What is Digg?65 Comments
- neognostic, on 07/11/2008, -7/+52You can tell when Bush is lying, it's when his lips are moving.
- angusm, on 07/11/2008, -4/+26It's amazing. The reports that Bush didn't see (torture, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" etc) all seem to be accurate, while the reports that he did see (Saddam has WMDs, the Iraqis will welcome a US invasion with candy and flowers etc) all seem to be wrong. What are the odds of that?
Clearly, someone's not doing a very good job of keeping him informed. - hawkeye17, on 07/11/2008, -8/+30Simply put, Bush IS a war criminal for authorizing torture. Will he be charged? Probably not. But, history won't forget...enjoy your legacy George.
- jeb4, on 07/11/2008, -4/+23Did Bush say that there were WMDs in Iraq?
- krnldmp, on 07/12/2008, -1/+10It bothers me more that Congress knew all along the whole goddam war was a lie and went along with it anyway.
- krnldmp, on 07/12/2008, -1/+9In a non totally ***** country lying politicians have very short careers.
- rz8472, on 07/12/2008, -1/+9I believe President Bush. To imply that he is literate in any way would be to overestimate his intelligence.
- MortalynFlux, on 07/12/2008, -5/+13Impeach Bush and throw him and his cronies in jail before they do any more damage to the rights and freedoms of Americans. As if it was not enough that they have made a mess of the economy by reducing corporate accountability for their buddies in the energy and mortgage industries, while ballooning the deficit to record highs.
- Sabrejack, on 07/12/2008, -1/+8"Do politicians lie to us?"
Yes. Yes, they all do. Bush. Obama. McCain. Hillary. All of them. - toddcat, on 07/11/2008, -5/+11Bush lying? Wow...stop the presses.
- CyclonusRIP, on 07/12/2008, -4/+9You know that he'll just argue about what the definition of torture is and if that fails say that they aren't PoWs and have no rights.
- FlaNative, on 07/12/2008, -1/+6Fool me once; shame on you.
Fool me twice; we won't get fooled again... - bjornski, on 07/12/2008, -3/+8There's another one campaigning.
- Anfidurl, on 07/12/2008, -1/+5What gets me is how we could impeach Clinton for a lie, but even Bush's small lies (no pun) don't get the same treatment?
- germ5150, on 07/11/2008, -4/+8No WMD. Just a massive ongoing nuclear effort.
- krnldmp, on 07/12/2008, -4/+8Lie is the only thing George can do right. I think that's why Karl bonded with him so early on.
- DeePsix501, on 07/12/2008, -0/+4LOL he's like a 12 year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar. What? I didn't see it? Not me.
- Tyrghast, on 07/12/2008, -4/+8He was probably telling the truth about not seeing the report. The only things that grace his desk are coloring books.
- fireashes, on 07/12/2008, -0/+4WMD= Weapon of Mass Deception.
- urinate, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4While what you say is true, I strongly disagree with the advice. If any president were to be impeached, it should have been him. But I guess we learned to live with it.
- udahlen, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3It is fascinating to see that the American people seem fine about letting Bush & Company get away clean. You forced Nixon to resign for lesser crimes. But now, you don't seem to care. Why?
- 4321234, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4No. You're thinking of Republicans. They're retards. Demotards isn't a real word. You're trying though, that's good.
- bluesman3535, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3Yeah it does matter if a US president knowingly authorizes broad use of torture, particularly farming out torture. Maybe not to you but to others who actually care about where those types of judgments could lead, not only for us but for our troops and citizens abroad. Of course the corrupt Oliver North or G Gordon Liddy crowd thinks in terms of what they can 'get away with'. Great men like Lincoln think in terms of 'what is best here'.
- inactive, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Ah, you liberals are always so bloodthirsty.
The point was that powerful men don't leave accurate legacies. Like Churchill said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Churchill was a horrible leader, weakening England's global power almost immeasurably, but he's remembered as a great leader, despite the damage he did. - inactive, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3Yeah, powerful must mean great, right? By that logic, Stalin was the greatest. You're a ***** idiot.
Bush is a war criminal. God willing, he will get his throat slit. - CrazedLeper, on 07/12/2008, -3/+5So true. If the 'man' ever spoke a single true word, he spontaneously combust.
- bluesman3535, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Yeah,they all stood behind 'slam dunk' statements from our genius intelligence services about WMD. I think they consulted Exxon and got yet another affirmative reply on WMD, along with intelligence about yearning for their own US style democracy. Then they went in, but never came out. Just as the Iraqis officially state they want a withdrawal date a hidden 'yellowcake' discovery magically pops up. Well with the yellowcake and all,I guess another 100 years hostile occupation is justified, right? Stock tip---companies that make body bags.
- londubh, on 07/12/2008, -2/+4Let's add that to the list of crimes he won't be impeached for. Maybe someone should Write A Sternly Worded Letter™.
- badnewshotel, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3He looks pretty bad right now... just saying.
- inactive, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Well, the conceit we've all been living with for the last 20 years or so is that we have some part in the political process. In the 60's the civil unrest in this country really rattled a lot of people. It took a couple of decades, but the "stabilization" of America has pretty much precluded any of those quaint notions we all learned in civics. In fact, when I was in high school they taught a mandatory haf-semester class called Problems in American Democracy that I don't think anyone teaches anymore. 'Cause we finally don't have any problems with our American Democracy anymore. The problem turned out to be the "Democracy" part.
- 4321234, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Ordnance of Indiscriminate Liquidation.
- 4321234, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3He wears prescription pants.
- dupswapdrop, on 07/12/2008, -6/+7lie to the public once shame on you, lie to the public twice maybe you misspoke, Lie to the public a third time impeach!
- rearlgrant, on 07/11/2008, -3/+4The headline is a rhetorical question, correct?
- inactive, on 07/12/2008, -2/+3Have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ - soccerman90, on 07/12/2008, -2/+3when people dont have a comeback they resort to critiquing a persons grammar, thus changing the subject
- inactive, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2About half a million Americans lost their lives as a result of Lincoln's inadequacy as a leader.
- Fun4Two, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2I feel bad for the next guy who's going to be president. I don't recall any president who was liked at the end of their terms. If Obama wins, he is going to look terrible at the end of his term, physically and emotionally.
- bluesman3535, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2Syria....declared hostile to the U.S. but ok for a torture arrangement, as if we could believe any of the 'confessions'. GW Bush is the worst president ever, worse than Carter,Nixon or LB Johnson! Congrats GWB.....the Worst Ever! But in 6 months he can show us how to mountain bike again. I miss that, him falling off and cutting up his nose and stuff. And I'm sure he'll spend lots of new free time in Iraq with the troops he loves so dearly.
- paulzy, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Wow, I guess that didn't come across right. I meant because he is so so brainless that he says things and doesn't remember saying them.
- ricoboy24, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2I did not have sexual relationships with that woman.
- bassjam5, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Do you think Bush is going to skate away scot free from this mess? Maybe, but I believe in a higher power he will have to answer to in the end. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes no matter how rich he is.
- bigp3rm, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1When didn't this POS of a human not lie.
- StEligius, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1I swear I'm gonna pluck my eyes out and sear my eardrums with red hot knitting needles before this halfwit leaves office.
- inactive, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1The point isn't who would have been the best choice, though Breckinridge would have been a better choice at the time. By electing an "Illinois Yankee" the wheels leading to secession were put into motion.
The point is that Lincoln knew the nation was divided and didn't have the experience or the foresight to negotiate a compromise. And even though we dwell on the slavery issue, one of the big issues was economic.
Most of the southern states had year-round port traffic and purchased inexpensive goods from trading ships coming in from abroad. The northern states wanted raw materials from the south at a bargain price, but then the government started charging a tariff on imported goods that could be bought from the north. So, to oversimplify, the north wanted the cheap cotton for their textile mills, but then they wanted to charge a premium for clothes they produced with it and if the southern states didn't but clothes from them they wanted to levy a tariff on any less expensive clothes they bought off trading ships.
Lincoln could have eliminated the tariffs and calmed things down considerably, but the north was in the middle of a serious recession and wanted the money. A great statesman could have avoided a civil war. Lincoln is remembered as a hero because his side won. And instead of it being a war fought for a multitude of reasons it's remembered as a battle of good vs. evil over slavery, which was a tiny part of it. - altgeeky1, on 07/12/2008, -4/+4good idea
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is