digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Obama's Going To Win'

huffingtonpost.com — However, "if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • OSWW, on 06/22/2008, -93/+630If this has any truth, I would hope that W would be charged with High Crimes and Treason by Federal authorities on January 20, 2009.
    • Vigilo, on 06/23/2008, -46/+112For gods sake Obama and Bush both answer to the same Bankers and corporate leaders they are both puppets. Republicans take office then Democrats, they just take turns to make us think we have choice when there is no difference. If Bush bombs Iran it is just so that Obama gets off the hook with saying he will pull out troops from Iraq. Its all a fraud folks Obama supported FISA last week and the dems just agreed to fund the war for another year. WAKE UP!!
      • NCSUspoon, on 06/23/2008, -23/+42It's good to question authority. However when you automatically suspect that every single politician is a complete corporate puppet, then there is no chance of hope for any future. Let me ask you, what would be a better alternative? I am tired of hearing people complaining about all this and I have never heard anyone's lighthearted opinion with anyone else. Any if you say Ron Paul, I swear to god I'll find you and cut off your little toe.
        • evilesttoast, on 06/23/2008, -18/+33Ron Paul is the obvious choice...*hides*
        • Steinr, on 06/23/2008, -19/+42Ron Paul - Come and find me!
        • subterfuge, on 06/23/2008, -6/+15for starters, we could amend the constitution so that congress has proportional representation, which is what ALL european democracies have. i also can't stand the senate. if you're objective was to make a democracy in which each person's vote counts the same, why the hell would you create a senate, in which the citizens of the low-population states have more say?
        • mtvkilledusall, on 06/23/2008, -11/+10Ron Paul... I don't care about my little toe.
        • KirbyMeister, on 06/23/2008, -14/+11Ron Paul would cause even more problems like our current oil problem. The whole oil problems come from unregulated foreign markets coming to America and being price gamed and manipulated (read: raped) by the same banks that caused the credit problems.
        • Monk22, on 06/23/2008, -2/+13"if you're objective was to make a democracy in which each person's vote counts the same"

          we have a democratic republic not a pure democracy. every persons vote doesnt count the same. what about those super delegates in the Dems primaries? how can you guys stand for that, it goes against everything (supposedly) your screaming about every day on digg.
        • compdude32, on 06/23/2008, -6/+5subterfuge, not a big fan of history are you?
        • sodade, on 06/23/2008, -3/+8I think you are finally getting the point. The corporate ownership of american politics has been painfully obvious to me for 25 years. Hopeful people like you have marginalized this view - will you continue to do this when Obama turns out to be yet another shill? In one year, if we are at war with Iran and the telecoms remain unpunished, will you be convinced then? Probably not.
          All I hope for in my remaining years in this country is that our corporate masters are gentile with me. My offspring are already in Norway so at least I don't have to worry about their future.
        • Coded1, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4I think we have passed the point of writing a new law, amending constitutions or screaming loudly. People talk about changing the words on a constitution when the words that are already there are being ignored, the amazing thing is the people are ignoring them too. This is very similar to depression (not in economic terms which we are getting close to anyway) but for both sides. The wealthy don't want to bother keeping up their appearance of greatness any longer and are showing themselves as they feel they are, tyrants. Yes they have always been tyrants but now they don't even bother putting a silk scarf on before they leave the house.
          The people they affect are sitting down and starting to get tired but they are listening much more rather than doing anything they don't feel 'qualified' or 'apt' to make the final decision on what they feel they should do next.
          Look back into history and this is a pattern that follows the universe, our planet, our civilization and every thing else we have measured and documented as far back as we can see. One day everything will wake back up not sure when, but it definitely will.
        • HonestAbe, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3First, lobby to change your local political offices and elections towards a representative democracy based on preferential voting.
        • skinnyskittles, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8@subterfuge

          because the objective wasn't to make a democracy. democracy is tyranny by the majority in which individuals lose their rights at the whim of an easily scared and indoctrinated mass.
        • dragon76, on 06/23/2008, -1/+17The point of the Senate is to exactly make sure that big states can't push around small states. Do you REALLY want California, Texas, New York and Florida making all the decisions for the other 46 states?
        • FolkTheory, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1@Monk: "what about those super delegates in the Dems primaries? how can you guys stand for that, it goes against everything (supposedly) your screaming about every day on digg."

          you moron, the Dems are a party, they're not a democracy and don't have to be one. they introduced primaries during the last century because they felt like it. they could just get all the leaders together one day and decide on a candidate from among those that want to be...this is how they used to do it until they introduced primaries.
        • Monk22, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1@folktheory

          no ***** you ***** idiot. i was stating it more for the fact that the libs on here and many other sites are screaming about free speech, voting rights and such. yet all of you can go vote and it doesnt mean ***** since it can reversed by an incredibly small group. i was simply asking how they put up with it? but if you need me to restate my question for you and your family to understand. DUR DUR DUR DUR?
        • Chronchitis, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Dennis K. is my man ftw
        • RocknrollMofo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1@ NCSUspoon: Kucinich?
        • bdfariello, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2@ subterfuge:

          Since miraculously everyone has failed to mention this already, it's called the House of Representatives. In it, as you might know, every state is represented in proportion to its population.

          Meanwhile, the Senate was formed in order to protect the smaller states' rights. When the Constitution was first put into place, Virginia and New York had far more people living in them than states like Delaware, and in order to make sure no one was oppressed, they had both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

          It's called Checks and Balances, and if you have ever taken a US course without learning at least that much about the Constitution, go to your history teacher and slap the ***** out of him for screwing you over, then go to Wikipedia and play catch-up.
        • TripMoon, on 06/24/2008, -1/+0@ worm76, or, dragon, I guess... You are a ***** idiot. What are you, a racist? You want slavery of African Americans again, don't you? Why don't you and all the ***** rednecks conservative pussies just admit it? What do the states that are redneck hilbilly country want? Let's hear it... SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY! Yes, the major, PROGRESSIVE, not backward, civil states should rule, youe ***** idiot!
        • 98percentcogdis, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul is saying the same thing that John Beaty said in 1951, in his book, "The Iron Curtain Over America" If you bother to read the book, don't forget to read chapter 9, America Can Still Be Free. Everything that Mr. Beaty advised was ignored, thus, the reason that we are where we are today. Let me quote just a bit of it. " In spite of our deserved low reputation in the Moslem world, American counter-moves of some sort to save Middle East oil and the Suez Canal are imperative. The p-roper approach is obvious, but will our government make it? The Moslems, and those allied with them religiously and sympathetically, compose almost one-half of the world's people who control almost one-half of the world's land area. We infuriated them when we helped to drive a million Arabs from their native lands in the Middle East. (Newsletter of Congressman Ed Gossett of 'Texas, February 1,1951). "The recapture of the friendship of 400,000,000 Moslems by the United States, and its retention, may prove the deciding factor in preserving world peace" (statement of Congressman Ed Gossett of Texas in the House of Representatives, June 12, 1951, as recorded in the Congressional Record). And, "In any efforts at helping the world, the primary help we can give is to remain solvent. A bankrupt America would be worse than useless to its allies." And " Moreover, and as is to be expected, te work of our own delegation cannot be impartially assessed as being favorable to the interest, or even the survival, of the United States as a nation. Very dangerous to us, for instance, is our wanton meddling into the internal affairs of other nations by such a program as the one we call land reform... Can anyone with any sense think that our collection of leftists, etc., in the UN really know how to reform the economic and social structure of three continents?Is not the whole scheme an attack on the sovereignty of the nations whose land we mean to "reform"? Does the scheme not appear to have been concocted mainly if not solely to establish a precedent which will allow Communists and other Marxists to "reform" land ownership in the US?"
      • Artimusbill, on 06/23/2008, -3/+22I couldn't agree more. We have had a one party system for many decades.
      • subterfuge, on 06/23/2008, -3/+2there are other people associated with bush who have more invested in the republican party. i wonder what bush's opinion of this is. he already knows he's disliked, but is he willing to obliterate the remaining shreds of his reputation in order to sabotage the next president?

        if he does this, i hope Obama campaigns with, "if i get elected, i'm just gonna stop the war and pull out."
        • 98percentcogdis, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1When are you going to figure it out, he's a shill! He will do whatever AIPAC wants. But then again so will Obama!!
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 06/23/2008, -7/+7WAKE UP LULS
        • nakani, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Go back to 4chan, the adults are talking
      • Mikhail101, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Finally somone with sense. Obama also said he is going to take action against Iran. Just saying.
      • peep, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2You've swallowed the Republican line then, they have been running on this, and winning, for decades now. You know all you want to know about them that anyone would ever need to, so it is better just to throw your hands in the air and surrender then to even thinking of doing anything to improve it. You are the reason things are as they are. There are differences this year. Huge differences.
      • scimitar91, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2one million diggs up
      • 98percentcogdis, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Funny, I just dugg Vigilo up and his diggs went down!!
    • EatingPie, on 06/23/2008, -9/+212There is NO truth to this. The original headline:

      **KRISTOL: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Obama's Going To Win'

      "On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected."

      An editor said this. NOT Bush. NOT the White House. NOT the Pentagon. It was pure speculation in the heat of the moment.

      The Huffington Post at least headlines with the words "Kristol: Bush might..." which the Digg headline removes this like it's a done deal, gonna happen, straight from the top.

      But it gets Diggs like it's God's given truth. Political ideologies override reasoned thought, debate, or accuracy in media.

      -Pie
      • dafragsta, on 06/23/2008, -9/+22It's Huffington Post, what do you expect? I think it's too easy to take sides and always assume your side is right. I hate the neocon dittoheads as much as I hate the liberal because it's trendy dittoheads. Bush being a douche is not a basis on which to sell more lies. You just get lies on top of lies.
        • PabloMac, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9First, it's a fluffingtonpost.com article.

          Second, a key aspect of the headline ("Kristol:") was omitted by the Digg submitter.

          Buried X2.
        • gwolf, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1It's only speculation, but it's speculation with some precedence. Like father like son.
      • PopcornDave, on 06/23/2008, -2/+16Basically, you've got one of the talking heads speculating on something that might keep his career afloat a little longer by making possibly outrageous statements. Nothing new here.
      • sovereign3, on 06/23/2008, -1/+19I agree. It would have been more appropriate for the OP to post the story as: "Kristol: Iran attack more likely if Bush expects an Obama win."

        The headline as it is, is sensationalist and misleading.
      • RadiatedAnt, on 06/23/2008, -8/+2The following has been edited for a more appropriate effect.

        There is NO truth to this. The original headline:

        **KRISTOL: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Obama's Going To Win'

        "On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected."

        An editor said this. NOT Bush. NOT the White House. NOT the Pentagon. It was pure speculation in the heat of the moment.

        The Huffington Post at least headlines with the words "Kristol: Bush might..." which the Digg headline removes this like it's a done deal, gonna happen, straight from the top.

        But it gets Diggs like it's God's given truth. Political ideologies override reasoned thought, debate, or accuracy in media.

        -Deush
        • iJessicaRabbit, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Don't you mean -douche?

          Come on, if you're going to take up double the space just repeating someone else's comment then at least spell the ONE addition correctly.
      • suedeb, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2couldn't agree more with you pie...anything anti bush is taken as fact and gospel on digg. it's sad. where's the hard facts on the article here? some reporter *speculated* that he thinks this is what bush might do. no statements have come from the president, the whitehouse, or any other organization.
      • Phylodome, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2No, it gets Diggs like it's an interesting online story being concentrated upon by a social news platform. Diggs mean interest, not Truth....
      • chrismusaf, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Exactly. This is political OPINION, not political news. Buried as wrong topic.
    • hotlatte, on 06/23/2008, -3/+82It's huffingtonpost.com, quoting Fox news, quoting a Weekly Standard editor. Now there's a source for unbiased, accurate news. BWAHHHH!!!
    • laserdog, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8Well, he has also stated that he'll "totally kill myself and it'll be your fault" if he is brought up on treason charges, so that kinda ties our hands there...
    • muzy, on 06/23/2008, -7/+1he is a member of the (Top men).

      Top Men = reference in the Indiana Johns Movie.
      • PopcornDave, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Was that the Eljer or Kohler sequel?
      • FeloniusMonkey, on 06/23/2008, -3/+2I, too, associate this movie with toilets. In fact, I found the movie such an insult to the average person's intelligence, that I was actually somewhat surprised they didn't just come right out and take a dump in everyone's popcorn.
        • Tebixan, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Dude, it wasn't supposed to be taken as historical fact, just like the first three. It was an entertaining fantasy, and if you fanboys could stop living off of nostaligia and take it as it was ment to be, you would probably enjoy life a lot more.
        • FeloniusMonkey, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Please don't put words in my mouth-- I actually buy into the story, and I don't find it any less believeable than Sankara stones, or divine instruments with special powers.

          What insults my intelligence is people who go over 3 consecutive 150+ft waterfalls without a scratch, fencing on top of a Jeep driving through dense Amazon forest without being thrown, etc. The previous 3 movies may have stretched the laws of physics at times. This one has an outright disregard for physics altogether. The opening scene, when he gets thrown miles from a nuclear blast in a refrigerator and survives, set a fair tone for this almost complete abomination. I say "almost" because they didn't cap it off with Jeff Goldblum uploading a virus to an ENIAC-compatible alien ship.
      • Darkangel754, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0who the hell is "Indiana Johns"?
        • chownrus, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a fedora-wearing pornstar.
    • jzuska, on 06/23/2008, -20/+11Wow You Obamiacs are insane
      • nickert0n, on 06/23/2008, -0/+12Its Obamabots actually, Thank You
      • Seidoger, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1I'm not american, but from my outsider stand point, i'd rather see a flock of "Obamaniacs" or "Obamabots" than "McCainmaniacs" and "McCainbots"
      • mactaggart, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I've always preferred "Obamanauts"
    • nickert0n, on 06/23/2008, -9/+8http://digg.com/world_news/Zeitgeist_A_movie_all_A ...
    • principle, on 06/23/2008, -10/+2McCain was selected as the Republican nominee because he was the only candidate who convincingly demonstrated his unwavering loyalty to Bush. And that was the only criteria, because Bush will not step down without a guaranteed presidential pardon. Otherwise, Bush will create a pretense to suspend the Constitution.

      Those who have doubts whether Bush can suspend the Constitution should read the articles of impeachment, there you will find a section “ARTICLE XXIII—VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT”.

      http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/files/kucinic ...
    • phorty40, on 06/23/2008, -6/+14any truth? its the damn huffington post. Come on.
      • n00854180t, on 06/24/2008, -3/+3You mean Fox News, where this story originated. Come on.

        However, Kristol is part and a founder of PNAC, which is intimately involved with the Bush administration (Cheney and Bush are members). Not to mention that Faux News is Bush's mouthpiece. So yeah, I guess there's a decent amount of reason to listen to what Douche Kristol says, since he's involved with Bush et al.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 06/23/2008, -4/+5all our base are belong to bush
    • Tomchei, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9And that Goebbels pawn, Kristol.
      Kristol needs to shut the hell up and stop being an armchair president/policy maker.
    • JettaMan, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5We've been hearing these "bombing Iran" predictions forever. None of them ever pan out. It's not going to happen this term. You might as well try to predict the next hurricane.
      • coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2"You might as well try to predict the next hurricane."
        With the Weaponized Weather Guidance System (WWGS) (AKA "Wags" or "Dick's Weather Machine") we don't just predict hurricanes, we put them on your front porch!
        /sarcasm
        • 98percentcogdis, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I knew you would get dugg down, even with the /sarcasm tag. WHY???
    • thatsmyaibo, on 06/23/2008, -3/+8Any truth? I still can't believe that HuffPost gets Dugg up like this. Diggers just see anti-Republican or pro-Obama headlines and they cream themselves no matter how inaccurate it is.
      • karagekun, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2and this today:
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea ...

        So if Bill Kristol (a founding member of the PNAC with cheney and rumsfeld) and John Bolton (Bush admin official, former ambassador to the UN) speculate about it...reporting on that is "inaccurate" just cause its reported by the huffington post?
        • n00854180t, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Not to mention that HP was just reporting on someone on Faux News. It's not like HP said any of this themselves. Of course, "thatsmyaibo" is too ***** dense to learn to read so he can grasp these facts.
    • happyseamonster, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3All that matters to these neocons is what is best for Israel. Let the goyim boys die fighting Israel's wars.
    • topgigmedia, on 06/23/2008, -4/+3Remember what Nancy P. stated: "Impeachment of the president is off the table."

      Bush = assneck.
    • SmokinOkie, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1you don't really believe that crap, do you? I feel really sorry for you.
  • wooFmeoWoinK, on 06/22/2008, -77/+125does this really shock anyone?
    • OSWW, on 06/22/2008, -8/+28Nah, just terrifies me because it could happen!
      • HoratioHellpop, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5If you think the current president is going to bomb Iran just because he thinks Obama will be in the white house come January 2009 ... you're beyond the dumbest assclown i've ever seen in my life.
    • mk3k, on 06/23/2008, -11/+3and awe.
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/23/2008, -6/+10Yes, he would do that and since he gave himself permission to remain president indefinitely if an "emergency" happens, he'll just engineer another emergency like the one that got him into Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch "Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement" while you still can.
      • subterfuge, on 06/23/2008, -4/+5it wouldnt surprise me if he and Osama has a little co-op going. with each terrorist attack, osama gets boosts in recruitment and bush gets boosts in propaganda. it's seriously in bush's best interest to not destroy terrorism, because once that's gone he doesn't have a platform. that goes for all the neocons. they're turning the repulican party into the party of terrorism.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4Considering that the Bin Ladens are old Bush family friends, I find it very likely that CIA agent Osama may well have licensed his name and image to his friends for their phony "war on terror" campaign to end all non-white life on earth. Oh, make no mistake, that's where this is going.

          That's more believable than the story that he's a "black sheep" who just happened to get away with a spectacular terror attack while his family was visiting the home of the leader he was "attacking".
        • Pillage, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Catching Osama would boost poll numbers for the election.
    • NJank, on 06/23/2008, -3/+7No, by now I've become used to inaccurate or misleading summaries and titles on digg. It's called pandering.
    • jzuska, on 06/23/2008, -3/+16I am shocked that you believe this.
      • CrazedLeper, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Sheep are for shearing, not hearing.
        • coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6And cattle are for slaughter, which you can't spell without "laughter"
    • akamurph, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7Doesn't shock me much, it's more b.s. from the huffingtonpost.
      • n00854180t, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1You mean more BS from Faux News, which is where this is from originally. Too bad you can't read.
    • Soytaco, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1The concept isn't shocking, i think pretty much everybody knew that. What is shocking is the fact that he would say something like that.
      • dylantp20, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2EXCEPT he didn't say it, bill kristol did which has nothing to do with bush, no one in the bush administration ever said anything to this fact and for that matter if you watch the actual video kristol is even hesitant to say that he thought bush would do that he was kind of lead to that point by the fox news analyst.
    • baudbwoy, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1no
  • Xondar, on 06/22/2008, -64/+122What a dirty thing to do. They need to impeach the bastard and throw him in jail forever to prevent more crap like this.
    • Kormiku, on 06/23/2008, -10/+7he will just be pardoned by the next president... nixon anyone?
    • yoda17, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9Impeaching someone does not remove them from office. I'm sure that you don't believe this, but it is true.
    • dylantp20, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9he didn't do anything it's speculation by a talking head on the fox news channel, god I am beginning to hate digg...don't get me wrong I'm not a big fan of bush but you put any kind of anti-bush rhetoric and true or not it gets dugg up and everyone spends the whole time bashing bush without getting their freaking facts straight.
      • Magee1205, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2This man speaks the truth.
      • Mindzai, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1William Kristol is a little more than just a talking head. He's a warmongering neocon speaking half truths as fact in order to push for war with Iran.
    • Magee1205, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Because Cheney would do something different?
  • sportsstar67, on 06/22/2008, -116/+110I've seen some bull ***** stories on Digg before, but this one takes the cake..BURIED !!
    • hiphopjon, on 06/23/2008, -5/+18same
    • kpmoore, on 06/23/2008, -5/+8I knew it was huffington post just by reading the title. Yes, Still President Bush has done some outrageous things during his terms in office, but lets be reasonable folks.
      • 3ugene, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4This was first reported on your trusted mainstream news outlets. Huffington Post reported on the report itself, because it was Bill Kristol who said it. Digg seems to ignore that and believe it came straight from Bush.

        Now, knowing that Bill Kristol is one of the main leaders of the Neo-Conservative movement, I wouldn't doubt his judgment on this issue. In fact, they are probably just conditioning us to accept it when it finally happens.
        • n00854180t, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Neo-cons, like their fearless leaders, are unable to read simple English. Thus their inability to notice the fact that this was on their favorite news outlet for dumbass ***** that can't read: Faux News.

          I've seen countless of the same moron comments in here.

          Typical Digg Neo-con: "OMG EET R DUH HUFFANGTAN PSOT!!!!! BIAS BIAS BIAS!!! OMGZZ!!! I R COL!!! DIS NEVAR HAPEN ON DUH FAWX NOOS!"

          Reasonable Joe Smith: "Huffington Post was reporting on Fox News."

          --- Crickets chirping ---
    • drqshadow, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7No kidding. I guess this subject line reads better than "Random guy on TV says he thinks Bush might do something bad if he thinks Obama might win."
    • mwrl, on 06/23/2008, -3/+8Is there a button to Bury every post the links to the Huffington Piss.
    • ElderBieler, on 06/24/2008, -3/+2The Huffington Post, it is to liberalism which Fox is to fake conservatism.

      I'm amazed how many sheep just baa along with the most catchy anti-Bush rhetoric that seems to be popular at the time. "Impeach!" "Charge with War crimes!"

      You boners couldn't even carry on a fluid conversation on the topic if emotion and ambiguity were forbidden.
    • elvenrunelord, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1well we see how that bury worked out...lol front page story
  • jontalisman, on 06/23/2008, -65/+47Ariana Huffington is a scumbag who once even hired a private eye to spy on Tim Russert's wife.
    http://gawker.com/tag/awkward/?i=5017348&t=arianna ...
    • DaDrake, on 06/23/2008, -7/+12Dugg down for truth.
    • chicofaraby, on 06/23/2008, -15/+12uhhhh... so ***** what? That doesn't change this story one bit.
      • Wargalas, on 06/23/2008, -5/+12You've attacked Republican based stories before hypocrite.
        • malex, on 06/23/2008, -8/+2Republican-based stories are often lies, but not only because they're Republican.

          Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Obama is going to win. That's what the article reports. Ariana Huffington status of being a scumbag or not has no bearing on the validity of this article.
        • Wargalas, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5@Malex

          Thanks for proving my point. For example:

          Bin Laden Allowed To Escape For Financial Reasons

          http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2007/01/bin-laden- ...

          An article from the CIA's head of the Bin Laden group says that Bill Clinton is the one most responsible for the failure to capture Osama. It even includes a story about how we had visual confirmation of Bin Laden AFTER he attacked and killed Americans, and Bill Clinton called off the airstrike because of an upcoming financial deal.

          Doesn't make the story less true, but people on here, especially chicofaraby, denounce the article as "Republican lies". It's called hypocrisy. I was merely pointing it out.
        • malex, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1@ Wargalas

          You're right that Ad hominem attacks do not invalidate factual statements, but you may have picked a bad counter-example.

          The link you posted was not an article by Michael Scheuer. It was a guy who says he watched an episode of "The Final Report." The blogger did not provide any additional references or citations supporting his conclusions.
      • coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Of course it doesn't change this story one bit. It's still pandering *****, pure speculation that is being taken as "truth".
    • amr05h, on 06/23/2008, -4/+7Nice Ad hominem you got going on there.
    • Pillage, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4She's just mad at the Republicans because her husband left her for a man.
  • avengingturnip, on 06/23/2008, -67/+32Bomb, bomb, bomb,
    Bomb, bomb Iran.
    Bomb, bomb, bomb,
    Bomb, bomb Iran.
    • EwMo, on 06/23/2008, -10/+7Catchy. Let's brainwash our children with that one.
      • hiphopjon, on 06/23/2008, -5/+2i'm a child (14) and there trying to wash me with global warming and other alarmist/liberal *****
    • thefirstenemy, on 06/23/2008, -4/+16To the people digging down avengingturnip, I don't think he was actually suggesting the bombing of Iran. I think his intent was to illustrate McCain's desire to continue Bush's policies and desire to attack Iran from a comment McCain made sometime last summer.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
      • avengingturnip, on 06/23/2008, -4/+8Was I dugg down because people thought I was serious or because people knew that I wasn't and didn't like it?
        • KennMac, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7They thought you were a troll. There's so many on Digg now, who can blame them? But for the record, I got the reference and dugg you up.
        • lostwriter, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I guess we're too old or they're too young.
  • knumbknuts, on 06/23/2008, -69/+56huff po obamaganda.
    • turnthepage, on 06/23/2008, -6/+28The evolution of digg political news sources:

      May - September 2007 - crooksandliars.com
      September - February 2008 - rawstory.com
      February - Present - huffingtonpost.com
    • alphasixtyone, on 06/23/2008, -12/+6huff po truthagenda. did they something that wasn't true? it just refers to an incident that occurred on a show. get a life
    • DaDrake, on 06/23/2008, -6/+17alphasixtyone it is INCREDIBLY misleading and pointless. Obviously, the significance of the story was minimal ... but HP uses it so they can cast the GOP in even a MORE negative light. It really is pathetic and stupid.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/23/2008, -6/+7HP didn't make Kristol say what he said. They simply put it up on the net for all to see.
        • Monk22, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2and hes not bush. so i dont think its very relevant to infer that bush said something when he didnt.
      • Dumbledorito, on 06/23/2008, -3/+4So, DaDrake, you're saying the Bush administration wouldn't bomb a country, say, in the Middle East, over reasons that, when looked at casually, are shown to be complete and utter *****?
        • coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Are you saying the speculation of a newspaper editor is to be taken as factual knowledge of President Bush's post-general election plans?
    • FecalHurler, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Haha I like how the replies are being dugg up, and the OP is being dugg down even though they're talking about the same thing.
  • bbqsalad, on 06/23/2008, -31/+7I think we should ask Bethea.
    • Harabeck, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3I wish Digg would refuse to advertise such scams. Gimme back my hot chicks in dumb t-shirts.
      • bbqsalad, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1IM KIND OF A BIG DEAL - TEEHEE LOL MEH
  • Vigilo, on 06/23/2008, -53/+30Obama and Bush both answer to the same Bankers and corporate leaders they are both puppets. Republicans take office then Democrats, they just take turns to make us think we have choice when there is no difference. If Bush bombs Iran it is just so that Obama gets off the hook with saying he will pull out troops from Iraq. Its all a fraud folks Obama supported FISA last week and the dems just agreed to fund the war for another year. WAKE UP!!

    They all love war thats why Ron Paul was snubbed because he doesn't.
    • joeanon, on 06/23/2008, -10/+6Ron Paul answers to the RNC... and they too are puppets.

      So, there goes your argument.

      Lets face it... Obama is less corrupt than McCain or most of the GOP and that's why he'll win in November.

      Obama might even surprise us, it's hard to say how much he is holding back in order to keep on the safer side of an easy victory.

      • plimpton777, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4Wildly inaccurate statement...Ron Paul tells the RNC to go ***** themselves on a regular basis.
    • nycmac247, on 06/23/2008, -7/+1Why Obama Is A Sure Loser
      And A Prelude To The McCain-Lieberman Disaster
      By Webster Tarpley

      http://rense.com/general80/3sdate.htm
      • laserdog, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3I've seen you post this before.

        You know that Obama isn't running against Hillary anymore, right?

        You also know that Obama's team used a different strategy for the primaries to maximize their delegate wins, and that they'll be using a far different tactics for the real campaign than for the primary?

        You also know that that blog post is 4 months old, right?
    • laserdog, on 06/23/2008, -4/+1Obama and Bush have *very* different fundraising techniques.

      "Opposite" might be a good word for it infact.
    • Andrwmorph, on 06/23/2008, -6/+1Yeah! Everybody knows the world is run by 12 Jew bankers!
    • BabyWookie, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4Where was your Ron Paul, when Kucinich was trying to empeach the war criminals and traitors in charge of our country?
    • wooFmeoWoinK, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1You made sense until the very end.
  • ahatter, on 06/23/2008, -36/+15Somone stop this man.
    • duggtodeath, on 06/23/2008, -2/+6I hope Somone can help, she's a classy lady.
      • kcdstudios, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3I hope she will do it relatively free of charge
  • NinjaPig, on 06/23/2008, -13/+228I'm sorry..but did anyone forget to read the part that the person who said this was Bill Kristol? Come on guys, his name is referenced in every article about neocons. I don't know if this is true or not, but of course the guy is going to say ***** like that.
    • Pusod, on 06/23/2008, -4/+0And as a comedian he is only saying it in jest! Of course he's playing! Geez!
      • DerFlash, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Bill Kristol is not the same person as Billy Crystal. though i think each is as smart as the other...
        • bullcutter, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2hey! how dare you disrespect the intelligence of Billy Crystal like that!

    • jbassfretless, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7yeah no kidding, i'm as anti-bush as anybody but lets crucify him for the things he has done rather than the things bill kristol says he might do.
    • pilobilus, on 06/23/2008, -5/+1Um, if that HAD been Kristol, his opinion as a leading NeoCon spokesman would be worth more than most anyone else's on the matter.
    • jwkpiano1, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I've learned to disregard everything that sack of sh*t says.
  • Smooooth, on 06/23/2008, -21/+329Inaccurate. The Weekly Standard editor said that he thinks that Bush might possibly bomb Iran if Obama wins.

    Here is the quote from Bill Kristol (In response to Matthews asking if Obama wins will Bush strike Iran)

    KRISTOL: "I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force."

    So, this should be re-submitted with a title of "Weekly Standard editor is not sure whether or not Bush would authorize military strikes regardless of the general election outcome." But, hey! Then nobody would digg this article, right? Huff Po is just as "fair and balanced" as Fox News.
    • DaDrake, on 06/23/2008, -21/+35Huffington Post is so much more worst than Fox.... they don't even try to be fair and balance. Atleast fox always have some token liberal on to balance things out.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/23/2008, -6/+1I don't think they are putting out false-hoods, just progressive oriented info. Fox, covers general news, and pretends to treat it fairly.

        What they reported is about Kristol. I'll admit their headlines stink and are provocative. It isn't the fault of Progressives that the Republicans in power are so damn corrupt you can run 25 stories a day about them. Don't blame the news for being slanted -- blame the crooks for staying crooked.
    • johndi, on 06/23/2008, -4/+15I knew it sounded fishy. There is no reason for Bush to guess on the outcome of the election when he will have about 2 1/2 months after the election to act.
    • DavidYeah, on 06/23/2008, -10/+11Wow, if you think Bill Kristol is just an editor of a magazine, you're out of your skull. He's one of the most prominant and influential conservatives of this generation.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/23/2008, -5/+4He's also a total incompetent, who is always wrong.
        • DemDude, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Just like all "good" conservatives...
      • Smooooth, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7I know who Bill Kristol is. It does not matter. Kristol himself doesn't even state that Bush might bomb Iran. It is not who is saying these things it is what they are construed to be saying.
        • dylantp20, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2yea if you watch the actual video footage, kristol kinda tries to avoid out and out saying that bush would do this but the fox news analyst basically pushes the issue in that direction.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/23/2008, -6/+4I love how Kristol floats the new NeoCon oxymoron phrase; "Unconditional Negotiations."
      • Monk22, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2are you retarded? you think neocons came up with that?
        • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2It is a meaningless phrase. Like Jumbo Shrimp. Or Islamo-fascist.

          "Unconditional" is the opposite of a "Negotiation." This is just typical of Kristol and his newspeak. I didn't think that would raise some dander to just point that out.

          He may not be inventing the word -- but it is obviously one of their new PR phrases that we will be hearing for a week or two. It's old hat to catch them once you know what to look for.
        • Monk22, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1shouldn't you be playing in traffic or outside practicing falling down?
    • Olivaise, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Their source for the article is Fox news, according to them...
    • FecalHurler, on 06/23/2008, -2/+8It's true. Everytime I see a story from Huffington Post I naturally assume that it's *****.

      The "Fox Effect", if you will.
    • almightyzam, on 06/23/2008, -5/+1For all intensive purposes...Bush probably will launch some type of military strike on Iran before his term is over.
      • leahcim, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6For future reference, bud, it is "for all intents and purposes."
    • DemDude, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Oh come on, like Bush will be reluctant to start a war in order to get the attention away from obama winning and also away from him effectively putting McCain in control and helping the puppetmasters fasten the strings.
    • there, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2"So, this should be re-submitted with a title of "Weekly Standard editor is not sure whether or not Bush would authorize military strikes regardless of the general election outcome." But, hey! Then nobody would digg this article, right? Huff Po is just as "fair and balanced" as Fox News."

      Talk about an agenda. You are confusing the Digg poster's title with the original article which was accurately titled...

      "KRISTOL: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He Thinks Obama's Going To Win'
  • anbublackops, on 06/23/2008, -35/+12… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ______
    … … … … … … … … … … … … ..,,,--~~": : : : : :"'~~--,,
    … … … … … … … … … … … ,,~": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :"~,
    … … … … … … … … …__,,~": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : (¯¯): "-,
    … … … … … … … ..,,~": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ¯¯: : : :'
    … … … … … … .._,/,,,_: : : : : : : : : : : :,,--,,_: : : : : : : : : : :O: : :'
    … … … … … ..,,-" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : "-: : : : : : : : : : : : : |
    … … … … ...,," : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :--~~~--,, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
    … … … …,~": : : : : : : : : : : : : :___ : : : : : : ": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : |
    … … …,,-"~~--,,,,_: : : : : :,,--~". . . "'~,,_: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : / Oh my...
    … …,,-". . . . . . . . "-,"~,,,-". . . . . . . . . . ',"~-,,: : : : : : : : : : : : : /
    … .,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/. . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . |: : : : : : : : : : : : /
    … .|. . . . . . . . . . ._,,"~",. . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . |~--,,,_: : : : : : : /
    … ..,. . . . . ,,,-~"': : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/. ./: : : : : :"'~~--,,,/_
    … …"~,,_,-": : : : : : : : : :"-,,_. . . . . . . ,,-". .,/: : : : : : : :,,-~"`"~,"'~-,,
    … … … ,/ : : : : : : : : : :"~,: : "~~----~"-----~": : : : : : : : : :,,-~: ,/… ..."
    … … …/: : : : : : : : :__,,,-": : : : : : : :"'~~---: : : : : : : : : :/': ): :/
    … … ..(_: : : _,,--~": : : : : : : : : : : : |: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,": /
    … … … ,"-"" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : |: /
    ..__,,-~"' : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : "~,,: : : : : : : : : :"~": |
    .",,_ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ',: : : : : : : "-,_,,"
    … ..¯¯"'~~~-----,,,_______,,,-~~-,,_: : : : : : ': : : : : : : :
    … … … … … …,: : : : : : : : : : : : "-: :: : : : : : : : : : : :'¯¯"'~-,,
    … … … … … … ."~--,,: : : : : : : : : :,,,-": : : :": : : : : : : : ',_. . . ."-,,
    … … … … … … … … ,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ',: :,. . . . .,,_
    … … … … … … … … .."-,,_ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ',: : : |: :::::. . . . . ,."~,,_
    … … … … … … … … … ...,"-, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :,: : "-,/::::. . . . . .. . . ."~,,
    … … … … … … … … _/. . ,: : : : : : : :-,: : : : : : :':,,-"::::::. . . . . . .. . . . . ."'~,,
    … … … … … … … … ,,-"./. . .|:"-,: : : : : : ::: : : : : :,,-"':::::::::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "'~,,
    … … … … … … … .,-". . .|. . . .,::"~,,_: : : ,_,,,-~"::::::::::::,-"|. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ."~-,,
    … … … … … … …,/. . . . |. . . . .,::::::::"`"`"`":::::::::::::::::,,-"::. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
    … … … … … … .,/. . . . . |. . . . . . ",-,,::::::::::::::::::::_,,~":::::: . . . . . . . . |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '
    … … … … … ...,/. . . . . . |. . . . . .,/:::::"'~~-------~~"::::::::::::::l:. . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    … … … … … ../. . . . |. . . . . . . . .|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::l:. . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    … … … … … ,/. . . . . . . .|. . . . . .|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::l:. . . . . . . . . ,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    … … … … … |. . . . . . . . .. . . . |::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  • Panzwhore, on 06/23/2008, -11/+94Like this claim has any merit....
    • Shogi, on 06/23/2008, -17/+5You saying it doesn't?

      Best way to guarantee that the winner in 2012 is a republican would be to start a ***** and blame it on the democrats.
    • donte, on 06/23/2008, -3/+20But a random hypothetical statement by a political pundit who is not a member of the bush administration at all is being quoted and over-analyzed by a far-left-leaning blog... what do you mean there is no merit to this story?

      I really wish diggers would start to scrutinize the Huffington Post's content in the same way it does most mainstream media outlets because these days it mostly spews crap and lots of people here seem to think it's news.
      • Dred, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5Well noone on the left wants to hear the truth. They put their hands over their ears and yell lalalalalalalalalaa
    • pantone286, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Like this maim has any clerit.....
  • zackintosh, on 06/23/2008, -8/+50This guy sure has fallen since When Harry Met Sally.
    • Elissar, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2No, you're thinking of...oh never mind.
    • Sogladtobehere, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Please tell me you're joking. PLEASE!
  • bowievls, on 06/23/2008, -24/+4There is a resolution in congress right now to impeach Bush, Do a google about it if you don't already know. Contact your representative here and let them know that you are not going to allow America being at war on the basis of a lie. https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml, comment on any viral or social network that you can to urge others to do the same.
    • alphasixtyone, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2why impeach? How much more damage can he do before he leaves office? Oh right, this article.
    • DaDrake, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3And the last impeachment measure was sent to a committee that won't meet back till February .... yea .... congress REALLY wants to act /sarcasm
    • Artimusbill, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7I think Dennis Kucinich's sole reason for existence is to introduce articles of impeachment.
  • TheRealToma, on 06/23/2008, -14/+17Generation Q will let them do it too.
    Why isnt anyone standing outside the white house screaming at them? Theyre all at home blogging about how horrible McCain is :(
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/23/2008, -3/+4Public protests don't seem to work anymore. The news doesn't cover them, unless it's like a busload of NeoCons upset over immigrants getting immunizations. People don't have the time to go to these and keep their jobs.

      A protest would only work if we could get a million people to do it.
      • TheRealToma, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Explain it away. 100 years ago you'd have a scene from Frankenstein with torch bearers and angry farmers with pitch forks. 50 years ago, you'd have a bunch of smelly hippies in a drum circle outside congress. Today, you'd have 4 people sitting across the road in a Starbucks blogging about it on their Macbook Airs.
    • saigumi, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Because enough Americans are still smart enough to see that this article = FAIL.

      So you are saying if some crackpot thinks that Bush would do this that makes it true and newsworthy? Wow, it is as if Bush is doing it right now.

      Where has all the critical thinkers in this world gone?
      • TheRealToma, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2Granted, but there are a lot of other reasons why you should be knocking on his door. 35 reasons actually.
  • wild, on 06/23/2008, -8/+165Guys, as an Obama supporter, lets bury this for being inaccurate. The title of the Digg makes it sound like the quotes are Bush's. They are not. They are a pundit's speculation on what he thinks he might say.

    Lets try and be the intelligent supporters and save the diggs for something with real news behind it.
    • trumpydumpy, on 06/23/2008, -19/+6Read my post below for some background on Kristol. He is not merely a "pundit." Consider him more of a prophet when it comes to neo-con policy.
      • wild, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7That doesn't make the submission accurate.
    • JQP123, on 06/23/2008, -3/+21"Lets try and be the intelligent supporters and save the diggs for something with real news behind it."

      Intelligent? digg? Nahhh. Nice try though.
    • langdonalger, on 06/23/2008, -13/+2So the part where it says "Kristol says" and refers to "the president" doesn't make it obvious it's not "the president" himself talking?

      Instead of burying, try comprehending.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/23/2008, -5/+4Kristol said a few months back; "I think McCain is the reasonable candidate for the Republicans." That was when McCain was in third place and had even less excitement.

      I knew then that McCain was going to be the Republican nominee. After that, all the others nearly capitulated. The money went to McCain, and the press stopped bothering to let anyone know that Ron Paul was in the race or even won a few states.

      People who don't think the Kristol tale doesn't wag the Republican dog are pretty much out of the loop in politics these days.
      • saigumi, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Pst.. Ron Paul never "won" any states. He got a few delegates, and that is all.
        • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Not a fan of Ron Paul -- just noticing the media blackout. Yes, he did not place first, but he took second place numerous times.

          He won mostly in online poies -- which would typically get scrubbed and just include the rankings of all candidates except Ron Paul. That was quite a surprise. CNN and Fox news were both guilty of that -- I'm sure there were more.
    • davidg11, on 06/23/2008, -7/+18That's the most intelligent statement I've heard from an Obama supporter...EVER. It makes me wonder if you're really supporting Obama.
    • ocellnuri, on 06/23/2008, -0/+12I agree, buried. This is sensationalism about speculation by someone outside of the administration, not a story about actual stated policy.
    • bullhead2007, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9And Kristol didn't even imply Bush might bomb Iran if Obama wins. I'm an Obama supporter and I HATE the Obamaton Prostaganda. It shames Obama and it makes their supporters look like hypocrites when they spam this propaganda site.
    • superkendall, on 06/23/2008, -5/+3I appreciate your rational thought on this but if you want to continue to support Obama, you need to take a long hard look at who you are getting into bed with. This kind of thing is just the tip of the iceburg.
      • wild, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5I took a long hard look at Obama and McCain. Obama is the better candidate for my critical issues, so I will support him.
  • FELIXSANCTUS, on 06/23/2008, -14/+0The Russians did say the USA was going to strike Iran, though...
    • saigumi, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3The Chinese did say the Japanese were going to strike Iran, though...
  • alphasixtyone, on 06/23/2008, -12/+24Bush has nothing to worry about. Anyone hear the speech Obama gave to AIPAC recently?
    • zephyear, on 06/23/2008, -7/+9that speech was just pandering for votes.
      • alphasixtyone, on 06/23/2008, -2/+10i ***** hope so.
        • Waiting2awake, on 06/23/2008, -2/+10He's a politicians - trust him. What could go wrong?
      • JigoroKano, on 06/23/2008, -3/+22Never pretend that you can distinguish what is and isn't a candidates real position. You only trick yourself into making who you like agreeable and who you don't like disagreeable.
        • Artimusbill, on 06/23/2008, -0/+16Man, why you gotta break out the facts like that.
  • duckstrap, on 06/23/2008, -4/+79you know what I hate? I hate it when somebody puts up a completely inaccurate headline. Kristol thinks Bush might bomb Iran. Buried.
  • EwMo, on 06/23/2008, -16/+5Which means if he doesn't, McCain will.
    • PopcornDave, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Nah, Israel will do it, and we'll turn a blind eye or send them to bed without supper.
  • Rotzooi, on 06/23/2008, -11/+6Yeah, first some bombs and then let's drill for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, too!
    /facepalm
  • webkami, on 06/23/2008, -6/+27"...He thinks..."

    That is a lie
  • duggtodeath, on 06/23/2008, -2/+13William Bloody Kristol
  • sportsstar67, on 06/23/2008, -14/+69I've seen some bull ***** stories on Digg before, but this one takes the cake..BURIED !!
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/23/2008, -17/+7yet you give no reason as to why - other than it is against Bush...

      Which historically with that guy - the worse the story is, the closer it is to the truth.
      • bullhead2007, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8The reason why is Kristol never even said that he might in the first place.

        This article is a lie. Goebbels would be shocked at the amount of Propaganda ***** that comes out of Huffpo.

        Before you bury me, I support Obama, but I don't support ***** even when it's convenient for me to do so.
    • johnmatias, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5Does this cake happen to be a lie?
      • thevolumebutton, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0Only if your companion cube says it is.
    • soracross, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Wait, you made this comment 13 hours ago and it got a -5 digg. How did you get +37 this time?
  • trumpydumpy, on 06/23/2008, -5/+20"Kristol is associated with a number of conservatively aligned think tanks: he cofounded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997 with Robert Kagan, he is a member of the board of trustees for the free-market Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and he is a member of the Policy Advisory Board for the neoconservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. Kristol has also been an attendee at Bilderberg Group conferences."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol

    One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."[26]

    The report also states:

    "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"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A ...
    • omenmedia, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5Gee, lucky that something like that didn't happen! Oh wait..... what an incredible coincidence that 9/11 occurred the very next year! Wow, what are the odds?
    • h0stile17, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7The unfortunate death of 3000 unsuspecting people is not grounds for a conspiracy theory....nor is it the punchline to a joke.
      • Ravatar, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3WTF not grounds for a conspiracy theory?

        Why?
        • leoofborg, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Two or more people were involved. By default 9-11 was a 'conspiracy'.

          Life's a play. On a stage. The players are irrelevant.
  • ilukedukei, on 06/23/2008, -22/+12I'm voting for Obama!
  • nellshini, on 06/23/2008, -1/+31This article is using candid comments of a 3rd party reporter as a source?
    • DavidYeah, on 06/23/2008, -5/+2William Kristol is a hell of a lot more than a "third party reporter." He's one of the brains behind the entire neoconservative perspective on foreign policy.
  • bjs3171, on 06/23/2008, -3/+44ugh. burried. this is sensationalist coverage of an opinion. this is not taken from any sort of press release, only conjecture.
  • hrhs556x, on 06/23/2008, -3/+26Burried, we have no idea if that's the case
  • angusm, on 06/23/2008, -4/+6I'm sure that thought has occurred to everyone. It doesn't make it true, though.
  • justice7, on 06/23/2008, -9/+4This has been the plan for some time. Open google maps, type in Iran. Now, zoom out a little; draw a line from Khandahar Afghanistan to Baghdad Iraq.

    Notice which country it goes through.
    • justice7, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1dugg down for truth?
    • saigumi, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Holy crap.. try drawing a line from Kandahar to Bagdad going east instead of west... it goes right through Missouri!

      THE US IS GOING TO INVADE MISSOURI! OMFG! GTFO! RUN MISSOURIANS, BUSH IS COMMMING FOR UR OIL!
    • justice7, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1I guess i should have been a little clearer than just pointing out a 'line'.

      If you were to attack Iran; you wouldn't be able to do so very effectively from one side (the gulf). In order to launch a successful attack you need to come in from multiple sides. Such as from the East (Afghanistan), the West (Iraq) and the south (Gulf)

      When you put it into military long-term projections; it looks like Iran is in trouble. We still live in a world where War decides who has what; don't let the world peace lovers tell you there will be no future wars; we're talking about humanity here. War is inevitable.

      And if we want to talk about motive; have you been to the gas pumps lately?
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/23/2008, -8/+50HuffPoo is to FEARMONGERING as Bruce Lee is to Nunchucks.
  • hotlatte, on 06/23/2008, -3/+48It's huffingtonpost.com, quoting Fox news, quoting a Weekly Standard editor. Now there's a source for unbiased, accurate news. BWAHHHH!!!
  • silverzone, on 06/23/2008, -9/+5Further proof that the abolition of the 2 party system will be a great move for America. ***** partisan politics.
    • Artimusbill, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3We don't have a two party system. We have the money party, thats it.
  • PDF84, on 06/23/2008, -13/+5BOMB.BOMB.BOMB..BOMB IRAN
  • HappyScrappy, on 06/23/2008, -3/+27This is 3rd hand speculation from a pundit. Don't get excited.
  • rinote, on 06/23/2008, -2/+26That's a little sensationalist, don't you think?
  • tdishman, on 06/23/2008, -9/+4What I'm wondering is whether or not we'll see a significant terrorist attack near the beginning of the next presidents term. There were significant terrorist attacks on US soil near the start of both the Clinton and Bush (W) terms. Makes you wonder if they (terrorists) plan them that way to shake up an incoming president.
  • KillaJazzBass, on 06/23/2008, -8/+2help..police..murder
  • mrgreenjeans9, on 06/23/2008, -8/+1yikes
  • ebolaworld, on 06/23/2008, -13/+5It's better than his last excuse for bombing another country.
  • njndirish, on 06/23/2008, -6/+55Digg has hit an all time low. Bush is an idiot, but he isn't brainless. Huffingtonpost continues to spew out garbage and ***** and so many of the sheep on Digg eat it all up. Buried for pure headline grabbing title and for the sheep's own good.
    • iamconanobrien, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Yeahp. This article and its incredibly misleading title pissed me off. Welcome to the bottom of the pile.
  • Fikiman, on 06/23/2008, -12/+2dirty *****
  • TheInformer, on 06/23/2008, -8/+51Yet another daily article from Huffington Post. If Digg is going to be a mouthpiece for them, why not merge?
    • Shoegaze99, on 06/23/2008, -2/+26It's getting to be sickening. All HP links are buried on site. No way in hell will I give them my clicks.

      Buried for being yet another HP link, buried for sensationalist headline, buried for innaccuracy.
    • pnmoore, on 06/23/2008, -12/+4Are you people really users of Digg and are that ignorant of how this all works? It is not complicated...articles are posted by users and dugg by users, hence users are putting things on the front page.

      It never ceases to amaze me how some people blame the Digg corporate entity of things the users are doing. If the users are being a mouthpiece for anything then Digg is working just the way it is supposed to...
  • OC73, on 06/23/2008, -12/+4Good.
  • nd12nc, on 06/23/2008, -12/+54stupidest article ever.
  • bdette, on 06/23/2008, -6/+2That wouldn't surprise me one bit.
  • itstodd, on 06/23/2008, -3/+7this guy is delirious. Buried for stupidity
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 237 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.