What is Digg?111 Comments
- virushead, on 10/12/2007, -6/+50Thanks for unearthing this. It shouldn't be in GQ - it should be on the front page.
- masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38And he could of done it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
- SpudgeBoy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41This is the most important story that the "liberal" media isn't covering.
- meshman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Think of what they'll dig up once the current administration is out of power.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30The real question is, why did it take five years for this story to surface
- PhilipMarlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Incredible.This presidency is like Alice in Wonderland: the further you go down, the crazier it gets. I'm actually sort of nostalgic for Monica Lewinsky at this point.
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27If anything, this shows that the administration not only wanted to, but still has intentions of starting military campaigns against other MidEast nations. Pauvre Iran.
- alecpriester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Board members include Cheney and Jeb Bush, and in the 90 some page report they say "a catalyzing and destructive event, such as another pearl harbor, would greatly speed up our agenda"
If you read the site you will be shocked - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23@data
You mean like Saudi Arabia? - eekjedi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23When I saw this, my reaction was this:
0_0
>_<
0_0
...
...
WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!
(congress [read: ALL of congress] needs to get their act together and do their part in system of checks and balances) - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Shhh! You'll break the fragile walls some people around here have built around their brains!
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18can you imagine the ***** we'd be in if Bush had not only invaded Iraq but also Iran and Syria and who knows where else? Well I guess it wont be long before we find out.
- hode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Don't forget Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Steve Forbes.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
And here is the report:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf#search=%22Pearl%20Harbor%20site%3Anewamericancentury.org%22 - hode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"If you think Freedom of Speech is supposedly being threatened, wait until the world swells with Islamic Theocracies."
Now there is a solution! Surrender our liberties before someone else takes them.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if another country decided they want to be governed by a poodle in a tutu. It is non of our damn business. And your fear mongering isn't going to change that. - psyops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Isn't that the plan of the 'New World Order'"
see GB sr.'s speech on 9/11/1991 - warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society.....
- Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I try so hard to be civil and gracious and not say that I hate my president but what the hell? I wouldn't trust him to protect a tool shed let alone my country or, even worse, uphold the virtues of my country. By far one of the most incompetent, immoral, closed minded, and arrogant persons I have ever known. He has set us back decades in terms of our security and our values and has helped enhance the chaotic environment of the middle east to breed terrorism through despair.
Shame on congress for having no spine. The moment this proposition passed someones desk it should have been national news, shamed, and called into question his entire strategy for the middle east. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Chuck Hagel tells it like it is again. He's awesome. Here his in action only a few days ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3cwQYx9hDU
- Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11FYI, the 90 page report, entitled "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" can be found here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Not trying to side with this garbage, but to be fair the context was a little more benign:
"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." - michaelblank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Anybody else notice the "begrudgingly" at the start of the quote? Did Bush plan to invade Iraq and whoever else with no approval from anyone (apart from our Lord and Savior of course)...?!?!
- jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8All part and parcel of the grand neocon plan -- we would topple Iraq, then go for Iran, Syria, and anywhere else they felt was in America's best interest. The amazing thing is that these guys still have any credibility whatsoever.
- Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@thcobbs:
Why is it that every time some conversation about Bush comes up people pull out the "well Clinton lied!!!!" argument?
The guy got a blowjob. Give me a break. Yes he lied about it. So would I, and any other man I know. (and have you SEEN his wife? Of course he accepted the "service" he was offered.)
Guess what Presidents LIE! Nixon lied (watergate), Regan lied (Iran/Contra, hell he IGNORED Congress too), FDR lied ("we will NOT get involved in this war" (to the American people all the while telling the Brits "Yes, we are coming, I just have to find a way".). They ALL lie, the only one I can think of that didn't was Carter, and while he's a good, honest man, he was a horrid president.
If lying about a little head caused you to "lose faith in the office" I'd suggest you read a few history books and stop worrying about others sex lives. - RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You can't wait until last year?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Exactly! That story had a happy ending.
- jdenzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Isn't that the plan of the 'New World Order'
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Why, then, didn't the New York Times report this"
They're good, but they're not friggin Superman. I think the Times is probably the most consistent, reliable international news source in the country, but I don't expect them to magically get every interview a statesman makes.
Your faith in them, perhaps, transcends the reality of a cash-strapped diminishing fourth estate. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5thcobbs Then this administration must make you a political atheist.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Maybe he just wanted his generals to be able to fight the war as they saw fit?"
Don't get out much? His generals now say escalating the war will be a bad idea, and he yanked them so fast they got jet lag. Bush does what he wants to do, and only belatedly looks for excuses to hoodwink others. - gregthebunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6oooooh, so that's what the additional 20k+ troops are for.
- tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Given how much the Bush administration has tried to claim the AUMF allows them to do, e.g. Hamdam vs Rumsfeld, do you think your view of "reasonable" is well founded? The current Executive has a "give us an inch, we'll take a mile" view toward Congress.
Also, as someone who has been reading the PNAC material for some time, I think the "neocons want to rule the [mideast]" statement might be a nice simplifications of their more complicated plans. - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Fragile? Those walls couldn't be penetrated by a bunker buster nuke!
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Each and every story I hear about the admin makes me more angry. This morning as I was reading this, I was overcome with frustration until I remembered that I am a bit younger than Bush and Cheney and in much better health. I realized that I will have the opportunity to one day buy a couple of plane tickets, fly to each of their places of rest, and hawk a big ol' luggey on their headstones. And I grinned once again with anticipation.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Funny how all of these people can just say they "Regret their vote" and they are given a free pass."
I wish we could stick Bush voters with the tab for the budget deficit and Iraq war. Take it out of their hide instead of all of us suffering for their lack of clarity in the voting booth.
If were up to me everyone who voted for Bush, and their family, would be in the draft lottery. You voted for the guy behind all this, you get to clean up his mess and pay his tab. And Karl Rove would be manning a machine gun in a Humvee driven by Paul Wolfowitz. Bill O'Reilly, Geraldo Rivera and Brit Hume would be in the next vehicle. Let's see how mouthy those pussies are after a leisurely drive around Baghdad.
But that's one of the wonders of Democracy. We all suffer for the stupidity of the 52% of votes counted by Diebold machines. - paulbjensen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6A friend of mine strongly believed that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq in order to destabilise the whole region. This story seems to suggest that it wasn't that crazy a thought.
popothebright did make a good point, but here's the thing, Pakistan allied with the US during the war on terror, whereas Afghanistan did not, and hence the invasion of Afghanistan, which if I remember correctly was about getting Osama Bin Laden.
Now, with Iraq, if there was the same level of priority to catching the Iraqi regime when they fled the country, then why didn't the US make the same proposition to Syria as they did to Pakistan. I won't even mention Iran, international relations between them and the US is so bad the Swiss embassy is closest Iran will ever get to a US embassy in Tehran.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind readers that the CIA disbanded a unit who were tracking down Osama Bin Laden last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088
no wonder why so many people around the world are sceptical about US foreign policy... - hode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@Phearce Allow me to translate.
"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies."
Changing the Department of Defense to the Department of Offense is going to piss off the american people and our allies. Therefore...
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
Nobody is going to buy this ***** unless we are attacked and it makes the news.
(This was written in September 2000) - futureb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4he isn't who he would be if he wasn't who he is
- michaelblank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Oh, total Amen on that one!
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I said this from day 1 when the first Patriot act was pushed thru. While I don't buy into the conspiricy that they had anything to do with 9/11, it's sites like this that show clearly very sick people were planning to make thier move for power when the American people were the most vaulnerable. I find that so many in people planned to royaly screw us when their leadership was needed to be the biggest crime of 9/11. One day it will catch up with them and hopefully there'll still be a country left to hang them.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@anonydigg
Quite so. You get fools who think opposition to the GWOT is "anti-Israel." Bah! It's anti-waste-trillions on ***** that ain't working. - rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We've been lied to, lost our liberties, seen laws pass secretly, sacrificed our friends and loved ones, etc. Do we want to put up with this for another 2 years? Is this not treason and high crimes?
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apparently he does not mind being lied to by people he agrees with...
- quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Only a bunch of chickenhawks could be such warmongers.
http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/chickenhawk_headquarters/
People who have seen their friends dying in war are less enthusiastic about war. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3TCobbs,
A person does not need to be bright to be ambitious or evil. In fact it is because Bush is such a fool that the PNAC has become so visible. - jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If we're "liberals" then 70% of the country is too because they agree with everything being said here.
- catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's taken most of a decade for anyone but we few internetistas to cover the Project for the New American Century. It was right there, in PDF form, for anyone to read. They weren't exactly hiding the Big Plan. The reorg of media really has taken its toll.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Liberals?"
I'm only a "liberal" in that I want more liberty. Do you see ANYONE on Digg arguing for, say, expanded government? Hell I can't find any Republicans anymore that think the war is still a good idea, and I go to Republican fund raising events. - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Still don't believe that? Ask Daniel Pearl."
President (Musharraf) dubs alleged Pearl killer MI6 spy:
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=110171&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23
Journalist Pearl Was Also An Israeli Citizen Says Israeli Media:
http://www.rense.com/general20/iscit.htm
"The Terrorists said clearly from day one that Mr. Pearl was a Mossad agent. Our 'news' media did not report it, the Arab news media, did."
The situation is always more complex than the emotional pleas of the mainstream media would have you believe. In this case, even more so. - baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5im looking at the site. can you help me locate exactly which report that is in. i would like to do a blog about it
edit: thanks for that link Hode. that is truly unbelievable. these people are very sick - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A PART of the cabal--not the mastermind. And, no, it's not secret.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's a nice theory, except that this resolution was drafted before the invasion. At the time, the administration was so certain the war would end with the routing of the standing Iraqi military that they made no serious plans for what to do afterward and shunted aside anyone who tried. They simply refused to believe that there would be an insurgency, guerilla war, or anything other than tickertape parades and oil industry bake sales to pay for cleanup.
Furthermore, it is clear from Hagel's comments that the administration didn't want to get a Congressional authorization of force to begin with-- probably because of their preoccupation with expanding (sorry, "restoring") executive power-- and when they "finally, begrudgingly" did, they just asked for Congress to give the President carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in the Middle East. In retrospect, I'm amazed that the Congress we had at the time didn't just completely abdicate their Constitutional responsibilities and give it to him. -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 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