What is Digg?446 Comments
- jftitan, on 06/21/2009, -19/+371Treason
but the question is. Who is going to take the blame...because when politics are involved, finger pointing is all that happens. Then the next big thing occurs and we the 'mob' seem to forget. Why can't people ***** remember what the ***** happened two weeks ago. - parisii, on 06/22/2009, -20/+218http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.ht ...
Bush told his biographer that successful presidents wage wars. I guess unsuccessful presidents wage wars too since Bush is widely considered to be one of if not the worst president this nation ever had. - roguenkatz, on 06/22/2009, -16/+161Nothing will come of it. We had the Downing Street Memos and nothing came of that either. The fix is in.
- m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -11/+154Great ***** thumbnail.
- emazur, on 06/22/2009, -15/+135why the Bush family invaded Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM1Rq4Q3qYY
I'd like to say I'm shocked, but after all that's gone on, is anyone really surprised? Bush was hardly the first to try something like this, either:
****
On july 26, 1941, Roosevelt ordered a freezing of Japanese assets in the United States, which brought U.S.-Japanese trade to a halt. In September, an oil embargo was laid on Japan, essentially a death sentence for the Japanese economy. In the following months, Japan's ambassador to the United States made numerous concessions to the U.S. government in an effort to have the sanctions lifted. Prince Konoye told Roosevelt that he would offer to meet anywhere in the Pacific, and that if Roosevelt agreed to resume oil exports to Japan, the Japanese army would pull out of Indochina. THe Japanese government was shocked when Roosevelt refused - although the United States had apparently broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew that its refusal would provoke the Japanese into military action. After a meeting with Roosevelt on November 25, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that the main question is "how to maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves"
- from the book "Gold, the Once and Future Money", p. 235
****
War is a method to enrich the war profiteers and to empower the politicians. Don't ever forget that. I highly suggest watching the documentary "Why We Fight":
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
and reading "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.h ...
and pick up the book, "The Terrorism Trap" by Michael Parenti. It's a short book about Afghanistan (published 2002), chapter 4 alone is worth the price of admission:
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorism-Trap-September-11- ... - borez, on 06/22/2009, -13/+121It sad that we live in a society where governments see war as a legitimate form of profit. Mass murder by the rich, to make the rich richer. What strange animals we are.
- PhantomRogue, on 06/22/2009, -3/+90Want to hear the worst part about this?
Bush is forgotten and will never stand trial for this kind of ***** leadership. When Bill Clinton had to fight off people left and right because he got blown by an intern.
So learn from history Barack... Start wars, commit treason, but don't let some intern blow you, because THEN we have problems! - m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -30/+102You see this is exactly why I believe in a NWO conspiracy. Here we have plenty of facts supporting the position that the Iraq War was not only unwarranted but practically manufactured. Thousands of Americans have died for some obviously hidden agenda but no investigation. Same idea applies to torture; we know it's illegal and we know it was ordered, etc. Yet no investigation.
Why is it then, so hard for people to consider that 9/11 might have been an inside job? Why is it so hard for people to consider that there's a shadow group running things? I just don't understand how people can't connect the dots here.
Like many people I've resigned myself to the fact that nothing with come of us but I do draw some consolation from the fact that I, at least, smell the stink. - ladysherwood, on 06/22/2009, -1/+64to NJank & acknotSW: yes he lied, and that is wrong. Lying is not okay. But the context of his lie didn't cost thousands of men, women and children to have their lives cut short. So which is the bigger crime against humanity? Lying about a BJ or lying about a country having weapons that they did not possess, and sending people off to die for it because they trust what the gov't says?
- whofarted, on 06/22/2009, -10/+58Like father like son.
During a speech given on 11 September 1990, U.S. President George H.W. Bush summed up the reasons with the following remarks: "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression." The Pentagon claimed that satellite photos showing a buildup of Iraqi forces along the border were the source of this information, but this was later shown to be false. A reporter for the Saint Petersburg Times acquired commercial satellite images made at the time in question, which showed nothing but empty desert. Polls showed that upwards of 80 percent of the American public supported the troop deployment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War - m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -5/+52What about pretending our warships were attacked as a means to invade?
Oh right..already did that with Vietnam. - h99d, on 06/22/2009, -8/+52oh what a surprise !
- bsmang, on 06/22/2009, -2/+43"but the question is. Who is going to take the blame."
GEORGE W BUSH. That's who. I didn't forget *****. - whofarted, on 06/22/2009, -6/+46"Can you even begin to tell me the criteria for such a ranking?"
Historians rank George W. Bush as one of the worst presidents:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/history/2009/0 ...
In poll after poll of presidential historians George W. Bush shows up near the bottom of the list. The experts have applied their expert criteria and come to the conclusion that Bush is among the worst. - m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -1/+40They're not talking about planning the invasion; that could be justified. They are talking about creating, out of whole cloth, a pretext for invasion. Those are two vastly different things.
Sorry but you're wrong. Do us all a favor and come to terms with that, OK? - Waiting2awake, on 06/22/2009, -3/+37I'll take a stab at it.
Because people, all people, look at themselves as generally good, patriotic and brave. If they looked at this honestly they would see the criminality of it, they would be forced to either deal with it - which means a fight or ignore it to save their internal picture of themselves.
So they ignore it. Clearly people that think I am anything other than a brave, patriotic person has to be crazy. So they sit and stare at all the evidence, all the memo's, all the coincidences, and see only thousands and thousands of trees - but not a forest in sight. - AaronPDX, on 06/22/2009, -3/+36No, you want to know the real difference? Clinton was a Democrat being attacked by the Republicans, a unified party of hate, who are in NO WAY above reducing themselves to child-like tantrums and wasting tremendous national time and money on their idiotic witch hunts.
Bush is a Republican, and Democrats have too many people with too much good sense to be able to pull off that kind of necessary unified outrage. We stop and think, "Why is this?" We ask questions. And as a result, not EVERYONE yells as LOUD as they can at the same time, and it's allowed to get by without punishment because at the same time, the Republicans are on the other side, continuing to push back much more effectively. - m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -2/+35The answer to your confusion is that the president isn't the one calling the shots, so he doesn't need to be brilliant. There are people with lots of money and they can hire the best minds in the world to do their strategic thinking if they want to. The president is merely a (powerful) facilitator and a public figure meant to give predetermined talking points to sway the masses.
- eShinn, on 06/22/2009, -1/+33You forgot Cheney.
- andrewh7, on 06/22/2009, -1/+33So, if someone agrees with the opinion of a journalist, most likely forming that opinion before or at the same time as that journalist and based on the same well-documented facts, this person is not thinking for themselves? So, if I was disgusted by the fact that 1 million Iraqis died as a result of an unprovoked war that Bush sold by falsely implicating Iraq as a conspirator in 9/11, then I am not thinking for myself if at any point in time a reporter publishes an article that states the same thing? Seriously - Are you out of your ***** mind? Do you realize how arrogant is is to believe that anyone who disagrees with you must not have reached their conclusions based on their own knowledge, research, and reasoning skills? Why do you pretend to be interested in the evidential support for an opinion that you would not accept regardless of its support? Fox News has you trained to disregard opposing arguments by attacking the intelligence and rationality of the speaker rather than actually investigating the argument. You're a fool and it's sad that you most likely can't or won't understand that fact. You are irrevocably skeptical of any facts that are inconsistent with your own preconceived beliefs/delusions. You aren't interested in the truth and especially not the effort required to reach it. Pathetic.
You people make the same argument with regard to Obama - assuming all those who voted for him must have been stupid or brain-washed. - wmuldoon, on 06/22/2009, -1/+30 firstly, I'm not a whining juvenile. secondly, he isn't perfect, I voted for him, and I'm not happy with some of his work so far [mainly the idea increasing the powers of the federal reserve, they did it in 1907 to dodge bank panic, and minimize bank runs, look how well that worked. Thomas jefferson would scold him for this, while Andrew Jackson punched him in the mouth.] But I do believe that isn't into face-***** the american populace. He seems to believe in peace, which im not too sure about the other guy. and he isn't scared to talked to heads of state in the brown people part of the world.
And of course we do want planning before any act of war on our nations behalf. what we don't want is this closed door idea of bombing a nation to the stone age. then coming out and having this "smoke em out" gunsmoke mentality, its obviously done us, our troops, and the iraqi people a great deal of good. - wmuldoon, on 06/22/2009, -5/+33wait. what? Yea, freeing the slaves, managing a country post civil war, and stopping the country from folding in on itself is horrible long term damage.
- Waiting2awake, on 06/22/2009, -0/+26Sp true. Sometimes, as Hitler pointed out, the big lie is the only way.
We don't want to accept the horrible truth, so instead we will accept any lie regardless on how empty it is. - emazur, on 06/22/2009, -6/+30I forgot to add this to my previous comment:
"Bush Said In 1999 That He Planned To Invade Iraq"
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00032.htm - richmomz, on 06/22/2009, -0/+24I wouldn't be surprised if there was something going on in IRAN to facilitate an invasion right now (not like it would be the first time we've meddled in their political affairs anyway). Which would be unfortunate because I know the protesters in Iran mean well and there's certainly some shenanigans going on with their government, but the current "revolution" has the look and feel of the "color" revolutions that took place in Ukraine and Georgia.
The plan may be to try to overthrow the government peacefully via a CIA backed revolution like the one that overthrew the Shah in the 1950s, and if that fails and the Iranian government inflicts enough violence on its people then we build up enough public outrage here at home to facilitate a military invasion. I hope I'm wrong! - MarkOfTheDead, on 06/22/2009, -0/+24Plus look at the character of both. Clinton lied so he wouldn't have to sleep on the proverbial couch for a month and no one died.
Bush lied to make his friends richer, and the death toll is still climbing but last time I checked, Published numbers were in the thousands..
Which is worse? - mikelieman, on 06/22/2009, -2/+25"Of course the invasion was planned months before it started. What of it? "
Given that Congress hadn't appropriated any money for it? They're elements of a crime, specifically violations of 18 USC 371. On another level, it means Bush also lied about what the money he had appropriated had been spent on. Lying to Congress to affect their legislation is a crime.
Elizabeth de la Vega FTW:
58. On September 4, 2002, BUSH also falsely and fraudulently claimed he was beginning an "open dialogue" with the American public, with Congress, and with United States allies to decide how to respond to Iraq, while concealing the material facts that he: (a) had requested a formal plan to invade Iraq nearly a year before; (b) had been conducting significant military and nonmilitary planning and attacks against Iraq for a year; (c) had directed significant military deployment to areas around Iraq; (d) was planning a massive air assault against Iraq's air defense facility for the next day; and (e) intended to work with the UN only to create a justification to use military force against Iraq.
B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously. - battins, on 06/22/2009, -4/+25He signed The Patriot Act into law. He signed No Child Left Behind into law. He led us into an illegal and costly war for a reason that turned out to be a complete lie. He required PEPFAR abstinence-only prevention to be funded significantly. He set the precedent for all the bailouts of the financial sector by signing the first one. I could really go on until everyone died of boredom, but yeah definitely the worst president I've seen in my lifetime. FDR did a lot to hurt our country, so he might be comparable. But what did Lincoln do to our country, anyway?
- Waiting2awake, on 06/22/2009, -1/+21I don't think that is what is being implied. I think it is not that it didn't happen, it is that it didn't happen the way they said it did. That they chose to portray it in such a manner to get the American people to accept risking American lives, to protect a foreign government.
- m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -2/+21I never said the American death toll was in the hundreds of thousands. Learn how to parse a sentence for multiple meanings, not just the ones that make people sound stupid.
As for the Iraqi casualties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ira ...
How is Obama different? This president has not lied us into war or left the worst economy since the Great Depression. How about that? - andrewh7, on 06/22/2009, -1/+20In reply to Fragowell, can you explain how anything that FDR or Lincoln did or did not do have anything to do with Bush's imprudent actions? You're deflecting and minimizing criticism of Bush rather than actually responding to it. If people are burying your comments, they are doing so because it is quite clear that you aren't interested the foundations of opponents arguments - you're planning to discount and attack those foundations regardless of what they are because you've reached a conclusion on Bush - a conclusion which you have no intention of changing for any reason.
You claim to rank the constitution as a highly important factor and yet you most likely have no concern about Bush's illegal domestic wiretapping, indefinite imprisonment of detainees for eight years without a trial, and usage of torture in violation of US law and international treaty obligations.
[Insert your response here that Constitutional rights don't apply to non-US citizens (a belief not in accordance with US supreme court precedent) or that only bad guys had their phone calls intercepted even though that assertion is meaningless since no warrants were acquired to support that conclusion)] - inactive, on 06/22/2009, -4/+23By letting the Bush administration to escape any form of punishment, all that is done, is to leave room for one more ideological madman to rise to power. If the left attacks too hard they marginalize themselves by basically attacking the independent voter (center left/center right), and nothing gets accomplished by that.
Look at what Bush ultimately accomplished for his `buddies`...12-16 years of a Dem in the white house and a GOP that is irrelevant and neutered. Good job! - mikelieman, on 06/22/2009, -1/+20Well, the UN would have had justification.
The US invasion and occupation wasn't sanctioned by the UN, was it? - lavis88, on 06/22/2009, -7/+26There's also the false-flag hijacking of civilian aircraft and blaming it on another government.. oh right... 9/11? Operation Northwoods?
- diggdatruth, on 06/22/2009, -0/+18You talk about AMERICAN LIVES only??? What about the million Iraqis who have died as a result of this war. It makes me sick. We Americans think that we are the only lives worth talking about and saving. For God's sake, talk about the millions of Iraqi lives disrupted as a result of this war. Talk about the chaos, the devastation, the massacre and all under a guise that is equally cynical if not more than the Nazis. Bush and his administration, Blair and everyone involved needs to be prosecuted and convicted (since the evidence against them that has been pouring in is overwhelming). The use of torture authorized by Rumsfeld and Cheney is common knowledge. I ask a question: Who are the real evil doers in this world? Please Answer.
- m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -3/+20Why, after reading this article, are you people digging him down? Manufacturing consent - it's what power is all about in a democracy.
- kendetroit, on 06/22/2009, -3/+20"Memo also reveals that the Iraq invasion was planned months before it started"
Well I'd hope so. Right or wrong, you better have an invasion plan hashed out before you go in. - m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -3/+20Only a sociopathic moron would send hundreds of thousands of Americans to fight, die and kill hundreds of thousands of otherwise innocent people to ensure that future historians would think he was a successful president. So that can't be right.
/s - inactive, on 06/22/2009, -2/+18And the above is an example of how a Republican brain works. Amazing. No wonder Rush and O'Reilly do so well.
- frequentFlyer, on 06/22/2009, -0/+16It's not the governments - it's the companies controlling the governments.
- m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -0/+16I'd just like to add to the Pearl Harbor story a couple things. First off there were warnings from various intelligence agencies that Japan would likely attack; this was allegedy interpreted to mean sabotage and not a full scale attack. Make of that what you will. The second thing was that the bulk of the Japanese fleet had disappeared and was cruising around, whereabouts unknown. Now given all the rest of the data that emazur gave you, don't you think it would have been prudent to put Pearl Harbor on some kind of alert? To move the ships out of harbor? To position them so as not to be vulnerable to bombs and/or torpedos?
But nothing at all was done. And that is how you manufacture consent. - tacoman359, on 06/22/2009, -0/+16Shut up you ***** imbecile. You really think this country has never gone to war with profit as a motive? What about when we went into Afghanistan, in 1980? Before 1980, Afghanistan didn't produce any opium. But by the late 1990's it was producing 80% of the world's supply. You think that's a coincidence? This country has made a lot of money off the drug trade, but you'll never be able to trace it, because it controls the media. And, we can just blame it on US corporations if anything gets out, because that's who we put in charge of it, to save the government's ass.
I mean, Iraq didn't have oil, right? That's not why we went in there. You think if we were going to invade a country to take out a dictator, we would have gone into Darfur, where 400,000 people have died, and millions have been displaced because of the current regime. But, no, there isn't nearly as much to gain politically going into Darfur.
adw1987, please do us all a favor and stop being ignorant. - ryanisnotsuper, on 06/22/2009, -2/+18http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/ ...
- goodbyegalaxy, on 06/22/2009, -2/+17So what's your plan? Chastise the internet and forget about it two weeks from now?
- ba5e, on 06/22/2009, -1/+15Its like Memento all over again
- AmazingSteve, on 06/22/2009, -3/+17So...about those WMD's...
- nerrve, on 06/22/2009, -0/+14Nothing will come out of these reports except the truth. george bush is IMMUNE to everything and will continue to enjoy his "ex-president' status.
F*** bush and his gang of oligarchs - genckas, on 06/22/2009, -9/+23The United Nations (UN) does not have a U2 spy plane. This is most probably a hoax as any such move would clearly point to the US made U2 spy plane.
- rewritable, on 06/22/2009, -2/+16"Why can't people ***** remember what the ***** happened two weeks ago. "
Movies
TV Shows
Video Games
Bars/Clubs
"Be happy, not sad."
Sad people think of bad things to do like refusing put up with ***** from governments.
Happy people go on being happy.
As long as we keep a 60 happy to 40 sad ratio there never be any real change. MORH TV SHOWS AND GIZMOS!!!!!! - m3arvk, on 06/22/2009, -8/+21Yes because there's no precedent for believing that this administration lied or that the US government has staged events to garner public support for war.
/s -
Show 51 - 100 of 455 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is