What is Digg?48 Comments
- laterthandawn, on 12/06/2007, -1/+33*****...for the second time today, I'm agreeing with Joe Scarborough. And Buchanan, too (God help me...).
If those guys are really over on my side now, things must be REALLY ***** up. - FongoBongo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+12The meticulous and careful war mongering that this administration has been cultivating over the past months has literally exploded in their faces thanks to the NIE report. Even now Bush is playing dumb by not knowing the NIE report existed until a week ago. Give me a freaking break. What makes matters worst is that he's trying to convince that Iran is still a "threat." Right now this president is playing a game of hypothetical scenario.
I do want to thank the news outlets for giving the NIE much needed publicity and informing the general public how much of a fraud this administration is. - zachshmack, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11I hope during my lifetime my country's able to restore its reputation. Isn't it amazing how little time it takes so much damage to be done?
- orelses, on 12/06/2007, -5/+15I would also like Joe Biden to hold hearings, I also would like people to vote for Joe in 2008.
- rz8472, on 12/06/2007, -2/+12A broken clock is still right twice a day. But as for the Bush Administration, that clock has no hands at all.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -1/+8yea what the ***** is happening? oh its a revolution with ron paul as the mascot? ok, sounds good to me
- scubasteve377, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7"Why drive us to war with Iran?"
Simple, its the same reason we went to war with Iraq, because Iran is threatening the our monopoly on world reserve currency.
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html - afruff23, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7Apart from his religious impositions on others, Buchanan's not the bad of a guy. He understands non-interventionism and handling Mid-east politics.
- matador3, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Buchanan has always been against Bush's foreign policy.
- ad33lshahid, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7so are you saying that we should ignore this intelligence because its probably false, and go to war because they PROBABLY are making a nuke? American intelligence was never a pack of lies, its a pack of lies when people skew and distort and fabricate the evidence in order to make it seem like the truth with the goal already in mind.
I'm sure they will make up some other reason to go to war with Iran though. I mean the reason that we went to iraq was for WMDs (btw nobody seems to be realizing that when Iraq told the UN that they had none--they were telling the truth, and perhaps Iran is too?), and then it was to depose a tyrant, and then shortly thereafter it turned to spreading "democracy" and restoring human rights. why don't the people in charge make up their mind as to why they are attacking BEFORE they actually do so? - GobBluth, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Bush is a broken digital clock. It's never right.
- monkblues, on 12/06/2007, -6/+11Buchanan has been calling it like he sees it for some time; he is one smart dude and people should pay attention to him.
GO RON PAUL - xenuxenuts, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5What we're seeing is the more libertarian people reacting against the authoritarians, with economic left vs right ideas taking a back seat. Unfortunately , there are more important things in the US going on now than taxes, universal health care, etc.
- cheese06, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5after all, he IS the Senate Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
- kainnation, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3IMPEACH... where's those WMD's?
- synarchy, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3And threatening the hegemony of the world "bankers" who make obscene profits from control and manipulation of the petrodollar at the expense both of the American people AND the rest of the world. Expect them to make war on Ron Paul for the same reason -- as he's the only candidate for president promising to take down their system of financial slavery.
- MixMastaKooz, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4I think you're confusing two things here: the NIE on Iraq before 9/11 basically said that Saddam and alQaida had no working relationship, and that his weapons program had been shut down (as per Richard Clark's book). Fast forward to pre-Iraq invasion, you have tremendous pressure by the executive to produce intelligence on Iraq's WMD AND you have Cheney's Office of Special Plans (OSP) cherry picking NSA and CIA raw intelligence (that wasn't vetted.). The CIA was blamed for the wrong intelligence about Iraq as a scapegoat (it helped that Tenet was ball-less), and you had a lot of CIA agents PISSED about how the president's and VP's office interfered with the NIE and any other intelligence about Iraq.
Fast Forward to Iran. The CIA, pissed off at the President and VP for holding off on the NIE for what seems to be a year (or more), screws Bush over by releasing the non-tampered NIE to the press.
Yes I believe the NIE because our President screwed the CIA over too many times. - MixMastaKooz, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Oh geez...that was pathetic. The quotes from 1998 never said that Saddam POSSESSED WMD's at that time. Instead, they called for vigilance and to keep pressure on Saddam to make sure he doesn't start it up again. None of those quotes said that Saddam had WMD's and were planning on using them. My argument is that Bush and Cheney cooked and cherry picked the intelligence to fool people into believing that Saddam POSSESSED WMD's.
Additionally, I don't want to praise nor admonish the democratic leaders who said that Saddam had WMD's in 2002-03. It is obvious that they were not reading the findings of the UN's Elbaradai (sp?) which I do take them to task for. But, at the same time, the Dems were given these cherry picked intelligence briefings by the executive.
That video was utter rubbish and is an insult to intelligent people. However, I do want to compliment your apparent mediocre cognitive abilities for attempting to think independently.. - afruff23, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5Maybe, but immigration is incompatible with a welfare state. Until we get rid of the welfare state, immigration laws should be enforced.
- jimmyhoffa2222, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5This has to be one of the most idiotic comments I've ever read on Digg
- FongoBongo, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5What crack are you smoking? Its not like this report suddenly appeared out of thin air, its been in existence since 2003. So would you rather ignore sound intelligence and continue to beat the drums of war? Do you want another Iraq? This country can't even afford the current war in Iraq, what makes you think its plausible for another? Who the hell do you think is bearing the brunt of this war? The elite? No, its the average citizen and future generations to come.
Next time think before you spew your garbage on digg. - stephant, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Then democrats were wrong I guess (note the dates of the statements please):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ - obxjdt, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1He's a proud Conservative, as am I! You need to learn the meanings behind the words...
A Conservative says what he means, and does what he says.
What does your party do? Say what it has to to get elected, then run from the issue....What happened to the Dems & Iraq??? Isn't that why you voted for them??? - obxjdt, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Feel free to explain....
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Now the true conservatives are pulling away from the NeoCons.
Example: KLIF 570 AM in Dallas. http://www.klif.com/ If you visit the link you can see that this station is a carries O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and other people affiliated with FOX.
The afternoon guy, JD Wells, has now become a populist. He said that if the Federal Government banned guns, that it was the end of America and that we would have a 2nd American Revolution, that he would teach his family to live off the land, and GET THIS, that he would not die in his sleep...what do you think he meant by that? He also said that tasers should be banned.
This is an example of NeoCons losing support from the classic conservatives.
I sent JD Wells an e-mail and here it is: (sorry for the length)
Greetings and salutations JD,
I was listening to your show yesterday and I was very impressed by your stance on our Constitutional right to bear arms. Now if you are too busy to do more than just reply by saying “thanks for listening”, then you can stop reading here (I hope that is not the case).
But if you are truly interested enough to chat, then listen up. I have been a registered Independent for some 18 years and I consider myself to be politically moderate. People are so polarized these days that you don’t hear the term moderate much, when in fact the majority of us are indeed moderate. So being a moderate, I try to find common ground with people, and then discuss what we disagree on.
Stick with me here, this is going somewhere.
I am going to ask you to stop using the term “Liberal” to white-wash anyone who does not agree with our foreign policy in the Middle East. It costs you credibility, for me anyway. The same goes for terms like “moonbat”. If you want to reach people, you don’t want to call 70% of the population moonbats, for not supporting the debacle that is the Bush Administration. Would you agree that Bush is not a classic Conservative (the term is so over used it has almost lost meaning, i.e. Constitutional conservative, fiscal conservative, social conservative, status quo conservative)?
I consider myself a Constitutional conservative. While I am not religious, I do consider myself a deist as our Founding Fathers were and I feel about our Constitution as others feel about the Bible. The Constitution is a blueprint for a free society, designed to keep in check the negatives of human nature (greed, corruption, and lust for power).
And so here we have our country that was born out of distrust of government. Yet by nature, government wants to control. There’s the rub. The Federal Government over time has usurped the states rights, and often acts as a foreign government that has overthrown our original government.
Now since you are a FOX news station, and Rupert Murdock has openly said that he has tried to promote the Bush agenda through FOX News, I understand that you might not always be able to speak your mind if your views differ from what FOX wants you to say. I guess this is why I was surprised to hear you speak of the 2nd American Revolution. From that I take it that you would not be considered a Neocon, but instead, a more classic conservative. I see Neocons as those who worship authority and in doing so are perfectly willing to give up civil liberties in exchange for “safety”. I am sure you know what Thomas Jefferson had to say about that.
Personally, I feel much more threatened by the Neocon agenda, including the North American Union, and the New World Order, than I do about terrorism. Driving in traffic is more of a danger than terrorism. I wonder how you feel about the Federal Reserve/Federal Income Tax issue. In my opinion, it amounts to servitude. I feel that this directly ties to the 2nd Amendment. Pursuit of happiness? Not likely when we work for 3-4 months to pay an Un-apportioned, Unconstitutional, Illegal (the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the states) to a private banking institution.
I am assuming that you already know that in 1913 Woodrow Wilson passed the 16th Amendment for the Bankers which created the Federal Reserve, when most of congress was not present, in return for the bankers’ help in getting elected. Wilson later lamented that he had essentially sold out the USA. I feel that he should have been executed for that treasonous act.
So I think that in the 2nd American Revolution, you will find yourself fighting alongside many people that are often mistakenly referred to as Liberals. I would like to see true conservatives recognize that the Neocons are their enemy, and also the enemy of our free society. I also wonder how you feel about Ron Paul, and restoring the Constitution.
I am very interested in your thoughts.
------End
While he didn't reply via -e-mail, he did say on the air that he had received an e-mail asking him to not paint many people with the same broad brush, and that the conservative he admires is Barry Goldwater.
I feel like I helped make a difference there. - lateralus, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2That's because it's the Jack Bauer digital clock.
- nicky7, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Yesterday they were calling bush out on this, then this morning they're back to promoting WW3 saying most of the american public stands behind bush?!? WTF! I can't even watch news on TV anymore, just pisses me off to see everyone marching to another unnecessary war, is america really this gullible?!?
- stillasleep00, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Old, but all the more poignant now:
http://www.economist.com/daily/kallery/displaystor ... - matador3, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Meh, he's a populist who happens to be right about foreign policy. That's about the only thing I agree with him on. I respect him for speaking his mind though.
- nicky7, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1They really only covered it correctly for one day. This morning they were calling the report to be incorrect, and that Iran hasn't stopped making nuclear warheads, going on to say that "most of americans are behind bush"?!? Seriously.. wtf.
- WallyAnti, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Buchanan has written bad column one after another regarding Bush's fiscal policy, SS, and the Iraq war. Go over to his magazine if you want to see it for yourself. Most liberals would probably agreed with him for most of the last several years bc his attention has been so directed at hating Bush.
Patty Buch's mag:
www.amconmag.com
I just plain don't likes this Joe Scarborogh guy though, no matter how much I agree with him. - BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1That's just it: Now the true conservatives are pulling away from the NeoCons.
Example: KLIF 570 AM in Dallas. http://www.klif.com/ If you visit the link you can see that this station is a carries O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and other people affiliated with FOX.
The afternoon guy, JD Wells, has now become a populist. He said that if the Federal Government banned guns, that it was the end of America and that we would have a 2nd American Revolution, that he would teach his family to live off the land, and GET THIS, that he would not die in his sleep...what do you think he meant by that? He also said that tasers should be banned.
This is an example of NeoCons losing support from the classic conservatives. - cmackattack, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1bout 55-60 years....yeah
- Spoomeister, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1There's method to the madness here. What neocon wouldn't love to tie up half of congress and the media with hearings? Months of Condi finding new and interesting ways to say "i don't recall" is a perfect distraction...
- obxjdt, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Wait a minute.....12 years ago he was a right wing nut job. Now you like him???
I wish he'd get into the race! Pat is awesome!!!! Closest thing to Reagan we have. A true Conservative! - silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Haha. I agree (albeit not as angrily). It's sad that the MSM is already passing this off as fact, even though the guy who wrote it said something completely different 4 months ago.
- nicky7, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Not the most idiotic, but certainly quite high up there on the list of the misinformed.
- cheese06, on 12/06/2007, -4/+3are you kidding me?! Wow wow wow, you should start reading up on his immigration policies, he has the rhetoric of a neo-nazi, and i'm not overexaggerating.
- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2It's not garbage...the author of this report is obviously a perjurer, unless the quote he made on July 11, 2007 is completely made up.
- obxjdt, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1Think yours hits closer to #1
- epicstruggle, on 12/06/2007, -5/+2Truth on digg isnt welcome, take it elsewhere.
- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -3/+0So then what do you say to the people who argue by saying we're justified going to war with them because they've been funneling weapons/money/soldiers over and are directly responsible for killing U.S. troops? Isn't that reason enough to go to war with them?
- obxjdt, on 12/06/2007, -8/+3If I want to get info from croksandliars, I'll go to their web site. For God's sake, please stop posting CRAP from this LEFT WING blog !!!!
I will NEVER vote for a democrat when this is the type of propaganda they use.
Tell me what you believe in, and where you want to take the country if you want my vote. I've had enough of the hate Bush crap!!!
Stand on your own two feet or STFU. Bush ain't running in 2008, why run against him? there are almost 30 other candidates, (8 that are viable) that want to be president. Why run against Bush??? He's done!!! Stand up for what you believe in, not what you're against!!! - stephant, on 12/06/2007, -9/+3So wait, now we all believe intelligence? Now American intelligence isn't a pack of lies? Are you people kidding me? When it supports your view then it's the truth and we should accept it but if it doesn't support your views it's a lie that should be investigated (not to mention a president should be impeached over it).
Thankfully, digg is hardly as important as the regulars think it is. You guys did do a heck of a harassment job on that girl that dumped her boyfriend on facebook (or whatever it was) so congratulations . . . you're important. That's about all most of you need to ever think about. Leave politics out of your daily life for good. - epicstruggle, on 12/06/2007, -7/+1Hold hearing on why it took so f-ing long for people to see that Iran did have a nuclear weapons program..... Ooooopss..... you dont want those kinds of hearings do you?
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -11/+4Funny how all of a sudden the NIE is gospel in 2007 but in 2005 it was neo-con war mongering propaganda. I guess if it tells you want you wanna hear you'll believe anything.
- Benprofane, on 12/06/2007, -10/+2When Pat Buchanan sounds sane, it is time to rethink things.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is