longer a top priority.
Bash both political parties all you want, but the GOP demonstrates the heights of hypocrisy while subverting the very laws on which our democracy is based. Most of these people deserve to be behind bars, not in our government.
Liars indeed. - roncri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I like to think of myself as non-partisan now and used to identify strongly with Republicans (small government, fiscal responsibility).
I don't consider the Republican leaders today to be Republicans. They've hijacked the party through FUD and are still using it today.
Who cares if we lied/covered up about Iraq/al-Qaeda links, WMD, secret wiretaps, and torture? We're against gays, abortion and if the Democrats win the terrorist will kill your kids. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Nothing says operational links like a nice firm handshake and a warm smile. Supplies of lethal chemical and biological agents and sattelite imagery of enemy Iranian troop movements are even better.
http://www.sleep-ins.com/props/ac/Rumsfeld-Hussein.jpg
***** pigs. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I thought it said didn't have any "opperational links" and seem to remember the chairman of the committee further stating many links after the report was released.
- spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Many previous administrations have had links to Iraq - such is how it goes in global politics.
- pgup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Didn't Bush recently say that there was no direct link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
- triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8ralphie, a couple of weeks ago bush himself said that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
- roncri, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7And just what is unsupported? They linked to the "rationalization sheet", and it’s *****.
- spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8To be fair, thinkprogress is funded by the Democratic party..
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The problem with America, especially American politics, these days is that EVERYONE has their own set of facts and their own experts. What is pure fact to one side is pure fantasy to the other. What's more is that this problem makes itself worse when people base their beliefs on one set of facts, often never even looking at or considering the other set. And unfortunately the only way to get a third set of facts out there, facts that are ACTUALLY facts instead of opinions dressed up with erroneous examples and ambiguous data, is to have people believe in them which is mostly impossible since most people have already decided what set of facts is correct.
The two sets will only get more and more opposed as they try to prove the other wrong by taking the opposing view on every topic. Who knows where this will lead, but rest assured it will not be a place of compromise, trust, knowledge, and progress. - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I wonder, can voters breathe above the *****? I guess we'll see.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7This is probably some sort of legal damage control by the administration in case the populace suddenly wakes up and starts un-electing the fools in Congress who haven't strung this president up for war crimes and lying to the American people.
- bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008106.php
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4kilofox - "How the hell do you know that? Do you have some kind of crystal ball?"
Let me put it to you this way: I also know that none of those people would had us invade Australia after 9/11. Why? Because invading Australia makes no sense either.
"You sound like a highshooler."
Heh. I sound like a "highshooler" because I used the very common idiom "first of all"? So what do you sound like since you're seemingly unable to spell "high school"? - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@eth31
"Moral equivalence: A term used in political debate, usually to characterize in a negative way the claim that there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides."
The buck stops with you and the other neo-cons. Own it. - bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't cha just hate it when the facts don't match your reality?
- mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here's the list.
1. None
Okay, that's all. - Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Saddam is a muslim....HAHAHAHAHAHA
that is adorable that you beleive that.
he threw out a rug when the cameras were on, asked which way mecca was and built up support from his "muslim brothers" (that he later bombed - Soldan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4does al-Qaeda have a secret handshake or something...or do they have membership cards and charge dues...
they seem to have more credit than they have earned...
you torture someone enough I am sure they will turn out to be an al-Qaeda operative.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5These slime are trying to rewrite history.
- growler1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"time to look for rational thought somewhere else."
You neo-cons are absolutely maddening. You claiming to look for "rational thought" is like Jeffrey Dahmer looking for a "meaningful relationship."
Go. For the love of God, just go away. That's what you and your party will end up doing anyway, when you're out of power. And the rest of us will have to clean up all of your incompetence, while you sit on the sidelines and babble to yourselves about how the world is against you. - Saiing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Good idea. Because neo-cons are just soooo rational about everything.
- knoware, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Four score . . .
- springvalleykid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh come one.... your comment started out just fine, logical and calm, and then you had to go and ruin it all by saying that if we don't all vote Republican that the boogey man will get our kids. PLEASE!!!
Neither Reps or Dems have any kind of monopoly on being able or not able to protect us. Neither party, in my opinion, is worth a good dump in the woods. Both parties will lie and scheme to get more power. Between Republican lies and Democratic liberalism, this country is going to hell in a hurry. - bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008103.php
- ralphie81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@growler1
...babble on the sidelines about how the world is against you...what, you mean like what the left is doing now? - ralphie81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure that's already been covered.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4spankaccount:
you mean to tell me international politics is actually just a bunch of wrinkled kids in suits making ***** up as they go along, without a skerrick of real credibility outside of their own self serving agendas?
tell me it ain't so! - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3the links between them are clear... saddam is a muslim, al qaeda is muslim... saddam did some things, so did al qaeda, oil, and al qeada is bad... i state again... the links are clear.
- bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You are so right. I wish I could smother your post with positive diggs like some of the left like to do.
maybe you do and maybe you don't agree with me, but my observation is that one side of the political debate is very intensive in it's efforts to stifle discus ion of the facts with both personal attacks, innuendo, and out right shouting matches.
Now I will say up front that there are such players on both sides of the isle, but one side lives and dies by such methods.
Now in such an arena of confusion one has to be still and look at the greater picture to resolve the greater truth. I can think of no time, no place in human history were truth needed to be wrapped around such tactics. Just as Muslim extremist take to the streets threatening those who might challenge them in dialog, and in so doing prove the weakness of their argument "Don't call me violent or I will kill you!"; so to the left has lost the discussion with it's constant character assassinations and omission of fact or double standards and out right manipulations of the debate into more and more hateful attacks.
And before you try to debate me on this, please complete the following sentences most likely to be seen on a protest placard or uttered by a political activist.
???? is Hitler.
????? = Nazi's
???? is a criminal
???? is the real terrorist
The real 9/11 killers are ????
Where then does reason lay? - porkstacker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow, I could use a new fiction paperback.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I think ThinkProgress is a bit confused. All the setting-the-record-straight blurb does is expand on quotes for damage control. I don't think the white house is still trying to claim there is a link. They've given up on this lie, I believe.
- Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Bush was the man with access to top secret intelligence after 9/11 on which to base the decision to invade."
That's one of the things that's striking me as a current problem with our government. The president gets all the top secret intel, yet the president is NOT the office with the power to declare war. Only congress can declare war, and in reality they never have declared war during the Bush administration. The authoraziation to use military force, was just that, authorization. It wasn't an actual decleration of war.
Anywho, if congress are the ones responsible for declaring war, and authorizing military force, then why do they have to get their intelligence filtered through the office of the president? Personally I think intelligence reports should be sent to congress and the president simlutaneously. The president has, and should have, control of the NSA/CIA etc. so should be able to decide what and where operations occur. Reports and findings of those operations should be coming back to both branches though. - sink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The Think Progress article uses the same underhanded techniques it's blaming the White House of using to play fast and loose with the facts on this matter... hypocrite much?
- Saiing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What Democrats said about Iraq doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Bush was the man with access to top secret intelligence after 9/11 on which to base the decision to invade. Not the Democratic Party. They weren't even in power. They just either trusted him to make the right choice (which turned out to be *****) or backed him up due to public support at the time (because lets face it, the American people bought a lot of Bush's lies as well).
- peterb123, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3My god the liberal crazies have moved from /. to digg.... Time to look for rational thought somewhere else....
- eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9Hmm, what have Democrats said about Iraq?
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 30, 2004 | Document Location: http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
LIARS! - ollj, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0oviously inaccurate
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Good ***** god, how long can you beat that dead rotting horse...
well, aparently democrats can for 3 years seeing as how thats how long it has been known. they have been beating their chest ever since.
next up on digg..."Pearl Harbor has been bombed.."
then after that "GWB is involved with that bombing we just mentioned" - zoom1928, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4No link? I guess the Al Qaeda members my neighbor's son captured in Iraq didn't exist. I guess the funds in accounts owned by several prominent Al Qaeda members seized by the Iraqi government didn't happen. I guess the terrorist training materials that have been confiscated from over 20 sites in Iraq don't exist. It always amazes me how some people will believe things that aren't true just because they don't like the someone.
- kilofox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2ThinkFr33ly
"First of all, none of those people would have taken us to war with Iraq"
How the hell do you know that? Do you have some kind of crystal ball?
"First of all...." ??? You sound like a highshooler. - ralphie81, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I don't think that's the purpose of the press release at all, it is simply historical proof of what was actually said by both Bush and Tenet. There is no proof that Iraq had any direct correlation with 9/11 itself, but that does not mean that there is no terror or evil in that country and the war there is unjustified. It's the "war on terror" not the "war on the idiots that allowed planes to be hijacked which killed thousands of innocent Americans on September 11, 2001". Should it be? That's another debate.
And how can a direct quote be far from the truth unless you actually believe the White House would release tampered information of what was said? - hangdog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Pick a card, any card. Or shell. Is this your card??
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Truth to you sucks doesnt it.
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Been gone from digg for a while, just came back and glad to see it's still just a bunch of blog hoppers and a group of few people dominating the front page. Digg really needs to punish users who link to low content articles such as this that then link to the actual content.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 