digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Power Shortage In Baghdad Interrupts Bush Administration Press Conference

thinkprogress.org — The TurkishPress notes that “the hall was plunged into darkness by one of Baghdad’s regular power cuts, despite the fact the venue was in the capital’s heavily-fortified Green Zone, also home to the US embassy.” Here’s a screenshot from CNN:

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 24, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

70 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Jagula, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Not one comment has said anything about it being Bush's fault. Though in all truthfulness, it IS his fault for dragging us into this *****' thing in the first place.
  • skoles, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20He wasn't a threat to us in any way.
  • OhJay, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Libtards? That's an awesome slur. Do you write your own talking points?
  • iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Hey Cleotis, who bombed the country when the inspectors were not able to find any of the weapons we said they had. We were so sure about the weapons Cheney said there was "no doubt" and Rumsfeld even said "We know where they are".

    Who do you blame for the state of Iraq? The out-of-power liberals?
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Saddam did better in Iraq than we have, and ever will. Unfortunately the only thing that kept the country together, was that if the multiple ethnic groups that hated eachother start fighting, Saddam would put the foot down. Sure, he probably did some horrible things, and used some horrible weapons, but not since before 1991 when we put his ass in check. Democracy doesn't work when people are ready and willing to kill their neighbors.

    If we are going to overthrow every leader who committed a war crime, we might as well start with Bush.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, that's Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR, Blackwater....etc.
  • Herald42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Cleotis:
    Please do try to respond to the post who responded to you, and not start an entirely new topic for every one of your responses. It helps people follow the conversation.

    Thanks.
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Oh, I don't know, maybe a bunch of AK74-toting guys the military picked up off the battle field in Iraq or Afghanistan? You know, the guys who were shooting at them? They aren't US citizens. They have no right to any judicial review. They tried to kill our Soldiers; they're lucky to be alive."

    - Ok, so, let me get this straight. We invade their country illegally, and they are supposed to hand it over to us? If we got invaded, would you hand over your weapons and country?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

    - If these guys are so bad, and it is so obvious, how come not one of the over 400 detainees in guantanimo been charged and convicted?

    "After you read the Bill of Rights, you might study up on other times in American history when a President has suspended Habeas Corpus. Maybe you'll gain some perspective. (Hints: Lincoln and Grant)."

    - If you also read the Constitution, you would know that we are not to suspend Habeas Corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_Clause

    - Lincoln suspended it during a rebellion, you might have heard of this one, it was called the "Civil War."

    - "President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_during_the_Civil_War_and_Reconstruction

    - By the way, this act doesn't just Suspend it, it pretty much wipes it out.

    "I'm not in any danger of having my rights suspended. I'm a US Citizen in good standing. I'm not out there shooting at our soldiers or otherwise engaging in such blatant jackassery. You're accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat? Who's the paranoid one here, seriously? 80's anti-liberal insults are still applicable today, and will be as long as there are Liberals whose words and actions earn them."

    - Actually, you just did have your rights... uhm... cancelled... for now... hopefully

    "This is wartime, Nancy-boy. War isn't pretty or fun. The guys who did it are still out there and they still need to be killed."

    - Yes, Bush did start a war with Iraq without reason. Go ahead and go to the link above again.

    Saddam & Iraq:

    - No ties with Al-Qaeda
    - Actively tried to get rid of terrorist organizations
    - Did not have a WMD program since pre-Gulf War

    What was our reason to go in again?

    By supporting this war you only support the continued death of our troops, we have no reason to be there.

    The Iraqi's don't even want us there:
    http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html (Hasn't been updated in a while)
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22403-2004May12.html


    Most of whom we have detained and tortured for information, were innocent of any ties to Al-Qaeda, but enemies of people who fed false information to us. I mean seriously... we capture and detain them for 4 years but don't have enough evidence to convict them in a legitimate trial so Bush has to set up tribunals that can accept hearesy as evidence so he can convict 1 single terrorist? Give me a break...

    Move along scrub.


  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yep, he is the one in charge. The republicans run the congress, judicial, and the executive branches. They decided to outsource projects in Iraq such as power supply to their buddies over at Halliburton etc (who are busy getting high and surfing over at Saddam's old palaces on my tax dollar) instead of employing unemployed Iraqis who might be fixing the power problems instead of attacking our troops.

    You break it, you buy it.
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10"Maybe we should put Saddam back in charge sharpfork - at least then the trains ran on time and the power never went out right?"

    Ok glorious leader. Who else deserves to be ousted? Maybe the Theocrat buddies of the Bush admin in Saudi?

    The admin decided to outsource things like power to people like Bechtel and Halliburton instead of hiring the Iraqis to do this...and as usual with military governent contractors...they sucked.
  • iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Bush is not responsible for the conditions in Iraq now Fred? Who was it that destroyed their infrustructure and has not been able to rebuild it then? Were you not watching? It was all over the news recently.
  • theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually yes - why dont we put Saddam back? Was he REALLY that bad compared to all the other ***** in the Middle East? Hell personally I actually like Saddam more than the dirty ***** pig king of Saudi Arabia who Bush kisses on the hand and who lets school girls burn to death if they are not dressed properly.

    Saddam had style - so he murdered a few of is political opponents, gassed towns and brutally tortured dissidents, what else is new in the Middle East people? What the ***** else is new?

    The US government has wasted a trillion dollars of tax payers money on nothing, contractors have squandered it and made a ***** shoddy job of repairs - dont believe me? Go into any Baghdad hospital and ask them how they are doing, these hospitals were supposed to be fixed up, the US contractors have ***** run off with the money YOUR money.

    Saddam was an old man with a bad temper and too much pride. All he wanted to do is run his own dictatorship and project an image of ultimate power over his people and his neighbours - he couldnt give a ***** about invading America or Israel or anyone else that you give a ***** about so why the ***** did we care enough to waste millions of rounds of ammunition, thousands of soldiers lives and enough money to fund an entire ***** lunar colony to oust a man who would probably die of natural causes within a decade or two?
  • iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Your definition of enemy combatant is not the law's definition enemy combatant and your definition doesn't matter.

    This explains why you don't care. You don't know what you're talking about. You make it clear over and over again.

    "This is wartime,"

    This ain't wartime. Again you don't know what you're talking about. It's war time in Iraq. Here it's tax cuts and shopping and cutting the benefits of veterans behind their backs. Here it's watching pussies like yourself who support the war from the comfort of your task chair while real Americans fight and die for you misunderstand the laws they so ineffectively defend.

    So what else don't you know?
  • spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thinkprogress is a George Soros/DNC funded left wing think tank. It's important that we understand where these opinions are coming from.
  • alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7this is more of a Rumsfield thing
  • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, Bush is going to suffer a "power interruption" back here on 7 November, too.
  • alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8You're doin a heck of a job, Rummy.
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Wow, you sound just like a conservative talking about America!
    Because its a land too good for criticism!"

    Heheheh
    Yeah, actually I was talking about Digg, and Iraq
  • daimposter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@cleotis
    You sound more stupid everytime you post. Sure, Hueseein shipped his WMD’s across the border at the moment we attached. He was so good at it that we couldn’t detect it. But he couldn’t smuggle himself out? Our reasons for going to war are based on lies (9/11 connection, WMD’s, Rummy knows where they are at, etc) and false assumptions that have so far lead to over 3,000 dead and 20,000+ injured americans. And by injured, most will be disabled forever (lost limbs, disfiguration, etc). And Bush and his administration is who you credit for all these casualties of war, a war based on lies?

    Sadaam was never going to attack the US, he got rid of his biggest missles before the US invaded and any evidence of WMD’s was at least 10 years old, so they were stopped during the clinton adminstration.

    Go home tonight and sleep thinking that you support a war and the administration behind the war that was unjustified and killed thousands of americans and injured tens of thousand more. If it was your son or daughter in that statistic, I’m sure you woulnd’t be able to sleep.
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yea... Dont think im wrong... Isolationism = conservative... try again...

    Oh.. for those of you not sure... Isolationism was the policy that tried to keep us out of WW1 and WW2... so uh... you conservative retards stop referring to the Iraq war as WW2...
  • iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You don't know what you're talking about. It's already been shown.

    You are clearly a pussy supporting a war from behind a computer while real Americans die to support your right to vote for representatives that cut their benefits and eliminate the rights they're fighting for.

    Fact - your definition of enemy combatant is incorrect. The law does not say what you say and thus you appear like an ass. You could post a quote from the law showing that it has anything to do with having a weapon or shooting at soldiers like you claim. But you won't... because you're a coward trying to apply school yard tactics to the internet.

    So just keep sitting there playing tough guy on the internet. Keep shopping, spend your tax cut on a subscription to Maxim and keep screwing the troops that fight for you.


  • chiste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey cleotis, why don't you take that I'm a "real American" and shove it up your ass. You're not a real American. You are a retard who will stand by and watch the Bill of Rights destroyed because you can't think for yourself. You disgrace our founding founders, so ***** off soldier!!!!!!!!!!
  • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4blame it on Clinton in 5...4...3...2..
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Yep...his party runs the US and Iraq...um
    Pass the buck 4...3....2....1

    (as usual attack instead of defend or explain)
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Theo... Lol... great rant! so true unfortunately!!
  • wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"The lost year" was a good Frontline documentary, and while it pointed out a few blatant errors (lack of prewar planning, the de-Baathification of Iraq, and dissolving the Iraqi military) that cost the U.S. dearly at least you can understand why they made these decisions (except the prewar planning). Their intentions were good, but the decisions were bad.

    If you want to see the Frontline documentary that shows not just the incompetence but the manipulation and the duplicity of the current US Administration watch The Dark Side which shows how the government twisted the facts to go to war: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh also.. for your information.. after 9/11.. when within 2 hours we knew it was Osama Bin Laden (.. lol) we told the Taliban to hand him over or face the consequences!!

    What did the Taliban say?

    "Prove to us that Osama is responsible and we will gladly hand him over"

    Apparently to Bush:

    US Soldiers dying > providing proof for the reason we're fighting
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Inacse you need to brush up on your history...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2

    And uh... correct me if im wrong... but wasn't isolationism a conservative policy?
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I'd say for sure that this will work in favor of the opposition to this damn war.

    Get out and vote!
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh.. and Cleotis... Wikipedia isnt some liberal conspiracy if thats where you are trying to go...
  • *blu*, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2All of you commenting on the electricity situation in Iraq like you know what you're talking about should read this article: http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/vid_live061003_t.html

    Read the section titled "MR. GUY"
  • *blu*, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@redpoint, if we say both sources are correct, it could be that insurgents/etc are tearing down the infrastructure faster than the US can put it up. The source I posted talks about how people are actually tearing down the transmission towers, which leads to a "domino effect". Also it's important to keep in mind that their existing infrastructure is old and cannot handle the load that it is requiring now. When you try to run too much load on an obsolete system, bad things happen. (I work in the power industry and see this a lot!)

    I guess my point is that everyone is so quick to jump on the "Bush & Co aren't doing their jobs" bandwagon that they aren't stopping to think of all the rest of the factors involved. Maybe we are making progress but it hasn't shown up in the numbers yet due to the above reasons?
  • daimposter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1blame it on the liberals, the europeans and my dead grandmother in 5...4....3....2...
  • aleahey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The war isn't illegal.
  • daimposter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it's funny how few people on this board have said it was bush's fault and he calls us 'libtards' stupid for always blaming bush.

    he's not the biggest one at fault but he is somewhat at fault since it is his operation (the war) that he's running and it's guys very close to him that are messing everything up. Can you blame a president of a company for the work done by his employees immediatly beneath him....of course you can.
  • iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A typical liberal loser? Like all of us that were right about Iraq?
  • sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13If you want a bit more background on the incompetence and fighting within the bush administration that brought the US to this point in Iraq, check this out: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/
  • iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I don't see why suspending Habeus Corpus for ENEMY ***** COMBATANTS would cause libtards' panties to wad so profoundly."

    And who are the Enemy Combatants? Anyone the president, any future president, says is an enemy combatant. That's it. US citizen or not. No judicial review. No evidence needs to be presented.

    It should make the panties of all liberty loving patriots wad. So of course it wads the panties of liberals. If you're not that bright, or you prefer a dictatorship, your panties are still unwadded.

    "The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to foreign dictators. Maybe you should read it some time."

    It applies less to US citizens each year those Bush admin failures stay in office.

    Think about it. The president, on his word alone, can suspend the rights of any person on the planet, including you, regardless of citizenship and there's nothing you can do about it. You have become completely powerless under US law and you seem to like it.

    And all you have are tin foil conspiracy theories and stale 80's anti-liberal insults on your side.

  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did that happen sometime between '92 and 2000 when Clinton didn't get us into war?
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@blu

    Don't know.. I do know though that the thinkprogress one was very recent...

    I didn't see a date on the page he linked, it could have very well been back in 2003, and if thats the case, they could both be correct.
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I read it, looks good, but it doesn't have a date on it, at least that I saw (didn't look.. TOO hard)... I did however, run into this the other day:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/iraq-electricity/
  • ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15Maybe we should put Saddam back in charge sharpfork - at least then the trains ran on time and the power never went out right?
  • s-m-a-c-k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2hey you can do alot 2.4 hours...
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Really...I suppose that you have sat images of him shipping his WMDs to other places....did you see them on google maps, since it's so obvious...
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0uh.. yea.. it is... what reason are we there again?
  • JWaterman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All your Oil are belong to U.S.
  • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oops!
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"...guess my point is that everyone is so quick to jump on the "Bush & Co aren't doing their jobs" bandwagon that they aren't stopping to think of all the rest of the factors involved."

    Outsourcing to fat government contractors with no oversight is a huge problem. This was the Bush admin's choice. The military and hiring the Iraqi people would have been the right thing, instead of subsidizing the incompetents on welfare (at our expense).
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2love it or leave it (digg)
  • bill679, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Looking forward to The Daily Show tonight, and tomorrow's 7 front page digg stories with the same YouTube clip posted in each.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.