What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
178 Comments
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -22/+159People who use words like "libtards" have no intelligence and should be sidelined and ignored.
I saw Reid make this comment. So true. George thinks he's above the law and he acts accordingly. - TinMan, on 10/12/2007, -19/+88it's people like schratboy who has never even looked up the definition of liberal.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+75Kings are actually the best form of government, that is when they are good kings. Bad kings, also known as despots, dictators and tyrants are the worst form of government. Because power usually leads to corruption, the founders of the United States established three equal branches of government so presidents never become bad kings. When the wicked rule the people suffer. When corruption becomes the norm in all three branches, and is promoted via controlled media masqurating as free-speech, we're really in trouble.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -10/+44The administration is doing a good job of laying smokescreens, and the dems are characteristically skilled at stepping in every trap the administration lays for them. Oh well.
What's really going to bite the dems in the ass is demanding a deadline *and not being serious about it*. They are bluffing about cutting funding for the war, and bluffing is a real bad strategy when the opponent knows you're bluffing. - dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36What's going to be worse is when they retake the presidency in '08 and all our current problems fall on them.
Then they get blamed for everything. - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37"Imagine 911 with Gore at the helm, we would have been screwed!"
You mean he wouldn't have been able to stop the planes like Bush did? Oh wait... - GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Oh come on!
"Our" representatives are all playing along and enjoying their cut of the power/money pie and sitting back dreaming of the day when they can be 'the man' and wield all that power themselves.
The day everyone stops believing the lies of 'they're the bad guys and if you elect us, we'll save you from them', is the day we begin to take our nation back. - krellor, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31@ryan
Yeah, Gore at the helm at 9/11 would have been hell. Think of those poor children who wouldn't have a president read to them as an attack on US soil unfolded. Think of the children!!! - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24How does the blond get in the lightbulb?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+38Those last 12 where the GOP became the most corrupt and scandal-ridden party in US history?
And come on, you KNOW that "rightard" is so much funnier and more appropriate than the lame "libtard". Can't you guys even come up with your own insults without having to do with a lame copy of something funny? - trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+33It doesn't help Bush's case that he thinks god appointed him.
Pretty much the standard kingly responce as to why he's the decider. - Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27This needed amending...
"The democrats and republicans are doing a good of laying smokescreens, and the American public are gullible enough to step in every trap they lay for them. Oh well.
What's really going to bite the average American in the ass is believing the US political system is still by the people and for the people."
That's better. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Not that I really need to respond to someone who's already outed himself as an ***** with the use of the word "libtard," but what the hell:
"Remember, they were in control of Congress for over 40 years."
And during that time the POTUS was a republican for the majority of the time...could it be that the American people enjoyed massive economic, military and social success by maintaining a balance between the two main branches of government rather than having a rubber stamp administration? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19The administration IS doing a great job at smokescreens.
Is this what we want our government doing? Wasting resources trying to fool the rest of the government?
I'm 100% certain this is not what our founding fathers had in mind, although I think it was Jefferson or Franklin who warned that the government would eventually be corrupted by one party, which is why we used to have 3 equal branches of government with checks and balances. - joebob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"When corruption becomes the norm in all three branches, and is promoted via controlled media masqurating as free-speech, we're really in trouble."
When? I thought we had been living in that exact scenario for years now. =/ - dawg109, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Bush "2000" " I'm a uniter not a divider"
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It isn't Democrats or Republicans, it's politicians. No need to bring in the names of any parties.
- SuperMoses, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23"Democrats just hate America and love taxes more"... did you get that from a Republican party recruitment flyer?
- WombatControl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Apparently Digg is quickly becoming an example of how "social networking" is just a way for people to hear only things which reinforce their personal prejudices. As usual, there will be the torrent of anti-Bush screeds with little substance, then the usual "libtard" rejoinders and the like. The total value will be zero.
People in this country don't have a clue about how their own government works, and then we have the typical chorus of ignorants who tell everyone that there's all some sinister conspiracy that really runs everything, which only adds ignorance upon ignorance. It's really not that hard to pick up a copy of the Constitution. It's not that hard to find a good book on Constitutional law and understand the basic principles. (I recommend "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution", which is a book written largely by conservative legal scholars, but does a good job of presenting all arguments.)
For instance, exactly how has Bush acted as a "king?" It's an idiotic statement. By going to war -- sorry, but Congress authorized him to do so. He's exercising his Category I powers under _Youngstown Steel_, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). If you don't understand what that means, then you don't know enough about the structure of the Constitution and basic Constitutional Law to be offering an informed argument.
Is it firing US Attorneys? Again, like it or not, US Attorneys serve at the sufferance of the Executive -- and the Executive has the plenary discretion to fire them. 28 U.S.C. § 541(c).
In fact, the argument cuts the other way. The Constitution delegates the President with Executive powers. Article II, § 1, cl. 1. It also makes him the Commander in Chief of the military. Art. II, § 2, cl. 1. That means that Congress cannot make military decisions, and the President has unity of command -- so no matter how much Rep. Murtha wants to play Commander in Chief, he has no Constitutional authority to set the standards for the way the military conducts its readiness. (And no, the Congressional power to "govern and regulate" doesn't mean that they do -- that applies only to setting rules such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)
Furthermore, only the President may approve treaties. Yet Speaker Pelosi feels the need to travel to Syria and go beyond her Constitutional power and speak directly with foreign powers -- when only the Executive has the Constitutional power to receive ambassadors. Art. II, § 3.
Of course, we'll get the usual uneducated cries that Bush is a tyrant, an idiot, etc., etc., and learn absolutely nothing. 99% of them won't make a single reference to _why_ that argument will be made, or have any sources (other than left-wing bloggers) to back up their arguments.
If people can't make intelligent, informed arguments, then the only thing Digg will be is yet another intellectual circle-jerk in which the popular anti-Bush party line is magnified without so much as a shred of intellectual analysis. There's a difference between believing Bush to be a poor President and being just another bleating sheep. If you can't articulate a reason why without knowing what the law really is, you're just perpetuating the ignorance that is killing this Republic from the inside out. - coolian, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24Soon, he'll be looked upon as the douchebag of the United States.
- Gaki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Man ... you are so full of it.
Google "pressured intelligence Iraq" and just watch the reams upon reams of articles that will pop up quoting the FBI, CIA and other analysts. Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA agent precisely BECAUSE her husband wrote an article debunking the "Saddam was shopping for nuclear material in Africa" claim Bush used during his State of the Union speech. If you don't count costing someone their jobs because they disagree with you as pressure ... then perhaps you should define "pressure". Then, of course, there are the recently fired AG staff who were fired, apparently, because they wouldn't toe the line of the Administration and act at their beck and call ... are you starting to see the pattern?
So ... the investigations found nothing? The investigation into the Office of Special Plans sure did. That group was the ultimate steering committee, filtering through all the intelligence and routing only what was "pertinent" to the President's eyes and had a grand total of five members, all neo-cons. FIVE PEOPLE decided what was to routed to the President's eyes. Here's the link to the summary of the report, which ultimately found that there were significant issues but, ultimately, didn't recommend action because the group ultimately stopped all their BS once the flashlight started shining on them. Job was done by that point, though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
In addition, there is NO WAY IN HELL that the intelligence regarding Iraq was univerally in support of WMD existing. Blix's inspectors said that there was no WMDs. The IAEA said that Saddam couldn't possibly have nuclear capability and that no program had existed for decades. Here is a link to the Carnegie Foundation's report where they compare the various intelligence groups and their pre-war estimates of Iraq's WMDs.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/iraqintell/home.cfm
There are dozens of other reports at that link and the general trend, if you take the time to read them, was that the Administration was grossly overestimating Saddam's ability to attack ANYONE, let alone the US. Their longest range missle could barely hit Israel. How again was this supposed to be a threat to the US?
Finally, take a visit to the PNAC website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Read some of their policy papers when you get a chance. For nigh on 30 years, these guys have been lobbying to invade Iraq and Iran to secure their oil supplies. In their pea brains, there is a big showdown coming with China and securing Middle East oil would ensure the military has the supplies to fight that battle. Guess how many administration members and advisors also members of the PNAC? Virtually all except Bush himself. So ... are you honestly trying to tell me that these people, who have worked for 30 years to have successive administrations invade Iraq and Iran to get their oil ... suddenly went in for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASON after 9/11?
BS. BS. BS. - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@masgrada
"So perhaps God is the the little known 4th branch of the government who apparently appoints the executive branch."
First, let me say I get the sarcasm. Second, that sound we're all hearing is Thomas Paine, rotating at a high rate of speed in his grave.* So many people who had a hand in founding this country were careful to make sure the President understood that he was not a king, and that Divine Right was a crap way to decide a system of government. Not only are checks and balances on the executive important, they are our civic duty to enforce.
*(His bones were stolen, actually, but you get the pic...eh, forget it.) - deadowl, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20Q. How many unhappy Americans does it take to convince Congress to impeach Bush?
A. How many blonds does it take to screw in a lightbulb? - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"No it will be Bushes fault for the next 20 years. you watch "
This is called 'projection'. Having blamed Clinton for the last 6 years, now you are projecting your antisocial behavior onto the Democrats when you say they will be blaming bush for the next 20 years. - GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19@readthis
WOW, I mean....WOW!! Great way to sum it all up. I seriously think I'll have to copy that and use it as an explanation to those that just don't quite get it.
I just hope you see this before I get buried. - WombatControl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's not quite the case...
The basis for the U.S. Constitution was explained in much detail in The Federalist Papers, which (despite being difficult) every American citizen should read. They explain why they chose the system of government they chose and why they believe that system was the best choice.
For instance, Alexander Hamilton wrote about the Presidency in Federalist #69 (no snickering, please). They didn't base the government off of the Iroquois Confederacy (although they did examine it), but off of the English system they all knew well. The powers of the Presidency are in fact based off the powers of the English king, except for the instances that Hamilton mentioned in the Federalist. (For instance, the King could dissolve Parliament, but the President can't dissolve Congress except when there's a disagreement over what time to adjourn.) When the Founders were drafting the Constitution, they weren't looking at the Iroquois Confederacy, but Blackstone's Commentaries. These were people who were former subjects of England, so they based the US on the laws and systems that they were most familiar with.
As for your view of Jefferson, he was hardly against the idea of Executive independence and power -- quite the opposite. Here's what he said about executive privilege for example:
"With respect to papers, there is certainly a public and a private side to our offices. To the former belong grants of land, patents for inventions, certain commissions, proclamations, and other papers patent in their nature. To the other belong mere executive proceedings. All nations have found it necessary, that for the advantageous conduct of their affairs, some of these proceedings, at least, should remain known to their executive functionary only. He, of course, from the nature of the case, must be the sole judge of which of them the public interest will permit publication. Hence, under our Constitution, in requests of papers, from the legislative to the executive branch, an exception is carefully expressed, as to those which he may deem the public welfare may require not to be disclosed." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:232
This isn't a criticism, it's great that you're thinking critically about the way government works, but at the same time it's important not to let others think for you. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers -- that's what the Founders believed when they crafted the Constitution, and every citizen needs to understand why they did what they did. - WombatControl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7beneathbrooklyn:
That's an interesting argument, but it isn't reflective of the law. President Johnson was impeached not for violating the Constitution, but the Tenure of Office Act, an Act of Congress that said that the President had to get Senate approval to fire someone who had been appointed by the Senate. President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. That isn't the end of the (legal) story though -- the Tenure of Office Act was later repealed, but a similar law was then enacted in its place. That law led to the Supreme Court case of _Myers v. United States_, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled (correctly) that the President *does not* need to seek Constitutional approval to fire an appointed Executive officer.
Now, that wasn't a unanimous decision, and the Founders did give some indication that they thought about making that be in the Constitution (in the Federalist #77), but they didn't actually go through with it.
Therefore, the Constitution doesn't require the President to get Congressional approval before firing any appointed official, and it would take either the overturning of _Myers_ or a Constitutional amendment for that to change. I don't think that the SCOTUS would overturn _Myers_ given that there's no legal basis for them to do so.
As for hauling the AG to testify, that's also a Constitutional problem. Remember, all three branches of the US Government are "co-equal" and separate. It's usually accepted that an Executive officer will testify before Congress, but it's an open question whether Congress has the power to _compel_ an Executive Officer to testify under oath. (see _Kilbourn v. Thompson_ ,103 U.S. 168 (1880)). The law here is murky because neither side really wants to provoke a Constitutional crisis over it.
Four of the 8 USAs (US Attorneys) fired were unquestionably poor performers. 1 was fired because his staff hated his guts. I do agree that at least some of the firings are questionable, but the President has the power under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to fire USAs for _any_ reason. That doesn't mean that he should fire them, but that if he does it's his discretion to do so.
Even firing a USA doesn't kill a case -- the Deputy US Attorneys are not appointed and cannot be fired by the Executive. The US Attorneys are very non-partisan and have wide discretion. What Bush did may have been politically dumb, but Congress doesn't necessarily have the right to second-guess those choices. They can investigate all they want, but that doesn't mean that their investigation is going to lead anywhere. - SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8what the ***** are you babbling about? Peter Bakers opinion? The report quoted what the president said...and it quoted what Harry Reid said...if anything, it reported on BUSH's opinion (which was subversive at best) and Harry Reids opinion (which is a total undeniable fact), that George Bush is President not King of the United States...if anything, I would gig Reid for giving Bush the honor of being called President.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9bobcrotch, for once I entirely agree with you. This government is a monster, and anyone, regardless of party affiliation should be able to see that right now.
- kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, and Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House not Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
- djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8tours732: pull your head out of your thesaurus and learn to think for yourself.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Pssssst... you can't bring democracy to another country. It must be embraced by the citizens of that country, even if that means revolution."
Right, all those people who voted in Iraq's elections don't want democracy. Peddle your propaganda elsewhere. 200,000 Shiites were slaughtered by Saddam when they rose up after the Gulf War (and they were expecting support from the US, which never came). - WombatControl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The argument is that al-Qaeda has only a finite number of resources to fight with -- the more they dedicate in Iraq, the less they dedicate to fighting elsewhere. The intelligence does indicate that al-Qaeda couldn't pull off another 9/11 style attack - although much of the credit for that goes to the fact that we've done a great job of smashing their financial networks -- it costs a lot to train a jihadi to blend into American society and pull off an attack.
The counterargument is that by invading Iraq, al-Qaeda has an issue that they can use to train more jihadis who are inflamed at the US' meddling in the Middle East.
I'm more inclined to believe the former rather than the latter -- al-Qaeda's killing more Muslims than they are killing Americans these days, and even the Middle Eastern media isn't very kind to them now. However, the latter isn't an unreasonable argument either.
It's just like the US -- because we have so many people who have been fighting in Iraq for years, we can't send another 150,000 troops elsewhere. We can still fight another war if we have to, but it would be fought with air power rather than boots on the ground. Al-Qaeda is no different - in order to have someone who's more than just an idiot with an AK-47 they have to train them, and when the people you're training are lying dead in Iraq you don't have a lot of people that can be spared for pulling off a major terrorist attack elsewhere. - TheWretched, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Most of them are too self conscious to risk their political career's to do the right thing for the country. Instead, they try to be everyone's best friend like the political whores they are so that they may get re-elected.
I'm sure they are some good politicians out there working for the greater good. But that's like talking about a mouse in a room full of snakes... - ecorona, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Unless you're not bluffing and the joke is really on the one who thought you were bluffing. Bush and pals have absolutely NO credibility, zero, nada, zilch, nothing, not one single iota. As a matter of fact, I'd say that Bush and pals have negative credibility in that the opposite of what they say is more likely to be true!
- bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11It doesn't matter what any right wing minded person says here on Digg their comments are always buried.
Just wait until the left wing gets power and you will see that it really doesn't have anything to do with Bush or the GOP, it has to do with our government being to large and completely out of control. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How many troops do we have in Bosnia? Did we accomplish more than jack squat there? How much did it cost? Clinton pulled us out of Somalia quick when that hot potato burned our hands...and look, we had a budget surplus! Damn liberals...
- djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Up until the 20th century, many kings met their end through exile or murder. Not a good way to go out, I'd say.
- apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9nastronomical did you even read this goddamn post? Did you read the first paragraph? Do you not see how you are exactly the kind of idiot going on about "libs" that he is referring to?
Wake the ***** up. - WombatControl, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Yes, let's impeach President Bush.
Of course, the Constitution says that the President can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." U.S. Const. Art. II, § 4.
So let's impeach him because he "lied" about Iraq. Of course, then, the Senate has to prove that Bush deliberately lied about Iraq, namely that
A.) He knew beyond any reasonable doubt that Iraq did *not* have any Weapons of Mass Destruction and
B.) He invaded Iraq anyway.
Of course, that means that nearly every member of the US Congress at the time *also* lied about Iraq since they also stated on numerous occasions that Iraq did have WMDs. And indeed, they are complicit in the invasion since they passed the Authorization to Use Military Force, Public Law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502. And of course, the Senate must prove this all despite the fact that several independent investigations have found absolutely no evidence that the Intelligence Community was pressured to say Iraq had WMDs -- and given that every other major intelligence service at the time said the very same thing, that not only did Bush lie about Iraq and WMDs, but so did the rest of the world from Russia to Jordan to Egypt.
So, either Bush deliberately knew WMDs in Iraq didn't exist in which case then the Congress must still determine what specific law Bush violated, or Bush was getting the same information as everyone else and made a call based on that information.
The test for whether someone is approaching this issue rationally or whether someone's just saying "IMPEACH BUSH" because it makes them look cool is whether or not they can show that Bush somehow knew conclusively that Iraq didn't have WMDs and can name specifically what laws were violated. Chances are, 99.99% have absolutely no clue and haven't informed themselves of what the issues are and the other .01% are making an argument that is nowhere near enough to justify impeachment.
Impeachment is not what you do to a President you don't like, voting them out is. Given that the Democrats put someone up against Bush who managed not to make the case, the idea that the next step is trying to go for impeachment is hardly a smart one. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If Bush vetos it he will find no funding for Iraq
He will get funding ....he will start to pull it from other parts of the defense budget. First to go will be the juicy defense contracts in the Dem's districts. Military flights for congress people? FORGET ABOUT IT . Videos of troops not getting what they need? YOU BET. - Frippledip, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"I do fully understand the anguish people go through about this war"
What an insult. He doesn't understand *****. If a relative or friend of his were killed or came back with massive physical and brain injuries, or were stricken with PTSD, then MAYBE he would begin to scratch the surface of understanding the anguish that this war has caused. - becomethesea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Amen. It's nice to see the gender barrier broken as to a Speaker of the House, but that doesn't excuse the fact that I see a lot of inconsistencies in Nancy Pelosi's character.
Then again, I shouldn't really be surprised, since she's a politician like all the rest of them. I feel like it's a lose-lose situation for everyone. - guzziguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Jagdwulfe So true but you forgot they also have 98% of the Press, College professors and beginning Political Science students on their side to. If you want to see people who think that they are ABOVE all of us just look at Nancy Pelosi, talk about thinking she's royalty....She goes over to a negotiate with a known terrorist state after the President asked her not to go...He didn't TELL HER NOT TO GO..if he was the "king" he doesn't have tooo much power does he? Oh I forgot, what was one of the first things Ms. Pelosi DEMANDED when she became Speaker of the house...A PRIVATE PLANE the SIZE of a commerical airliner..so she can fly non-stop coast to coast back to her "Palace" in Napa Valley....How about Ted Kennedy...Royalty.... Please.. Let's all hope that none of these people have to deal with another 9/11...
- ryllharu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What we need is a third party to come out of nowhere and take a lot of seats in Congress, or the damn near impossible and take the Presidency. I don't mean the Green Party, an Independent, or any of the other ones that exist today. A new organized party formed from disgust at the way the government is currently run.
Take enough seats, even as few as 10 or 20 in the House would do it, and you'll scare the ***** out of both parties. They'll realize they have to start REPRESENTING their constituents and take responsibility for their job or know that it will get taken away, and not just by the "other guy."
Of course, it will only happen if enough people give a ***** enough to actually go vote. Our country earned the right to vote through blood, so you should really appreciate what we've been given before we lose it. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Can I get a status report on the 100 Hours Plan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_hours#Plan_components - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8One more time to impeach now will be THE WORST thing the dems can do now
Think about it. It would take most of 07 to get things started. that means that the impeachment will take place during the 08 elections. Can you imagine all the Dem's running for reelection having to cool there jets in congress instead of campaigning? Can you imagine the political commercials of Pelosi saying in 06 that they wouldn't impeach with a cut to of them doing it? And the final stab to the Dem's as Bush defense calls Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright to say under oath that they believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's ? Then the Dem's having to go out to a now completely pissed of country and win a election?
What a GREAT way for the GOP to win!!!! - toiletduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh yeah I forgot, Republicans flew those planes into the towers and into the Pentagon on 9/11. Thanks for correcting me there!
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4he hasn't had to yet.
- WombatControl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7gaki:
Ambassador Wilson was the one who as lying. His own testimony before the Senate contradicts the idea that Iraq had no interest in uranium. In fact, his own book admits that then-Trade Minister Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf visited Niger. There is no evidence that Valerie Plame was deliberately "outed" by the Bush Administration. We know who was the leak -- it was Richard Armitage, who was hardly a tool of the Bush Administration. Again, you make allegations, but you have no proof.
Apparently you also don't understand the difference between an official report and a newspaper article. The link you provided was not an official report, but an article by an article with a distinct left-wing slant. The Robb-Silbermann Report and the Senate Report on Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction -- both of which are publicly available found no evidence that anyone in the Intelligence Community was pressured to change their assessments. They legitimately believed that Iraq had WMDs. There is a big difference between groupthink and pressure.
The Carnegie Report hardly implicates any conspiracy. We all know that the reports were wrong and were the product of institutional groupthink. That doesn't mean that there was an organized campaign to "lie" about Iraq's WMDs. In fact, the report you linked to admits that Iraq was violating the UN cease fire by building missiles with ranges beyond the UN mandated limits. Furthermore, read the Duelfer Report that makes it quite clear that Iraq was not being contained and that the Iraqi government was fully intending to rebuild their WMD stocks the second they could.
And yes, I'm quite familiar with PNAC. If you read what they've written, there's hardly some grand conspiracy to secretly take Iraq's oil -- you cited nothing that says so because that's not what they believe. If you're going to malign PNAC as some sinister conspiracy rather than yet another dull Washington think-tank, you need to be able to specifically cite what they said that makes you think that they're part of some sinister conspiracy.
Again, if someone is going to call for the impeachment of the President, it can't be based on the fact that you don't like his policies. High crimes and misdemeanors is a term of art with a specific legal meaning, and if you can't explain why you think the President's conduct meets that standard, then you can't make a truly educated and rational argument. -
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is