digg

Join DiggAbout

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

CNN Anchor: ‘Might Some Argue That Lamont…Is The al Qaeda Candidate?’

thinkprogress.org — Today on CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts discussed the impact of the foiled British terror plot with Hotline senior editor John Mercurio. Roberts asked Mercurio, "How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -8/+95Or maybe, Connecticut is the al-Qaeda state? Come on, he won the primary, he's not a homeless guy spouting philosophy on the street corner - he was voted to be the Democratic senator. Which comparison is more accurate:

    VP Cheney == Sen. McCarthy
    Ned Lamont == al-Qaeda flunky

    Neither are really right, but claiming Ned Lamont is the "al-Qaeda" candidate smacks of McCarthyism.... This comes from CNN, which some people here claim is biased against the republicans!
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21woops - little correction -- should have said "voted to be the Democratic senatorial candidate".
    • szelij, on 10/12/2007, -11/+52It's the only way they can win it. The Republicans are basically going into full-out mud-swinging approach since they can't/won't distance themselves from the president and neo-cons in the party. (Remember the republicans tend to stick together) So they have to start throwing out buzz-words and make their opponent look bad...hence the tags.

    • moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -74/+10@szelij

      This is not a case of mud swinging, not even mud slinging. These are the words of an independent journalist, not the republican party.

      I personally happen to agree with the comparison. Lamont's main campaign promise has been a withdrawal from Iraq... as KenMo points out below that is Al Qaeda's goal as well. Exactly what is Mr Lamont's exit strategy? Does he have one, or is he just spouting the same anti-administration garbage as everyone else?

      Let's face a very simple fact here... whether or not you agreed with the reasons we went to war in Iraq we are now committed, simply pulling out our troops is not an option.
    • dvws, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26@moonshn

      why can't we? us being there for the last 3 years havent exactly improved the situation.
    • ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -6/+63You guys need new political parties.
    • transfire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32@moonshn

      There is a real exit strategy. And it's been bloody known for a long time. It's called letting bygones by bygones. If the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds don't want to live together, there is nothing we will ever be able to do about it except setup yet another tyranny to keep them in line. After 80 years (since WWI) isn't it about time to bring peace to the region? That can be acheived with the Three State Solution.

      There are only two paths left for Iraq. A multi-state solution brought about peacefully, or a multi-sate solution brought about by mass grave. Which do we you prefer?
    • moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6@dvws
      Would it not trouble you in the least to watch Iraq fall into civil war as soon as our troops board the last plane home?

      After a war is won you don't simply pack the bags and go home. To my knowledge, i could be wrong, we have had boots on the ground in Germany and Japan since 1945
    • moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4@ transfire

      I agree with you 100%. I harbor no disillusions that we will be able to make these people start holding hands and singing "we are the world". If the leaders in Iraq would approve of a solution like this I think most Americans would jump at the opportunity. However, if the US was to step in and unilaterally break up the country of Iraq how would the rest of the world view this?
    • szelij, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Transfire, the problem with this, is that post-Iraq WILL be a fertile ground for training of future fighters. Ten, twenty years down the road after an American withdrawal, do you want to see the Saudi Arabian monarchy overthrown by an radical islamic army? Do you want to see the whole of the middle east crawling with trained guerrilla fighters and the governments crumbling?

      As for division, let me remind people that before the Americans invaded, there never was any hostility between the three groups, they lived for hundreds of years together, intermarried and whatever.

      It's only now that after the failure of the security policies in Baghdad, after the shrine bombings that it's developed into full-blown civil war. And what was Paul Bremer and the caretaker government doing whilst Al-Qaeda In Iraq bombed the shrines?

      They had their heads up their asses and were sleeping with whores inside the green zone. Now the country's breaking up and a ***** of people are going to die, and you want to withdraw?

      ***** that *****, you broke the egg, you should clean up the mess. In any case, a withdrawl will be constituted as an American failure and an utter humiliation.
    • marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Lived peacefully together?

      Tell that to the Kurds that were gassed or anyone not it the Bathest party. Iraq has been on the edge of civil war for years. After the first Iraq war the people of Iraq ask us to continue the war and remove the ruling party. Many of the uprisers died as well as others due to susspition.
    • scotl89, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I haven't watched CNN or any other TV news for years, and this is why. But the posters on digg only embolden these "journalists" by getting so upset about it. Of course it's ridiculous, and every intelligent person knows it. There's no need for comments such as: "claiming Ned Lamont is the 'al-Qaeda' candidate smacks of McCarthyism...." It doesn't "smack of McCarthyism" anymore than it smacks of pure idiocy. Calm down and laugh about it.
    • izzie2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"do you want to see the Saudi Arabian monarchy overthrown by an radical islamic army?"

      Theres a difference?
    • dogshaft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm sure the problem that they have with the three state solution is... who gets the oil? This is all about oil. Otherwise, most external governments wouldn't give a rat's ass what the Iraqis do to themselves.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Hey I got an idea, BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME FROM ALL AMERICAN BASES AROUND THE WORLD.

      Don't give me "They asked us to be there, their governments did, not the people".

      Then you won't have to worry about terrorists. This is not isolationism. Products and goods should cross borders, not soldiers.
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Cheney pulled the same crap with Kerry during the 2004 elections. How is it that these thugs can go around spreading lies and not be held accountable for any of it? Can you say, “WMDs”? It’s pure *****. And now this dumbass news idiot is caught spreading the manure even more.

      Lies, Lies & more Lies …
      http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/liberal_shop/303390
    • FredSanford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Sure it smacks of McCarthyism. Which is exactly why people like Anne Coulter are trying so hard to rehabilitate the reputation of Joe McCarthy.

      This is how facist states get their start.
    • Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Oh, come on. CNN threw the guy a softball question so he could answer "Of course not!" and everyone could go about their business.

      This is the same network that charged Israel with deliberately allowing Hezbollah to launch rockets so Israel would have an excuse to prolong the war.

    • designer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2We need more McCarthyism.
  • KidAirbag, on 10/12/2007, -8/+66Bush's approval is at 33% and the majority of Americans say they are voting Democratic this fall.

    I can't believe the Republicans think the best way to win over voters is to call the Democrats terrorists.
    • hockeysk8, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36But this is the exact strategy that has taken the Republicans this far - vote Republican and be safe, vote Democrat and the boogey men will come get you.

      What is frightening in this case that it is coming from a "journalist" who in the eyes of the American public is unbiased.
    • transfire, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Except the voting mechinism is now rigged. So it doen't matter. As long as the neo-cons can uphold a perception of close races they can skew the results without consequence. This is waht's gogin on in Mexico as we speak.
    • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3its ridiculous, but whats even more ridiculous is that hundreds of thousands of idiots who live in the us of a will fall for it.
  • dallen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45Somehow, I doubt Osama will be voting Democrat this fall
    • mrspeel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Since Osama's stated objective is to destroy the US, he of course wants the Republicans to stay in power, because the Rethugs are destroying our democracy, our civil rights, our environment, our world reputation and our economy.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Actually, I think he filed for an absentee ballot from Florida.
  • harumph, on 10/12/2007, -10/+57and the myth of the liberal mainstream media still persists.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7it's was called the corporate media before the wordsmiths rebranded it.
      I think "the corporate media" is more apt. I think even more apt than mainstream media.
      They are still biased but it isnt against a political party
  • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Might some argue that CNN has started to suck pretty bad lately?

    You know our Republican senator is against child molesters. I guess that means his opposition is for it, right?
    • TexasCanuck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Could not agree more with you, regarding CNN sucking. It started sucking around the time they lost Aaron Brown and started giving more screen time to Anderson Cooper and Paula Zahn.

      Lately, it seems like MSNBC is the station that sticks closest to the middle, IMO.
  • daeyeth, on 10/12/2007, -14/+31Okay, this is f***ing ridiculous. I don't know what to say. Wait. Yeah I do. WHAT THE F***. Is this what the state of politics has f***ing come to? What the F**K is wrong with people, calling him a TERRORIST? What the f**k is that? For f**k's sake...This is absolutely f***ing disrespectful.

    This is totally unwarranted slander, they have no f**king right to say this *****. The worst of it is that these aren't random f**ks...they're f**ks with influence. These ***** might as well just run up to him, flipping the f***ing finger five times and run away before he can do anything about it because that's what they're doing.

    Please, Lamont, do the right thing...be an American...AND SUE THE F**K OUT OF THEM. PLEASE.

    ("*****" is an English word which, when used literally as a verb, means "to have sexual intercourse". It is generally considered one of the most vulgar words in the English language and a classic example of the swear word. Because of its offensive nature it is sometimes referred to as the "f-word" or "f-***".)
    • deut, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9Off-Topic: I personally like using the Irish version "feck". Have you ever seen the Channel-4 sit-com, "Father-Ted"? It's very funny. Also a slew of Irish radio DJs use it quite openly on national radio without causing much offense.
    • KenMo, on 10/12/2007, -46/+9Well let's compare.

      Lamont (isn't that Fred Sanford's son?) wants us out of Iraq.
      Osama does too.

      Lamont thinks America is causing all of the problems in the Middle East.
      Osama does too.

      Lamont wants Bush out of office and a "peach loving" liberal in office.
      Osama does too.

      Osama doesn't think America will stick to what it says it believes in if things get a little tough. Since we ran out of Somalia when some Rangers were dragged through the streets.
      Lamont would be happy to prove him right.
    • CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19>>> a "peach loving" liberal in office

      damn tree-hugging peach lovers. You'd be all safe with someone who likes cherries!
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16What are you, 7? Just say "*****"
    • Shlep, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@Kenmo
      Lamont was Fred Sanford's son's first name, not last (the candidate is Ned Lamont)

      We never should have been in Iraq in the first place, and Iraq has had plenty of time to get their ***** together so we could pull out most of our troops and equipment, stick a lot of them in Afghanistan and get the actual person behind 9/11.

      All of the problems in the middle east are not caused by the U.S., they are caused by 1500-2000 year old religious dogma that the "locals" and the U.S. President use as a nice fuzzy blanket. However, a LOT of the recent problems (the last 50 years) have, at least indirectly, been caused by the U.S. all in the name of securing the oil supply. Our current occupation of Iraq created a crapload of insurgency that wasn't in Iraq before we arrived, and "fighting them there instead of here" is a circular argument because they wouldn't have been there if we hadn't shown up, not to mention the fact that we still might be fighting them here (read the stories about the recent airline terror plots)

      Bin Laden probably doesn't care who is in office because as long as Bush and the Republicans stay in power, this country is divided (thanks to Karl Rove) and a divided country doesn't have the will to fight a prolonged war. If Bush had just done his job and left Iraq alone, as opposed to making his war profiteering buddies richer, gasoline prices wouldn't have tripled in the last few years and we wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars that we basically didn't have. Worldwide hatred of the U.S. wouldn't have spread like it did (at least not as rapidly).

      And your last point about leaving when things get a little tough, well, Bush put us in an impossible position. He was told by pretty much every department involved in the middle east that invading Iraq was a no-win situation, he and his friends chose to ignore that and do it anyway. Those people that are fighting us, just like those in Somalia, are insane. Staying or leaving won't change that, but what will change that is Iraq being able to wipe its own ass so we don't have to spend billions of dollars on toilet paper and have our troops wipe it for them.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Yeah i'm with ya brother... feel that rage...

      I've been a nice cuddly friendly person (lot a liberal, but one who believes in equality and objectivity) for 5 years and when you've got these pr*cks relentlessly abusing their power and creating this "ruling class" eventually it starts to grate and you erupt into a tirade..

      sometimes when someone says something so incomprehensibly moronic, infantile and manipulative the only response is "my god you're an utter F*CKwit!"
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Well let's compare.

      KenMo breaths air for oxygen.
      Osama does too.

      KenMo eats food.
      Osama does too.

      KenMo sleeps every now and then.
      Osama does too.

      Maybe you should stop breathing/eating/sleeping?

      Just because Osama does something, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
  • mu1ti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14full-out mud-swinging eh?

    Woohoo..cant wait to see Hillary versus Condi get down and dirty in the fight for the congressional mud-wrestling title.

    ahhh...you would mean 'slinging' maybe?
    • wolfzbane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14oh god, the mental images!
    • thrustbucket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"i can only tolerate Clinton because her husband was such a great president. i can only hope his competence rubs off on her."

      Yeah my favorite part of the Clinton years is when he repainted our fighter jets with Nato logos and slaughtered thousands of innocent christians. Then successfully convinced most Americans it was justified, when it wasn't.Yay Clinton!
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1posted in wrong area. Digg down.
  • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -31/+7Funny thing is that Lieberman is a democrat that voted the exact as Mrs. Clinton and was crucified for the war but Clinton is not being challenged, hypocricy among the democraps, sit back and watch them fall apart.
    • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Hipocrisy? I hate them both.
    • asianchatbox, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14i can only tolerate Clinton because her husband was such a great president. i can only hope his competence rubs off on her.
    • DawgDaze, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5I'm sorry... but great Presidents don't do nothing when the world trade center is bombed and a gaping hole is blown in the side of the USS Cole. It's also not really indicative of a great President to live off of the economic high of the work done by Bush Sr. and the bi-partisan congress on limiting Congressional spending, only to allow it to expire and hose the economy just before leaving office, and then blame the problems on the next Republican in office. Great Presidents see the threat and meet it. You may question the ways in which Bush has met the threat, but at least he did something. Clinton was a do-nothing pussy, which is why, in this day and age, Democrats scare me WAY more than Republicans. Though I will say that they both scare me. The only real solution to any of these political problems is to ditch the 2 party system.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan had been the president who brought us into Iraq, I'd guarantee that the war would have gone better if not be completed by now. We have extremely poor leadership in this war and suspect motives. Anybody wonder why we're losing when we're spending 85% of our resources on "temporary" bases in Iraq instead of spending that on rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure?
    • KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Clinton never claimed that those who oppose the war were hurting the country by undercutting the president. Lieberman did, he wanted to silence the voice of opposition to Bush.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3H. Clinton, not that I'm a big fan, also admitted when the war was progressing poorly despite her support for it. Lieberman, as well as most of the Bush administration, denied the realities even when they became obvious to most Americans.
  • Akyan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33First of all I just wanted to say that I am based in the UK, and just wanted to say that I was horrified by the coverage from the US based media outlets during the latest terror incident. I was using SKY to switch between the UK based media (i.e. BBC News24, Sky) and the likes of FOX News and I can honestly say that I am surprised that America is not more screwed up that sometimes it is. The Fox News coverage was so inflammatory, but not just that but many of their so called in house experts were plain making things up to make the situation sound even more frightening that it already was. I think the perfect demonstration of this was the headline shown on the banner for sometime:

    "Terror in the Sky"

    I mean seriously for a start there was terror anywhere in the sky since the plot was foiled, so this title is stupid. Anyway I could go on but don't have the energy, so just my 2 pence on the "American Media".
    • Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Our news stations have turned into horror fiction since 9/11, it's all about making the biggest splash possible and not about reporting fact.
    • Shlep, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25You need to understand that Fox news is extremely biased towards the conservatives and they stand to lose big-time in the upcoming November election. The people at the Republican National Committee call up Rupert M. and say "make people afraid again, we have an election coming up" and so they do their usual twisting and bending of the truth for their own benefit. That's standard operating procedure at Fox. CNN and MSNBC occasionally do it as well, but since they don't do it all the time, and they also report the bad things that are going on in the real world, they are branded as the "liberal media" and there is supposed to be a "mainstream media liberal conspiracy".

      All of that on top of the fact that the news is now considered entertainment. Anything for the ratings
    • mikegre, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5I spent a week in London last month and I was amazed at how far left all the tv networks were. There is nothing even approximately close to FOX over there. People in the U.K. are only getting one viewpoint.
    • sabbac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16That's because here, news is a product that they must sell. The BBC is not so they report real news. They don't care about the ratings, they care about the news. Here in the states, It's ratings first, because ratings = $$$. That is why i don't even watch the news. I get hives from all the stress they cause with all the doom and gloom sensationalism that is going on. I'd rather be ignorant on the news, than have to watch 4-5 different news channels to try and figure out what the REAL truth is. BBC, keep doing what you're doing.
    • ph33d, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Reality has a well known liberal bias.
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"That's because here, news is a product that they must sell. The BBC is not so they report real news."

      The BBC does not report real news. During the initial invasion of Iraq, all they reported was what came out of the mouth of the Iraqi Information Minister.
    • cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I woke up at 3am that day to CNN International, as facts were coming out about the situation. Sure enough, 'Sky Terror' and 'Security Watch' were the alternating themes of the coverage. I made up a song about it, and you can sing it to any tune you want:

      Sky Terror / Security Watch! / Sky Terror!!!

      Just keep repeating it and sound angrier through each repetition, you'll get it.
  • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Shouldn't we have two political parties to... oh, I don't know... get the best of both worlds? We shouldn't be fighting over which side controls the most, what we need to do is get the RIGHT people, while unfortunately the people that actually want to make a difference are still slowly working their way up, getting more disillusioned by the day. I can't believe this country. I can't ***** believe it. If it isn't worse than usual now, then its the most open my eyes have ever been, and I genuinely want to close them. I mean, I understand the reasoning behind mud-slinging and getting your candidate in office, but they act like ***** children.

    Wait, why am I preaching to the choir? Either way, I'm so worried about my future when I look at the decisions made these days.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16That's why a two party system sucks.

      Vote Libertarian, we've got the best of both worlds.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Or follow George Washington's warnings and avoid political parties altogether.
      George Washington was the first to warn of the dangers of the Party (party politics). Below are portions of his Farewell Address of 1796. Very relevant to today's situation. Seriously, I hope you all will read this. He knew exactly what he was talking about.

      "However combinations or associations of the above description [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
      ...
      "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

      This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

      The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

      Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

      Full address at:
      http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
  • ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I am leaving the country as soon I can.
    • blogsceptic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13ajb2015: make sure you vote in November first...
    • GhengisKhan, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
    • izzie2, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"
      translation: Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Stay and fight.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23==============================
    CCN NEWSFLASH:
    NED LAMONT IS A CHILD MOLESTER
    ==============================
    An essay and opinion piece by:
    Chuck 'Please take me d.e.a.d.l.y. seriously' Roburps,
    Dick 'Shoot him in the face' Chayknee,
    and Jolie Berman

    Some would say that Ned Lamont is the child molester candidate. You see, he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq.

    And that would mean that the child molesters in Iraq would have free reign to molest children - placing American children around the world at great risk of molestation.

    Fact of the matter, this is exactly what Al Qaeda child molesters want as well. And Ned Lamont is willing to support their cause.

    Ned Lamont is a child molester. Don't vote for him. Vote for us.

    We want to stay in Iraq. Don't f*ck with our plans.
  • robbclark, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I can only say one thing. All of you people who call each other Liberals or Conservatives or back down from no argument because it is your political party or affiliation people are talking about, even though you are clearly wrong . Are really ***** stupid.
    • Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You need to work on your punctuation and sentence structure. It's hard trying to understand what you're trying to say.

      I guess what you're trying to say is:
      "People that blindly follow their political party are stupid."
    • robbclark, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2as well as people who poke fun at peoples grammar.
    • cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But it's fun!
  • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Actually, by forcing Lieberman to run as a third party candidate, it could give alternative parties a boost. Mainstream candidates are what these parties need.

    Frankly, I think war stance has been emphasized far too much in politics these days and the left is now in the foolish act of purging themselves of liberals who don't agree with the collective.

    Not one single political questionnaire I've ever encountered asks about ones opinion of the President or ones stance on Iraq. It has no real basis on ones party.

    Agree with staying until the Iraqi Government feels the time is right? Neocon liberty thief.

    Agree we should leave no matter what? Liberal terrorist sympathizer.

    This type of binary thinking is bad for politics and freedom of thought. This foul mindset appears to be bred in the bowels of the Internet where extremists from either side screech and propagate their poisoned views toward those in the middle.

    This post is not an endorsement for any candidate or specific party.....nor is it support for either stance on Iraq.
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"the left is now in the foolish act of purging themselves of liberals who don't agree with the collective."

      What is it about democracy that is so hard for you to understand?
      1. Politician goes against the will of the people that put him in power.
      2. People wote him out of office.
      3. Democracy!

      And to you democracy is a purge? Where are you from, Russia?
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're right, maybe we can have a third party. The "Support Israel at all costs" party.
  • nfph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10There's a really good reason why Chuck Roberts is on the news equivalent of MTV2.
  • jessssse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7what a dumb-ass. he answered his own question. "might some argue, as some already have...?"

    well chuck, it looks like they might.
  • ScienceDoc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6CNN is a part of Time-Warner and therefore is part of the new right-wing conservative media. CNN has become infotainment and is all about making money and not about unbiased news reporting. The news networks are all owned by large companies and have become tools of the republicans. Note that CNN frequently cite Gallup polls and Gallup has become a propaganda front for the neocons.
  • Gatorade, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I seriously love how Digg is full of Bush hating, Republican and Christian Evangelist fearing people. Why? I am one too. Anyone that speaks for the republican party or with a pro-bush point of view gets their comment buried. I can't wait until until 2008. Someone should make a digg story that just says "digg users should vote "insert democratic candidate" for president" and it should get the most diggs ever. I'm sick of our foreign policy, I'm sick of our leadership, I'm sick of how I feel less safe every day because of the decisions made by men that have never been in combat. I AM MAD AS HELL AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.
    • cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah, I love how those that have blindly followed the Republicans have gotten their rewards (tax cuts, not being called terrorists, etc.), and they cry their eyes out when somebody pokes fun at Dear Leader or points out that their viewpoint is retarded/baseless/fictional/ingrained by brainwashing. Boo ***** hoo for you, go find somebody that gives a damn while we try to fix the country you broke.
  • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9...because al Qaeda is so anti-war. *****.
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2No, Al-Qaeda wants people who won't kill them.
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Terrorism: Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

    By that definition, the Bush administration are terrorists.

    Who takes away your freedom? Who gets reelected out of fear or terror attacks? Who wants to tell other countries how they should run themselves? And how do they achieve these goals? And it's not lawful just because the US gov does it.
    • Athyrius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Someone wise said the only difference between any terrorists and any military is the size of thier guns.
  • Quash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Complain about Chuck Roberts at this link:
    http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4b.html?76

    Post in this thread that you've sent a complaint. Let's see how many we can get. It's important he and his bosses take note of this.

    Q.
  • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4What filthy garbage. Somebody should take these people and drown them in a bathtub of *****. I volunteer to hold their heads under.
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You could always just fire up the ovens and be done with everyone who challenges you, asks questions you don't like or disagrees with you.
    • cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We've got most everything but the pain/dying part at this point.
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Koosebane

      I am refering to the scum that have been spewing trash like "And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?", spewing this at the American public at Karl Roves command for years now, with no other aim than to scare the American public into keeping this scum in power. The results? Grinding down of Americas army, another trillion in debt, a huge increase in hatred towards us around the world and on and on ad naseum. None of these people are challanging me, nor do I give a rats ass about anyone challanging me, it is the distruction of America at the hands of scum that bothers me. If it doesn't bother you there is something seriously wrong with you, which is evidenced by your "fire up the ovens" reference, is perjorative filth like that the best you can do?
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0For a person who isn't challenged, you certainly go on and on about it. You've even endorsed a death penalty for all to see.

      Methinks you're in denial.

      If you can't handle the media's focus on furthering controversy in the quest for ratings without sentencing someone to die, perhaps you should just shut the tellyvision off.

      That type of anger is what makes people strap on the big boom vests.
  • DennisK2020, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I hate BS like this. Calling Lamont the al qaeda candidate assumes that Bush's Iraq policy is actually weakening al qaeda. Bush has helped al qaeda's recruitment by invading Iraq, so why not call him the pro-al qaeda President?

  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5luckily we have a distinct choice in america.

    John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
    Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."

    John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
    Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."
  • leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I love how he uses the "as some have argued" as a way of slinging mud without actually taking responsibility for it.



    ***** Coward.
  • Jones1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3A Jew comment. That's the way they play hate.
  • thrustbucket, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2No Democrat will be elected in 2008, they have absolutely no domestic or foreign solutions other than to criticize republicans. Nobody is going to win an election based on criticism.

    Any intelligent person would have to agree that as long as the choice of who to vote for is between these two parties, we are pretty *****.
    • KidAirbag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No foreign or dometic solutions?

      The Democrats have bills drafted right now to redeploy troops from Iraq, roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy, expand Medicare for all Americans, and a comprehensive energy bill.

      All they need are the votes to pass them.
  • Quash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Complain about Chuck Roberts at this link
    update: he will get a copy of the email!!:
    http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4b.html?76

    Post in this thread that you've sent a complaint. Let's see how many we can get. It's important he and his bosses take note of this.

    Flaming him won't be helpful, though. Reason is the best response to weak reporters like him.

    Q.
  • Quash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2By the way, ask CNN and Chuck Roberts what his sources are. A journalist typically needs two. Or, is the "some people say" type comment just a tactic stolen from FoxNews who say that in order to say what they want without attributing it to any single source. Who said Lamont is "the Al Qaeda candidate," Chuck? Who??
  • patientzero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I notice that many comments acknowledge the use of fear by this administration as "job security"

    So, why is it so hard to understand why they might -- I'm not saying they did -- orchestrate a terror attack such as the events of 9/11.

    Bury me if you like, but its not a new concept. Throughout history, governments have been known to stage events to manipulate the emotions of their citizens.
  • JES63, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Any candidate that chose to fight the war against Islamic radicals would be opposed by the same type voters that chose to vote for Lamont. Lieberman voted against all the tax cuts, for same sex marriage, against drilling ANWAR, in favor of Kyoto, was the VP candidate six years ago, but he just does not have what it takes to be elected as a Democrat.

    He won't cut and run. He won't abandon Iraq. He won't abandon Israel. He won't abandon the battle against people who intentionally murder civilians to attain political power. He won't sit quietly as regimes based on this Islamic radical doctrine oppress all of the groups liberals have been struggling to empower for 30 years.

    What is astonishing is how quickly a majority of Democrats are willing to abandon the fight to protect these various groups. One would think that all that would need to be said is a few sentences to get Democrats and true liberals on board, but they would rather scratch their anti-Bush Jones than stay true to themselves.

    They keep their women ignorant and treat them like chattel. Nobody has the right to vote for anything. There is no freedom of speech. There is no freedom of religion. All matters of public policy are decided by religious fiat. They kill gay people (by crushing) for no other reason than being gay. They kill people who convert to other religions. They kill to silence debate if they disagree. They murder to cower opposition and intentionally kill civilians randomly to change public policies they do not like. They may make a treaty when they are weak, but abandon it when they are strong. They are permitted any transgression if they can make a case that it furthers the cause of their ascendancy because theirs is the "true religion" and they are "god's chosen."

    Opposing them is a good thing.

    When ideologies that are this ruthlessly evil are not opposed, they grow. American-style freedom is an anomaly in history. We think it is normal because we have always known it. It isn't.

    This battle will take generations. I am from the American South. I know when a racist, for example, is brought up a racist and lived that way for his entire life, he won't change. It is the same with these radical Islamists. They won't change. We can kill them and oppress them, but they won't change. We can, however, help empower the moderates and give them a better more free alternative. They will, as is true in the American South now, vastly outnumber the evil people in their midst. Evil may still exist, but it will be whispered instead of yelled.

    Iraq was an attempt to shorten the time it will take to reach the goal where moderates with the alternative of freedom, choose it instead of the radical islamist path. It may or may not work. But it will take years to know. After we have spent so much in treasure and lives, it would be insane to abandon the field to the enemy. Lieberman knows that too.

    • Leviathan777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I happen to think that taking the "fight" to the actual people opposing us would be a ***** great idea. That's why I think your comments are so amazingly ignorant and blind, and it's why Lieberman's gotta go.

      What we should have been doing: up port security, hire more intelligence experts with language skills (Arabic, Urdu, etc)., Lift "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies for people with those skills. Create small, specially focused and vertically integrated groups on certain tasks: catching Osama Bin Laden, . Stay neutral and fair as possible in the usual ME politics to avoid causing new problems while we go at the "root causes". Put pressure on. Train border agents heavily in document security, and give them tools for rapid checking. Create a nationwide intelligence database of suspected bad guys, and let anyone from CIA analysts to border agents post notes, like "This is another guy with the same name; please remove this image". Let pilots carry guns. Turn the "wall" between CIA and FBI into a legit "hint line" that allows information to flow without poisoning the tree of evidence. Convict a bad guy, somewhere, sometime. Embarrass foreign goverments into working with us by publicizing cases involving them unless they cooperate. Nationalize ownership of critical security infrastructure such as port security.


      Here's what we did: raided Burger King for employees to be rude and steal our nail clippers; fire anyone who is competent but disagrees with the administration's politically motivated, pre-fab conclusions. Cherry pick intelligence. Forget about Osama. Let him hide out in an "ally"'s territory. Make everything a secret so that agencies perpetuate the mistakes of the past - segmenting information that needs to be shared. Award security contracts based on pork, connections and bribes. Invade the wrong country. Turn us into the international bad guys by sanctioning torture at the highest levels. Undermine the rule of law under the Constitution.

      I could go on for pages like this. We've done everything wrong, and nothing right. Thank god the Brits at least remembered how to do solid, basic police work.

      Lieberman cheered the wrong policies all the way, and calls people in his own party traitors every chance he gets. ***** him. Bye, bye, Loserman.
  • edverb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Best response yet:

    "You know, some might argue that Chuck Roberts blows retired crack whores in exchange for their used Burger King collectable cups. Not ME, mind you -- I'm just sayin' some people might argue that."

    link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/20257/0301
  • wackyg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let's see. He wants to surrender to them. Wants to appease them. Agrees with them that it is all America's fault. No way they would support him.
  • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When you run from a fight you are defined as a coward. When you work to assist the desires of an enemy you are defined as a traitor.

    When you cannot see what people around you are doing you are defined as psychotic.

    Democrats want to redeploy our troops far enough away that it would take 7 hours to get a fighter/bomber back there, and over 1 day to get a few troops back into the areas where they are needed. I define those politicians as damnfools.
  •  

    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.