Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
"Mission Accomplished" By the numbers.
thinkprogress.org — On May 1, 2003, President Bush stood underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced that “Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Here’s a by-the-numbers look at the situation then, compared to the situation now. So much better than another scandal. Real numbers here.
JamesKeenan- 1473 diggs
- digg it
- espo111, on 10/12/2007, -13/+91wmd found: 0
osama bin-ladens captured:0
Iraqi Dead Since March 2005: 28,976
way to go curious George...- ddast, on 10/12/2007, -27/+148Which numbers? These ones?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 - Hillsfar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42And of course we all know his administration first lied and said that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was spontaneously put there by enthusiastic service members.
Turns out the administration was the one that purchased the banner and ordered the banner placed there and pretended it was put there by the troops.
At least using our troops as a stage prop doesn't put them in harm's way. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10Man, Bush really turned something that started off so well into something that's on par with a lying, fumbling, saggy-breasted, pretzel-choking train wreck. He had an 86% approval rating, now he's got a 26% approval rating. I think that pretty much sums up how the general population feels about him.
- mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -47/+7lol, thinkprogress.org
skip and burried - donatj, on 10/12/2007, -39/+7last I checked there were many missions in a war, maybe I'm wrong
Also, talking purely numbers, despite us being in iraq longer than ww2, lets compare our casualties in Iraq versus WW2. - Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -24/+14That's not entirely true. We have found WMD's, but they have been from before the first Gulf war. We've found about 500 of them. Saddam wasn't supposed to have those either. So you're not quite technically correct.
Wargalas - donatj, on 10/12/2007, -30/+12ww2 just allies:
Military dead:
Over 14,000,000
Civilian dead:
Over 36,000,000
Total dead:
Over 50,000,000
Iraq
Iraqi Security Forces casualties (post-Saddam era):
5,000+ killed (police)[11][12]
2,800+ killed (military);[13]
Total killed: 7,800+
Total wounded: 41,300+ [14]
Coalition dead: (3,346 US, 146 UK, 125 other, *769 contractors) 4,364[15][8]
Coalition Missing or Captured (US 2): 2
Coalition Wounded, severely injured**
United States:
24,764 wounded,[15]
26,188 severely injured[15]
United Kingdom:
~310 wounded
2,436 severely injured[16][17] Contractors:
7,761 wounded & severely injured[18]
Other Coalition:
282 wounded & severely injured
Total: 61,622
50,000,000 Allies in less time than 61,622 TOTAL... erm, this isn't a war, this is a skirmish - RobN, on 10/12/2007, -26/+13From Bush's actual speech that day (I know most of you Bush bashers have trouble reading anything longer than "Mission Accomplished," but you should try some day):
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. ... The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq."
And later...
"The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."
Sad thing is, terrorists have succeeded in changing our purpose and weakening our resolve. The democrats are right, we have lost -- the fact that they're willing to say so and that they're willing to abandon Iraq and turn it over to whoever fills the power vacuum we'll leave proves it. Democrats don't want to press on to victory, in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. - slipperyPete, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33hey donatj... nice talking points.
1) remember.... this wasn't a war. this was supposed to be a mission/battle within the War on Terror.
2) comparing this war to WW2 is about as ignorant as the 26% of people that still think bush is doing a good job. - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23@donatj
The amount of medical advancements since world war II, or should I say because of world war II, are amazing. The numbers of deaths really do not apply because many of the resaons that soldiers died on the battle feild and while they were being taken care of has either been greatly reduced or done away with completely.
Second of all you are comparing the deaths between the war in iraq and a "WORLD" war...... any bells setting off in your head yet? Besides you have to have something wrong with you if a war needs a certain amount of deaths to be called a war. Next your gonna say that the history books should say the cold "dispute" era instead of cold war. - shootdashit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3on comparing the two wars...wasn't WWII the war we entered after a terror group, where most of its members who took part in the attack were from another country, attacked us at Pearl Harbor and then the US for some reason retalliated towards Japan? or wait...Japan attacked us and we went after Japan. same thing...almost. /end sarcasm
- FatherVic, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8@espo111
Saddam killed 290,000
...that we know about.
Check the Human Rights Watch website. All the info is there on Saddam's reign of HORROR! - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@FatherVic guess what? We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. We didn't go there because Saddam killed all those people. We went there because Iraq was supposedly harboring terrorists, and had WMD's. He was going to kill everyone in America, unless we acted quickly, OK. Unfortunately, that was all a lie. Now it turns out we just wanted to build a lot of military bases over there, use our P2OG plans to balkanize the region, and make it a lot easier to stage war and aggression to other parts of the region, in lets say IRAN.
It also turns out that guess who supplied Saddam with all the mustard gas he gassed all those people with, the USA.
Guess who kept on sending aid and support to Saddam AFTER he killed all those people? The USA.
Guess which country turned violently upon Saddam once he decided to make the oil fields an Iraqi enterprise and open the pumps to full capacity. The USA. Because we couldn't have all that oil pumped out, as it would drive prices down tremendously.
Was Saddam a bad man, sure. Did he deserve sanctions, and some kind of retribution, sure.
Were the American people lied to? YES and that is what should NOT be happening. - glmory, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Comparing the American dead in this war, to World War 2 is perfectly legit. Many Americans say this is an unwinnable war, and we have already lost. From a military standpoint though comparing it to World War 2 shows just how much hell the American Military is capable of going through and still winning. 3000 American deaths is nothing like the 400 000 we lost then. At the rate of 100 American Dead a month we currently are at in Iraq we could stay in Iraq over three hundred years before they would have inflicted the same number of American Casualities that World War Two did! When you consider that our population is more than twice as large as it was then we could stay six hundred years before the same proportion of our current population will have died in Combat!
We may very well lose in Iraq, be forced out in shame. However it will be because it was a silly war to fight in the first place, not because our military couldn't handle it. We could easily draft two or three million soldiers and send them over to watch every corner in Iraq if it wasn't for the fact this war is simply not considered important enough to win.
That is the real debate people need to be having. Is the war in Iraq important enough to win? If so why is our standing army half the size it was during the Korean war? That needs to change, and now. Probably by instituting a draft. If it is not important enough to win, than we simply need to find a way out that reduces civilian casualties from civil war to as low of a level as is possible. We messed up the country. Whatever we decide, whatever your views on whether the war should have been started, it is our responsibility to do everything we can to make the iraq of a decade from now a better place to live than the iraq of two decades ago, or at the very least better than the iraq of today. - thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Why does everyone leave out the very next sentence after "the US and our allies have prevailed"? It's even in the same paragraph - the last sentence of the very first paragraph of the speech:
"And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."
What we had prevailed in doing was accomplishing the ultimate goal set out by the Iraq Liberation Act: to accomplish regime change in Iraq. That Act was passed by congress and signed by CLINTON in _1998_. My god, I don't like that we're over there more than anyone else but this is almost coming down to downright lying as opposed to the usual "spin."
Here's the wiki for the Iraq Liberation Act so you can read it for yourself and here's a little blurb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
"The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."
THAT was the mission: regime change in Iraq. After 9/11 we just decided to do it ourselves. - givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5How do you figure under 30,000 Iraqis have been killed? The leading medical journal in the world, The Lancet, said that over 600,00 had been killed in October, 2006.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/274e150e-5945-11db-9eb1-0000779e2340.html - technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@All:
World War 2 was technically a war, what we're fighting in Iraq is called a war but it's not quite that. In order for there to be a technical 'war' the congress has to declare war, it's part of being in the UN. The congress authorized military action in Iraq, not war, that's why the congress has so much power over the president in this 'war' just as they did in vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You like numbers? 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 CO How'd you like them numbers?!
edit: Whoops, ddast beat me to it by a mile. - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@*****
It's sad that things need to be explained to so many people. Pearl Harbor was a dramatic attempt to take out our entire naval fleet not to cause terror. What do they teach people in school nowadays?
- ddast, on 10/12/2007, -27/+148Which numbers? These ones?
- 1greenback, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Just add the remainder of his time in office and we can expect more maimed and dead "by the numbers." So I'm sending my condolences to all the families of the soon to be dead US soldiers. I'm sending my hopes to all those new cripples. And my regrets to all the walking dead children in Iraq.
- SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2I thought this was one of those painting by numbers things, LOLZ
- feckineejit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Cue the conservatives who will say, "Libs/Dems why won't you stop hurting the war on terror"!
just like the 'war' on drugs or the 'war' on obesity...- jjremy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9or the war on piracy!
go go 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0! - 10mod3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It was the Democrats that started the war on drugs. How come they never came up with an exit strategy for that?
- jjremy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9or the war on piracy!
- Smitty32, on 10/12/2007, -75/+11Why must everybody be a Bush basher. Grow up and stand behind your president, if your an American it's your duty, we voted him into office after all. See comments below from Sen John Glenn.
JOHN GLENN SAID Things that make you think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
>about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq
>When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
>have started this war, state the following:
>
>a. FDR led us into World War II.
>b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
> >From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
>an average of 112,500 per year.
>c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea .
>North Korea never attacked us ..
> >From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
>an average of 18,334 per year.
>
>d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
>Vietnam never attacked us .
>
>e. Johnson t urned Vietnam into a quagmire.
> >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
>an average of 5,800 per year.
>
>f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
>Bosnia never attacked us .
>He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
>times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
>multiple occasions.
>
>g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
>has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
>al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea w
>ithout firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
>slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
>The Democrats are complaining
>about how long the war is taking.
>But Wait
>It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
>to take the Branch Davidian compound.
>That was a 51-day operation..
>We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
>in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
>the Rose Law Firm billing records.
>It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
>Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
>than it! took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
>Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
>It took less time to take Iraq than it took
>to count the votes in Florida !!!!
>
>Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
>The Military morale is high!
>
>The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
>to realize the facts- nblsavage, on 10/12/2007, -7/+67As an American it's my duty to question the wisdom of Bush's actions and the end results of his mis-management of the war. Blind allegiance is a disservice to my country.
- dRuNk3nIrIsHmEn, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12So is bandwagon hate.
- Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41People bash Bush because they aren't happy with his performance. That's part of the whole deal in the US.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Do you have an American flag screen-saver?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31"Why must everybody be a Bush basher. Grow up and stand behind your president, if your an American it's your duty, we voted him into office after all. See comments below from Sen John Glenn."
I suppose you stood firmly behind Clinton. You'de be a "good German".
Bush decided to only listen to his own side. He has never compromised or even tried to hear anything outside of his agenda. He is not for democracy...he is an djingoist.
You are following a traitor, traitor. - ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8Really, where does it say what your duty is as an American? You have the right to question the government publicly and privately. The problem is that Democratic Politicians and their lemming followers offer nothing but defeatism and naive idealism for their own political advancement. And you follow right after them enabling their cowardice at not just "stopping the funding".
Stop the funding! That's their right. Why don't they just stop the funding?
Oh, no it's easier to whine about what a bad guy Bush is and how this is such a dismal failure and all his idea. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/12/2007, -26/+8@drunkenirish: This is so true. There are so many people blind with hatred of Bush, it is sickening.
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38I love how obvious it is that he copied and pasted those statistics from what is likely a FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: RE: THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! email. He even left the "when democrats attack you say this" part of the email on the top. lulz.
Just further demonstrating that he didn't think for himself.
Go back to church, they'll tell you what to do. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"@drunkenirish: This is so true. There are so many people blind with hatred of Bush, it is sickening."
I agree...there are thousands in their corporations and party to hate. Don't spare it on the little boy they cower behind and push to the front. Plenty of hating to be had by all. - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Iraq attacked us? Must've missed that. They attacked oil interests in Kuwait. MUCH bigger sin.
- toonworld, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19@smitty32
Oh... My.... God!
For the love of the human species, please remove yourself from the gene pool by immediately castrating yourself with a pair of rusted scissors!!
I think the only somewhat accurate quote would be "Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB". That's true, he IS doing a great job of manipulating the media and mis-informing the public!
How can you take those comparisons as logical proof that Bush is doing a good job? Comparing loss of lives in a war to loss of lives in a US city? The numbers are way off and even then, wtf??? This just proves that bush shouldn't have spend $400+ Billion on a war about a country, but rather spend it on his own country to boost education, better health care, fight poverty, fight crime, social programs.... there's so much more good that could have come out of that money than to buy weapons just to use them on civilians! I'm not saying that the all US troops do it on purpose, I'm saying that a lot of innocent get caught in the cross-fire!
Dude, seriously... check the facts! - skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@drunkenirish
"So is bandwagon hate."
I sooo heartily agree. I personally think our president is an utter failure. I think he is quite literally the stupidest president we have ever had. I arrived at these opinions by watching the news and reading the papers. Not just the Colber Report or the Daily Show (both of which are hilarious). I am not just blindly restating things that I have heard other people say. However, I see way to many people who Bush bash. While I agree with what they are saying in many cases, I am sickened that the vast majority of these people have no idea what they are talking about. When I hear somebody say a direct quote from Digg, Wikipedia, or the Colber Report/Daily Show and present it as their own very serious idea, I cringe. I think Bush is terrible, but whatever you think of him, make sure that it's YOU who thinks it. And try and examine why it is that you think that. Look for facts that both agree with and disagree with your feelings (there is ALWAYS two sides to any argument and both ALWAYS have some degree of validity). - sgglynn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@smitty32
You made a couple decent points there, but you cant just tell people "it's their duty to agree with the president" even as a republican that once approved of his job (Dont bury yet.... i said ONCE approved of his job) There is never a reason to blindly follow someone, especially a politician - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3if the people of the land oppose what their leader is doing they should be as loud as possible. Hey, if patriotism and duty could be used as a valid excuse in the Nuremberg Trials why on earth should it work for americans?
- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did."
Germany declared war on us in January 1942 so they could start sinking our ships headed for England.
The loyal Bushies can't even present two points in a row without making a dishonest argument. - pkonink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13>a. FDR led us into World War II.
+ Because war happens, whether we like it or not. Some wars are justified - did FDR go on the radio and lie utterly about why we should go to war? Short answer: no.
>b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
+ Germany and Japan had a war pact, an alliance. Japan attacking us was essentially the same as Germany attacking us.
> >From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
>an average of 112,500 per year.
+ That is because it was a World War for territory, not just ideology. This is not a war, as many would like you to believe so that they can use the military to fight rather than police and intelligence. In 1941 it was very simple: the Axis controlled almost the entirety of Europe (except the die-hard Brits, God bless them) and Japan was making strong headway in Asia. We were clearly next. The Islamists, as heinous as they are, do not want to invade Europe or America (not yet) they just want us out of their after 1,000+ years of crusades and 50+ years of colonialism. When they decide they want to try to invade us in 20-30 years then we'll be ready, but now ... they may not have to wait that long.
>c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea .
>North Korea never attacked us ..
> >From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
>an average of 18,334 per year.
+ This is true, and now you are seeing where the beginnings of our slippery slide into our addiction to the military-industrial complex has led us.
>d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
>Vietnam never attacked us .
+ See the above comment.
>e. Johnson t urned Vietnam into a quagmire.
> >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
>an average of 5,800 per year.
+ Ummm, yes see the two above comments. Also, despite the tone and talking points of your list - Iraq is not a democrat vs republican war - this concerns ALL Americans. And as someone who is neither a Democrat or a Republican it drives me insane to think people like you are using the sacrifices of the bravest of Americans for your dirty political propaganda.
>f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
>Bosnia never attacked us .
>He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
>times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
>multiple occasions.
Bosnia was a war in Europe's backyard. Many large wars (WWI for example) were begun in and because of the Balkans. The European countries fighting then were and are now our NATO ALLIES. We could not turn our backs on them, and this was a multilateral war fought with our ALLIES.
As to Osama, just because a previous corrupt president dropped the ball does not make the current corrupt president any less to blame.
>g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
>has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
>al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea w
>ithout firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
>slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
First off - "liberated?" This is so childish and non-sequiter I won't respond. But as to the others: yes, Hussein was a horrible man and deserved what he got. But at what price? How many future Husseins are being created by this war? And the inspections would have happened regardless of who was president, they would have to since Iran is a dangerous nation ... made dangerous by our (both Dem and Rep backed) failed policies of propping up the evil dictatorship of the Shah.
>The Democrats are complaining
>about how long the war is taking.
I think your missing the point. Lots of people regardless of politics are complaining about the length of the war. And when they say that, what they're really complaining about isn't the length in time, it's the fact that we have been losing for a long time and squandered our only chance to win before the invasion even happened when Rumsfeld decided not to listen to his generals and invaded with an inadequately-sized force. Read the Art of War, moron, Rumsfeld must not have. Or he read the part on speed and then closed the book, thinking that was enough.
>But Wait
>It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
>to take the Branch Davidian compound.
>That was a 51-day operation..
Again, another failed administration's blunders do not make the current one's blunders any less damaging or heinous. Besides, despite what the Branch Davidian and Ruby Ridge debacles meant for limitations of our rights utterly pale in comparison to the trashings our rights have received under the Bush regime.
>We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
>in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
>the Rose Law Firm billing records.
That's because Hillary and Bill are crooks, just like the Bush regime, but if all Bush had his hands in was Enron and the like, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? Lets not forget Enron, Bush's Whitewater.
>It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
>Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
>than it! took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
>Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
Umm, what does Kennedy's crime have to do with war? He got drunk and because of it a young girl died - that is sad and reprehensible in the highest degree. But Bush lied to a nation of 300 million and a world of 6 billion. And now thousands are dead. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.
>It took less time to take Iraq than it took
>to count the votes in Florida !!!!
If there hadn't been such dirty ballot tampering and fraud, if that entire farce of an election hadn't been rigged, this talking point would not exist. That's like me stealing your bike and setting fire to your house, then blaming you for not calling the fire department to save your family as the house burnt down because you were on the phone with the police about your bike.
>Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
>The Military morale is high!
Well, I happen to some people on active duty in America and around the world. Let's just say they nor their comrades they tell me about are not exactly Bush supporters. But to our (still, despite it all) great nation's credit they still stand up and do the right thing. Bush, Clinton and their ilk are a slap in the face of our soldier's bravery. And because of them I am still able to maintain my own morale and my own hope that someday our nation will be healed of the insidious evil that has gripped it for so long. - alpinweiss88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"Why must everybody be a Bush basher. Grow up and stand behind your president, if your an American it's your duty, we voted him into office after all."
1. I never voted for him
2. I was behind him, when we invaded Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden. That seems to be his only sound decision. He proved that to be a farce.
3. I have never been behind him since. He hasn't given me any reason to support him. He is a disgrace to not only America, but the human race.
3. He doesn't serve me, he has stated so himself. He is there to serve those who voted him into office. (his words, paraphrased)
4. Quite simply, he is wrong. He has been wrong for 4+ years, and doesn't have the balls to admit it.
5. Follow him blindly simply because he is President? Wake up. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Actually it was Eisenhower that first introduced troops into Vietnam (first bailing out the French in 1954 and then sending in "Advisers" later on). Kennedy did however introduce the first acknowledged combat troops which Johnson ramped up considerably later. - RetiredExplorer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"we voted him into office after all."
we did?
also, if we are comparing iraq to WWII, which side are we playing this time?
(think about the actions taken to spread our political system across the world, the increasing restrictions on our nation's freedoms, the overwhelming emphasis on a national religion, etc.) - yellowdragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Why must everybody be a Bush basher. Grow up and stand behind your president, if your an American it's your duty"
I hate when someone tells me that. We can claim the right to be Bush bashers as much as we want to. As a puertorricans living in Puerto Rico, we are American citizens yet we cannot vote for the president. As American citizens, my people are dying in the middle east alongside your people in a war that was started with lies and deceits. As American citizens, we have the RIGHT to say anything we want, good or bad.
Sorry if you *HAVE* to be a good bushie. - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"In the fair city of Detroit"
LOL.....
Have you been to Detriot? It's a dump! - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm
- nblsavage, on 10/12/2007, -7/+67As an American it's my duty to question the wisdom of Bush's actions and the end results of his mis-management of the war. Blind allegiance is a disservice to my country.
- feckineejit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25DUmbass smitty - less than half the people in this country 'VOTED' for bush.
even though less than half the people wanted him in office he decided to take the whole country to war.
don't spout history as justification for wasting taxpayer money and ENORMOUS waste of life. There is no historical equivalent to us going to IRAQ and killing over half a million civilians.- ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6You lost the ***** election. How much ***** have people had to swallow because liberal democrats pushed welfare and social security and the new deal and the great society.
Grow up. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4and even LESS voted for the other guy.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ajkrik -
The point of this chart is to show the numbers. No talking points. No arguments. No blame. No politics. What do you see when you look at the numbers?
I see a lot of American lives sacrificed. I see a lot of Iraqi lives snuffed out in those daily attacks that went up 1000%. Now we have to ask where the numbers lead us. Cause and effect, so to speak. Where's the arrow pointing? - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10SpaceMonkeyZero, it's an undisputed fact that more Americans voted for Gore than Bush.
- Netrilix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Look past the fact that more people voted for Gore than Bush. Just look at the plain fact that less that 50% of Americans voted for each one of them. The fact that the winner in a presidential election was picked despite the fact that OVER HALF THE COUNTRY voted for someone else is just plain sickening. I'm so sick of partisan *****. Why can't we get a real candidate that we aren't voting for simply because he's "in my party" or "he's less bad than the other guy"?
- ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6You lost the ***** election. How much ***** have people had to swallow because liberal democrats pushed welfare and social security and the new deal and the great society.
- thekronz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Well...... well *****!
- edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Silly modernist, all numbers are false perception is all that matters.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Silly modernist, all numbers are false perception is all that matters."
Yes, what is your falsely perceived bank account number?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Silly modernist, all numbers are false perception is all that matters."
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Bush has said it many times. He is not bothered by the criticism.
Face it. As long as he and his cronies get their share of profits from the Iraq war, he just doesn't care. - Wonkanobi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11And we're not impeaching him because...?
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21He never got a blow job. We feel sorry for him.
- ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2. . . because the democrats you elect don't really want to open that pandora's box of politics and because they really understand that their line is politics . . . which you obviously don't.
- gak001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Because we don't want to make him into a martyr, we want him to hang himself! Let him run on for two more years so he can dig himself deeper in his hole. There should be no question in history as to the role he played - we don't want anyone to be able to say, "well, he could have turned the country around if only those darned libruls hadn't kicked him out of office."
Besides - President Cheney anyone? ::shudder:: - krached, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3tactically, keeping impeachment off the table gives the dems some leverage (and dick cheney of course)
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5OK! When I'm wrong, at least I try to admit it.
http://www.presidentialportrait.com/images/3392.jpg - miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I wonder if he can get some really good uncut cocaine.
- locitman, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Dead Horse + Stick = nice submit you pussy.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"nice submit you pussy."
Something wrong with pussy? I'm very fond of it myself. - locitman, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1nothing wrong with pussy the noun, i love it. just dont be the adjective. not too bright are ya?
- pkonink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8A dead horse? Tell that to the marine who got his face blown off but survived. Tell that to his wife. Tell that to his children. Can you do that, or are you a "pussy?"
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"nice submit you pussy."
- dipdip, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1damn bush and anyone who likes him. the man has killedso many innocent people and anyone who voted for him must have been ***** when they did cos no-one in their right mind would vote for such a dickhead. im British but if i lived in usa i would go to the white house and kick bush in the balls.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Hmmm, checking flights...seems like there's several everyday from Heathrow and Gatwick. Add in Edinborough (shoulda hit spell check first!) as a connection and there's several more.
Seems all you have to do is get to DC, take a taxi downtown, scale the While House fence, deal with several Secret Servicemen, make your past the other armed guards, break through the Oval Office door, and you're there!
Oh! My bad, you were just making noise. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Giving it some thought. Maybe you should go after Tony Blair first, you know, kinda like a warm up.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Hmmm, checking flights...seems like there's several everyday from Heathrow and Gatwick. Add in Edinborough (shoulda hit spell check first!) as a connection and there's several more.
- jamie1415, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Maybe this will go mainstream instead of just being covered by The Daily Show. I wonder over this same period of time, how much good could have been done with that $421 BILLION dollars...
Go play in traffic smitty32.- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, if you had $421 billion dollars, you could fund Medicare for one year. Not Social Security. Just Medicare.
- asauterChicago, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6421 Billion.... yet we can't fix Katrina, our crumbling public school systems, inner city poverty, public transportation, health care...
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9True. If you're a Republican, it's much more fun to kill Iraqis and reap oil profits in favor of politicians than it is to help Americans. You can't have everything.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, if you had $421 billion dollars, you could fund Medicare for one year. Not Social Security. Just Medicare.
- JamesKeenan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12A common stereotype and criticism of democrats is their spinelessness. If you an example, look at the Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate. When asked who would back Kucinich's impeachment movement, no one raised their hand.
They, as Gravel said, do not want to rock the boat. They want the safest least turbulent political career that they can afford.
We the people need to be the catalysts for this regime change. It is no longer patriotism in any form that backs this president. His leadership is a sham, and his performance is exceedingly sub-par.- saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Well, yeah... that's what Clinton/Gore did and why I was afraid to vote for a Democrat in 2000.
WTC gets bombed.... fire a missle. Ignore.
Cole gets blasted.... fire a missle. Ignore.
UN Food relief gets attacked. A few helicopters that were part of the UN peacekeeping force get blown up. Approval rating starts to sag.... Withdraw all forces, abandon the UN Food relief. Ignore.
Genocide in multiple countries.... Send 1 aircraft carrier and park it off to the side. Ignore.
Iraq keeps kicking out UN inspectors. Smells like WMDs.... fire a missle. Ignore.
Evidence of Iraq-al Quaeda involvement around a factory.... fire a missle, destoy an aspirin plant. Doh!
CDs start introducing foul lyrics. STOMP IT TO THE GROUND! FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS! Thanks, Tipper.
Suspicion about previous financial dealings comes up.... Hide the evidence. People surrounding it start dieing mysteriously. Ignore.
Get caught in a lie..... Attempt to rewrite dictionary instead of taking personal responsibility.
Yeah, and the conservatives don't like him because of an intern. I wanted someone who would actually go after antagonists regardless of his approval rating. I voted for him and I got him. I just wish that the digg generation would pick up a damn history book or read the news from pre-2000 to realize what state we were in before Bush and then realize why a lot of people don't like the Democrat side and that calling anyone who voted for Bush and idiot and insult to the point that they say we shouldn't be allowed in this country. - Mercymillennium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't know if thats true. While it IS just conjecture on my part I think that dems realise that another year of Bush killing americans in Iraq is good for them. 08 rolls around and I bet dems will pick up another 20+ seats in the house and maybe 6 or 7 more in the senate.
Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot and the dems are just standing around saying "don't, stop, don't, stop, don't stop, don't stop..."
Bush is the best Dem on the planet right now. He has done more to destroy the republicans in the last 2 years then anybody else I've seen.
When Dems got us out of Veitnam they took a TON of heat. America wanted out but did not want to lose. If dems went hard line on this war (like common sense says needs to be done) they would just get slammed in 08 because like in vietnam we want out but don't want to lose.
This corse of action is best for them because they can honestly show they tried, get things lined up for us to pull out in 08 and boot for republicans in the process. It will be decades for the republican party to recover from what Bush has done to them.
- saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Well, yeah... that's what Clinton/Gore did and why I was afraid to vote for a Democrat in 2000.
- Reinhart, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2For a visual guide of our president:
http://www.presidentialportrait.com/FunnyPhotos.htm - psitech, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6Buried - Liberal Blogspam
- miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4blocked for being a moron.
- miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4blocked for being a moron.
- mygans, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3pls. tell me i am not the only one who thought about HD-DVD
EDITED:
@ddast
i saw ur comments jus now......keep it alive man......keep it alive - jhonse, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Well, in all fairness, hindsight is always 20/20. America has little more right to point the finger at Bush then they do at themselves, because when you look at the numbers, a high percentage (70%) thought the war was a good idea early on. Of course its easy to see that it's a mess now - but my point is that most of the 70% that approved of the war then were wrong, so now they just admit it and point the finger, but the reality is that you were backing Bush in the beginning. Humanity is full of people, and people make mistakes, so God help ANYONE who ends up being our next president. It's only a matter of time before the American people try to tear them to shreds. We have become a dysfunctional country and all we want to do is shift blame to whoever we can.
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Try the Frontline documentary - The Dark Side, it explains a bit about why support for the war in Iraq was high at first, its mostly due to falsified evidence or unsubstantiated claims by the administration to push us into war. To me it's not "shifting blame" to place blame on those most responsible for lying to the public and getting us stuck in this war.
- saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Myko is right. And that "administration" did start with Clinton.
Proof? Look up any news, December 23, 1998 is a great day for it. - jhonse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Points taken. I guess what I am saying overall, is before anyone jumps on the Bush-hating bandwagon because it is the hip thing to do, the first thing to do is think for yourself, and don't assume that just because most democrats and liberals oppose Bush and the war, that doesn't automatically make the democratic or liberal agenda acceptable or good, nor does it mean that war is never justified. It is foolishness to think that we will never have a good republic president that may take us into a justified war at some point in the future just because we have a mess now and the media has over-exposed it. Even though I am disappointed in Bush and the war, I would never vote for Hillary, probably not Obama either. A new president will be a good thing either way in 2008, and that president will face their own trials, as well as those of the country at that time, and their job is to stand up and be a leader to an American people that increasingly doesn't want to follow or respect a leader.
- georgeslivers, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Bush won the election in 2004, after the now infamous mission accomplished photo.
Guess what you liberal losers. The majority of Americans voted for him anyways despite all the problems in Iraq. Most of these problems can be attributed to spineless Europe and the pro-terrorist anti-Democracy media.
Bush fights for freedom and justice, liberal losers would rather surrender to islamofascists.
The only real relevent question is how do we convince Cheney to run for President in 2008?- tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Bush fights for freedom and justice, liberal losers would rather surrender to islamofascists."
Ignorant comments like this are exactly what's wrong with neocons. First of all, the idea of Bush fighting for freedom and justice is laughable. Second, nobody in any point on the political spectrum has ever suggested surrendering to anybody. It sounds like you need to turn of Faux News once in awhile and actually learn something about what's going on in the world. But that would go against your neocon ideals I suppose. - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I wish Chaney would get the GOP nod in '08, that would pretty much lock the Democratic party into office for sure.
- miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5another clueless rush limbo fan posing on digg. blocked.
- spoonie11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Most of these problems can be attributed to spineless Europe and the pro-terrorist anti-Democracy media.
Wow. Who says the education system in our country isn't failing? Tell me, is there anyone who is actually PRO terrorist? I mean, other than the actual terrorists, is there anybody who is running around thinking "you know, terrorism is actually pretty cool". WTF dude? You might disagree with someone's politics, you might argue that they don't support the war against terrorism to the blind, ignorant, scyophantic degrees that you do, but please don't accuse anyone other than an actual terrorist of being PRO terrorist.
*****. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Bush fights for his agenda and that of the Republicans just as Clinton did the same for the Democrats. Stop kidding yourself.
- labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2georgeslivers doesn't have time for rational thought....
There are lives at stake, and he must help defend freedom!
- tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Bush fights for freedom and justice, liberal losers would rather surrender to islamofascists."
- tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Nothing Accomplished"
- sschnell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The numbers are hard hitting, but where is he getting the numbers? What is his source?
- quisph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Try clicking the links in the chart.
- mumblyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I wondered about that too, but then I noticed that the title for each line item of the table is a link to a supporting document.
- TrixC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Click on the category name and the source is linked.
- stlic, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Percentage of Americans who Believe The Iraq War Was “Worth Fighting” 70% | Approval of Bush’s Handling of Iraq 75% | Bush’s Overall Job Approval 71%. Surely this was democracy at work? With overwhelming support Bush seems to have been acting for the people.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A lot of those opinions are reflections of the misinformation campaign that was taking place much of it coming from Bush and Cheney themselves. I know many conservatives who now admit being embarrassed that they went along with all that so easily. That doesn't get Bush off the hook. A president has a duty to defend our interests and that involves not misleading or acting hastily on flimsy evidence.
So, let's not try to push the blame for Bush's mistakes off onto the population at large who were mostly being fed propaganda and half-truths about the situation, okay? The blame rests solely on Bush and his bumbling administration.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A lot of those opinions are reflections of the misinformation campaign that was taking place much of it coming from Bush and Cheney themselves. I know many conservatives who now admit being embarrassed that they went along with all that so easily. That doesn't get Bush off the hook. A president has a duty to defend our interests and that involves not misleading or acting hastily on flimsy evidence.
- spiderfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I have to be honest, I generally don't agree with most people on the right wing, but anyone who starts or ends their argument, entry, blog or comment with liberals this, or liberals that, or democrats blah blah or conservatives blah blah is just generalizing. Next up black people blah blah, Jews blah blah. We are a world made up of individuals with individuals views whether we describe ourselves in one category or another. Please stop generalizing, it breeds ignorance and prejudice. In being offensive you place other people on the defensive...Hey, just like Iraq!
Democrats are not all pussies and not all republicans are evil, not ALL of them. Everyone has an agenda and there is no more foolproof way of ensuring that your agenda falls on deaf ears than to polarize the debate into left and right.
P.S. If you are going to comment on Digg about liberals, democrats or the left wing in general be aware that you are heavily out-numbered and most of us think you are retarded it will likely start a digg-war.- labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is that many people are programmed to think that way.
If you read a book by Ann Coulter, or Neil Boortz you will see how they are filled with venom twords 'liberals'.
- labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is that many people are programmed to think that way.
- Nateon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7No Jaycliche, it's our duty as Americans to take down our president when he is not doing his job. It's what our country was founded on and it's the way it should always be.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I would agree nateon, but do it as it was intended, through elections. All this talk about impeachment is nonsence. The Democrats want Bush to finish his term (especially with poll numbers dropping) because it will make whoever they put up against the Republicans in 2008 look better by comparison. Even if they had prove-able charges they wouldn't do it.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2McParrott,
That is exactly the problem though. This whole thing is being used for politics's while your brothers and sisters are being killed. The republicans and the Dem's are both to blame. Both parties are your(as in Americans) enemies. Elections will never change anything, because it is the system itself that is screwed. When your choice is self-serving egomaniacs, or, self-serving egomaniacs then clearly there is no choice, and another way of stating a government where the electorate does not have a choice is ?
- espo111, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13""Why must everybody be a Bush basher. Grow up and stand behind your president, if your an American it's your duty, we voted him into office after all."
well actually we did not vote Bush into office, the supreme court did....
we the people voted Al Gore.
Gore: 51,003,926
Bush 50,460,110
and if we had a real democracy, we would not be in the state of decay we are presently in...- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2we'd be in a different state of decay.
Not saying it'd be worse, but you know... majority vote would've never ended slavery. majority vote wouldn't have given women suffrage.
The popular opinion is only cool if you're in the majority. In a democracy, the minority is easily tyrannized by the majority...
I'd rather a couple bad presidents to one stupid majority vote disbanding democracy in favor of monarchy for a particularly charismatic (or manipulative) ruler...
democracies have no checks or balances. - 10mod3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If we had a real democracy, there would be no freedom. IA democracy is based on majority rule. Do you want the majority to decide what car you drive, what clothes you wear, where you go to school, etc...? Democracies always become dictatorships. The only government that can survive is a constitutional republic.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2we'd be in a different state of decay.
- notaboomer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5number of contractors in iraq 5-1-07= ~150,000
percent of next iraq spending bill going to contractors even if "troops are withdrawn"=a lot
impeach now! - Stevejsam, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Hateful, ad hominum attacks against those who dont follow the thinkprogress group think, quickly followed by an instant digg down of ANY comment not towing the liberal group think party line.
Reminds me of tactics of....um..... fascism.- Stevejsam, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3And the best part- digging down my comment just PROVES my point.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAH BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH SHEEPLE FOLLOW THE LIBERAL GROUPTHINK - anachronaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'll see your digg down and raise you a block.
- Stevejsam, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3And the best part- digging down my comment just PROVES my point.
- pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I saw this BBC special that reported that when going to the Whithouse and do a search for that speech on board that carrier you can notice that they edited the video to not show the mission accomplished banner. here is the link oddly it wont play for me.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html#- mrcoderga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Mission Accomplished sign was flushed down the memory hole.
Yet another case of history attempted to be rewritten by our lovely Bush Administration.
We will not forget Mr Bush
- mrcoderga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Mission Accomplished sign was flushed down the memory hole.
- wolfyam18, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We are fighting a war against ideology with machines. We can't bomb out their beliefs!
..Unfortunately, we've got a delusioned President swinging Christianity into this - backed by military might. (As an atheist, I truly feel sorry for the honest Christian believers out there) This war is not "win-able." The best we can achieve is compromise and contemptment for each others ideologies. Troops and bombs will not win, it will only make it worse.
With-drawl troops, begin talking (again, but with far more intelligence), and clean up our f*%^ing mess. Stop fighting and start thinking - and that goes for both Dems and Rep. - RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1You libtards are who will destroy America. Bush has the balls to do the right thing. Same libtards who pulled us out of Vietnam too early.
- tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're a complete moron if you think we were actually going to win Vietnam. As for the rest of your statements, nobody really expects you neocons to understand the way the world works. Religious fanaticism and blind loyalty to a "leader" who really couldn't care less about you are the cause of many of the threats we're fighting against, yet that's exactly what you want here at home. Brilliant.
- RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Neocon or not - doesn't matter. What matters is that if it were not for republicans with balls, like Reagan, you would still have communism. Democrats just want to ***** things up more and NEVER offer a solution. Lets end one thing, and end it well. We all look like idiots. Win this freaking thing and lets move on.
- Mercymillennium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What exactly is the "right thing" do you know? I don't think you do. However I am interested in hearing your reasoning. Think about it before you post it so its not full of holes, or incorrect "facts", or just plain old wrong.
Then post it. - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@RealHyperx
"You libtards are who will destroy America"
How this this true? Are libtards going to rise up with guns and raze all the major cities?
"Same libtards who pulled us out of Vietnam too early"
How many more years of war would have been enough to determine Victory?
"What matters is that if it were not for republicans with balls, like Reagan, you would still have communism."
What do you think China is?
"Democrats just want to ***** things up more and NEVER offer a solution. "
Where does you hatred of Democrats come from?
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Bury: lame
- JamesKeenan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This isn't, to me, exactly about supporting or being against the war. This is not a large political statement, this is more politics leaning toward humor. That was my intent. I said right in the description, this isn't another scandal, just numbers.
It's not about war-mongering Bush who forced a country into war. There was a lot of acceptance. The reason it's so easy to jump on the "Bush bashing bandwagon" is because of how easy it is. The Bush administration concocted reasons to fight a war they already wanted.
THAT is so much worse than supporting an attack on a country that our government at the time swore was justified. The American people cannot be equated to this man or any of his cronies. Also, arguably Cheney is significantly worse, and more guilty of this. - OMightyColumbia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I am sure that most people here would say that once the job was done we should leave. Maybe the north should have left the occupied south after the final battle of the civil war instead of having a military presence and fighting the insurgency for the next 10 years. Or after the surrender of germany and japan simplying packing up shop and ferrying our troops home instead of preventing the countries from falling back into chaos. We still have a military presence in both nations. Get it through your minds that there is a period of occupation in every war, and it may see more battle than any day of true combat.
- pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Keep arguing amongst yourselves. Thats what they want. Labels thats were being reduced too; Neo-con, liberal, geek, jock, gangsta......and so on. The big bad government doesn't have to do much if we perpetuate the argument for them. And its not like its a conspiracy we all just think were right, and our way is better. So go on and label yourself make yourself easy to categorize, spread the dissent for them.
- FatherVic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0@rhawk301
....soooo....
we should have left him alone, regardless..., right?
From Bush's "why we need to go to Iraq speech" Oct 07, 2002:
"and practices terror against its own people"
"This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning"
"He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th."
"Saddam Hussein's terror and murder"
"It must cease the persecution of its civilian population."
"On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
So before we go regurgitating the Liberal "we went to war only for wmd" please actually read the speech.
Just as a side note for all you "Bush said Saddam Had Nukes" people:
again from the speech:
"Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem"
So much for being lied to...- FatherVic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I love being dugg down for quoting fact.
Way to go, Libs...! - FatherVic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I love being dugg down for quoting fact.
Way to go, Libs!!! - FatherVic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I love being dugg down for quoting fact.
Way to go, Libs!!! - toonworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well I had to reply on that one. First off, your quote was incorrect. President Bush ALWAYS pronounces nuclear weapons as "nucular"
So the ones about him being a Tyrant, oppressing people, executing his own people, gassing them, torturing them, raping them, etc. Well I'll give you that one, that would be a good reason to remove someone from presidency. So why is he not getting involved in other conflicts all over the world? What about Africa? He could go there, right? What about Somalia? The Congo? Darfur?
Since when is the US known as the international police? I think that first and foremost, before being able to call yourselves "international police", you should be able to be recognized by the international community as international peace keepers. Once you've achieved that, we'll see about the rest.
Oh and getting back to my previous statement about removing someone from presidency, do you not realize that Bush's decision has sent thousands of innocent lives to their death? I'm talking about the US troops just as much as the innocent victims caught in the cross-fire. Oh and don't even get me started on the decisions he took when the war/conflict occurred between Israel and Lebanon. The US still KNOWINGLY sold/provided weapons to Israel in a time of conflict between 2 countries.... I could go on and on.... geez!
- FatherVic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I love being dugg down for quoting fact.
- TangerineDream, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Fission Mailed
- ironpirate, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2its sad that thinkprogress stories get on digg.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2> Approval of Bush’s Handling of Iraq 24%
It's good that the survey included the viewpoint of the mentally challenged and/or Fox News viewers.- toonworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2so are you also saying that the "mentally challenged" people should not be allowed to vote? Hey, wouldn't that mean that Bush shouldn't be the President?
- mrcoderga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nothing Accomplished
Thousands of Americans Dead
Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqis Dead
Freedom Lost
Bush and Cheney Can Suck Me - gomp74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually, Bush was correct on May 1, 2003, when he said that the major combat operations ended. Since then, the terrorists have been spreading out, hiding among the civilian population, starting small skirmishes, suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc. The enemy realized that they had no chance against us in straight-up major battles. That has been the downfall of the war. How do you have major combat operations against an enemy that you cannot find?
As far as "mission accomplished", if you understood the meaning of the word "mission", you would understand that war is comprised of many missions. Advancing our troops into Iraq's capitol and setting up a base there was a major mission, which is what Bush was speaking of that day. Another example of a mission, for those of you who still don't understand the word, was the hunt for Saddam Hussein. - tehwinnar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the numbers 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0
- sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1or 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0
- deathromp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So what you're saying is that this war is about as effective as the war on drugs?
- 10mod3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the drugs won that war. It was the Democrats who started that war and they never came up with an exit strategy for it.
- cnorris1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They forgot to include the money Halburton has made so far
- PrivateGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We never would have attacked them in the first place if it weren't for all the claims back in 1998 about how Saddam needed to be taken out because he had so called weapons of mass destruction.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
