What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
61 Comments
- SOS84, on 12/03/2007, -5/+45The man is a criminal. Those who pushed for this war, and we all know who they are should be tried for war crimes.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -3/+33That guy's a lying fat *****.
- bigskank, on 12/03/2007, -3/+25Rove is a liar. He is now trying to claim that he never said Congress was the one pushing the war. Instead, now he is claiming that what he originally said was that "the conventional wisdom was that the President was the only one pushing the war, but in fact there was broad support for it" (I'm paraphrasing here).
This is NOT what he originally said. This is the original quote:
Charlie ROSE: But you were opposed to the vote.
Karl ROVE: It happened. We don’t determine when the Congress vote on things. The Congress does.
Charlie ROSE: You wish it hadn’t happened at that time. You would have preferred it did not happen at that time.
Karl ROVE: That’s right.
Rove's original statement plainly blamed Congress for rushing into things, and now Rove has tried not only to revise history, but also to revise his revision.
Link to Rove's original statement about Congress rushing into it. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/22/rove-lies-iraq ... - carterbaldwin, on 12/03/2007, -7/+24Makes me proud to have Van Hollen as my congressman. It's fun to see the republicans trying to distance themselves from Iraq, like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
- underburn, on 12/03/2007, -4/+21Buried for using John Lennon as a tool for Ron Paul.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -4/+17You're a fool if you think Lennon would have endorsed Paul, he's probably spinning in his grave right now.
- jellygraph, on 12/03/2007, -2/+15crazy lunatic
- RansomHoldiay, on 12/03/2007, -3/+13This man is scum of the earth. Does any one care what he says? There's no need to argue with him. Just pity and mock him. It's the same principle with Holocaust deniers. Facts are meaningless to them. They are just sad ignorant wastes of life.
- williamdyer, on 12/03/2007, -2/+11Clinton managed to stay out of war, despite the Israel Lobby. Dubya isn't that smart.
- mr5150, on 12/03/2007, -4/+12Lying douches need to be exposed and embarrassed daily for their treacherous policy. The nerve of this gutless retard has no bounds. Never let him jump ship, let him drown with the rest of the rats come time when it sinks in the public cesspool of disgust for their actions and human sacrifices they offered up for the greed of corporate America.
- RansomHoldiay, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7Yeah mate you're trying to hard to form the Lennon - Paul link. For instance "So you say you want a revolution? Well we all want to change the world..." would have worked a lot better. But 01I0 is right, you're ***** retarded.
- donsnyc, on 12/03/2007, -2/+8Karl Rove is a war criminal. Period.
- jellygraph, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7yes
- davewashere, on 12/03/2007, -2/+8"Vote Ron Paul for President someday"
- John Lennon, March 14, 1978 - SolitaireRose, on 12/03/2007, -3/+8No, he's hated because he knows that a lie goes around the world 10 times before the truth gets out of bed. That and how he is one of the men behind the deaths of over 3800 Americans in Iraq just so Bush could get re-elected. He's a political slimeball who makes lawyers look good.
- dattaway, on 12/03/2007, -3/+8I read this as, "Rove confronted over 'outrageous' war crimes."
- k3ano, on 12/03/2007, -1/+6This one was submitted a minute earlier.
- carterbaldwin, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4You mean, when Clinton was bombing Iraq and generally ***** over Saddam? You mean, when Clinton had the balls to go after Bin Laden during the Lewinsky fiasco, and every republican gave him ***** over it? Are these the poor military decisions you're thinking of?
- TwistedSheep, on 12/03/2007, -4/+8Yeah, it's sad that more in the Senate didn't call the White House's bluff, it only came out after the war that they were lying through their teeth. Thanks for pointing out just how mislead the entire Congress was.
you get a digg - amn3, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5The more and more I read these Ron Paul endorsements, the more I am turned off to even finding out what he stands for. With these fanatics constantly hyping him, I figure I don't want any part of his group, or want to be associated with those that hype him. At least Perot was interesting.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -2/+5He's hated mostly for his electoral dirty tricks, like holding "how can I help Republicans up for re-election?" seminars at the Justice Department, encouraging US Attorneys to prosecute Democrats during elections and firing those who wouldn't comply, and of course for disenfranchising tens of thousands of Democratic voters via voter caging lists. And for his responsibility for the campaign to out a covert CIA agent in an act of political retribution. Also because he's a lying sack of ***** and should be thrown in jail for contempt of Congress.
- donsnyc, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Of course the democrats should fear Rove. Under Rove's watch, the republican's lost their decades old majority in the congress. And remember, he knows "The Math" and not the democrats.
- Zera, on 12/03/2007, -2/+5Say what you will of motivations prior to going into Iraq, but the Democrats were voted in to stop it, and have been in power for over a year now and haven't done anything to get us out of there. You can hate Rove all you want, but you also have to be pissed at the Democrats we voted for NOT doing what they got elected claiming they'd do.
- ChaosMotor, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Why is it that politicians only have the guts to stand up against ***** lies after the fact, after it's said and done, and not when they have a chance of intervening and stopping bad things from happening at the start?
Oh, that's right, they want it both ways - if it goes well, they can say they supported it, if it's bad, they can lay out blames afterwards.
How about integrity from the start, not five years later? - inactive, on 12/03/2007, -3/+6Clinton had his war in another part of the world. (They didn't attack us either)
But his was more to cover up something than to affect any of the changes he advocated. - inactive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Any way you spin this, without the democrat's help the war in Iraq was not possible.
All that voted for it are just as guilty as the republicans or the white house.
Their other defense: "we where too stupid to see it coming" while more plausible still excludes them from public service and as everybody in jail knows, ignorance is no defense. - carterbaldwin, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Right, because the truth isn't what's important, the winner is whoever talks louder and longer.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I must have forgotten to post the part where they said "But, it's no hurry.", "Just kidding." or "April fools.".
- skews13, on 12/03/2007, -5/+7the misinformation,after the misinformation
- blindhammer, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Why do you have a problem with lawyers? You realize that our democracy would not surive with attorneys and that many of the Founding Fathers were attorneys.
- amn3, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2They were encouraging the US attorneys to prosecute voter fraud -not Democrats per se (but I see how you can draw that distinction). The US attorneys prioritized other issues above those that the administration set, and thus were sacked.
Considering the Diebold headlines and last election's FLA controversy, You don't have a problem with prosecuting voter fraud do you? - inactive, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Do you think the rest of us can't see how you conveniently ignored the House of Representatives? It's a cold hard fact that the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against George Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
- amn3, on 12/03/2007, -4/+5You clearly don't understand the concept of scapegoating the other party.
Please do not waste your time posting here if you are not willing to drink the Kool aid like the majority of others here and deflect criticism towards Republicans only. The low hanging fruit is right before you, Rove must be evil for things have not bode well for the liberals -it's OK to blame Bush as well, or America if you prefer. Ad homium attacks are especially fine as long as they are for Republicans (try to mention their weight or ugliness) -but don't try anything "mean spirited" with liberals or Democrats, that's not playing nice.
Your posting borders on sacrilege and you risk being labeled a heretic of the Democratic party if you don't quickly step in-line with the party message. There are plenty of choice examples here to follow, you should find many that are useful. - inactive, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2If I post the numbers will you stop posting your ***** lies? I doubt it....
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
258 Democrats in Congress in 2002, 110 yes, 147 no.
As I have posted many times, a majority of Congressional Democrats opposed the illegal invasion, a majority of Congressional Republicans supported the illegal invasion. A Republican president ordered the illegal invasion. It's the Republicans fault that the USA has troops in Iraq illegally. Oh and it IS illegal. The US Senate ratified the USAs entry into the UN and we are legally bound by the UN Charter which expressly forbids wars of aggression.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm - inactive, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2A majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the illegal invasion. It wan't "bi-partisan" at all.
- jgzman, on 12/03/2007, -3/+4NOBODY CARES!
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -4/+5A) the majority of congressional Dems voted AGAINST starting the war
B) Congress was fed forged documents (the yellowcake documents) and "intelligence was fixed to fit the policy" (according to the infamous Downing Street memo) that Cheney and the neocons wanted. So yes, there was a concerted effort to "trick" the Congress into voting for the war through misinformation.
What I'm trying to say is that the argument you are making is dishonest. DIAF. - amn3, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3Regardless of the majority of congress, many top dems voted for the war. You are still shielding them from their part in the war vote.
Regardless of the forged italian yellowcake documents, the yellowcake pursuit by Iraq was only false if you believe Joe Wilson. The forgeries were/are a red herring and thus do not make the yellowcake issue false.
The Whitehouse was not the only possessor of intelligence reports to mislead the senators, they had ranking positions on Armed Services Committees and the like. If they were led down a wrong path, it's only because they did not do their homework, in any event, they made bona-fide votes for the war and changed their tune when public sentiment changed against it.
DIAF? You have a nice day. - tyrione, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Let him talk more. The more he talks the more he defends himself by opening up cracks in the White House's official position and the more a special prosecutor will have ammunition against the current regime.
- acidbass, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1I know, my heart skipped a beat for a second there too.
- peaceofpie, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1Actually, how many Democrats voted against the war, the funding, the lies? I can tell you one of those who saw the lies was Dennis Kucinich. It's exactly why the Democratic Party leaders try to ignore Dennis. He would bring truth back into politics. And that is not Presidential.
- villium, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Take solace in knowing that he will pay the ultimate price along with the rest of the cabal as they weep on their aged death beds mired by a conscience as black as the oil they crave and the dried blood from the thousands they have murdered.
- fmc6338, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2People who supported this administration are also war criminals. Remember the German public were not left off the hook for supporting Hitler. After all, there are some who voted for this administration twice.
- scubasteve377, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1While 43% is technically a minority, it's nowhere close to a 'small' minority. In fact, it's almost half. That's a ***** lot dude. I know you are hell bent on believing that the Democrats are the shining light of salvation and could do no wrong, but you need to wake the ***** up. I mean, do you still believe in the tooth fairy, too?
The simple undeniable truth is that there was a lot of people, from both sides of the aisle, beating the war drum in the lead up to the invasion. Hell, even Bill Clinton signed a resolution for "a policy of regime change in Iraq" while he was bombing them during his second term. So, to sum things up for your beloved party, the former Democratic president enacted the policy that lead to the war, just under half of all of the congressional Democrats voted for the war, the new Democratic majority in Congress continues to fund the war, and now none of the leading Democratic presidential candidates will make a commitment to bring our troops home before the end of their first term (aside from Obama and even he was careful to only say that he would pull our "combat" troops out of Iraq). Not to mention that all of major Dem candidates, including Obama, are beating the drums for a war in Iran. And it's all the Republicans' fault, right? Is it really possible to be that stupid?
The Democrats will not save us. The Republicans may have lead the charge this time around, but the Democratic party is just as guilty in supporting the invasion of Iraq and they are just as willing to waste the lives of our military men and women to further their economic and political agenda (see: World War I, Korean War, Vietnam War, Somalia, Kosovo, Clinton's own bombing of Iraq in 1998, must I go on? All of which, besides WWI, were undeclared and illegal). So again, wake the ***** up.
Now, not all Democrats are bad, just like not all Republicans are bad (anyone who would make either of those assumptions is retarded), but pretending either party is innocent in this, is beyond being dishonest, it's being completely full of *****. The D's and the R's represent two sides of the same filthy coin. Anyone with half a ***** brain can see this and I am very sad for you if you make your judgments based on the letter next to someone's name. In any case, I would suggest you find a new hobby, because running around being a partisan shill makes you look like a ***** tool.
Oh, and by the way, all treaties and laws made by the Congress are inferior to the US Constitution. The war is illegal because it was not declared (in accordance with Article I Section 8). - scubasteve377, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Come on people, why digg this guy down? Are you that far in ***** denial to think that your team is any less responsible and complicit than the other one? Someday you are going to have to admit to yourselves that Iraq was/is a **BIPARTISAN** cluster-*****.
- hittnrun, on 12/03/2007, -3/+2I loved watching Rove trash this idiot in "real time". He whipped the guy so bad I felt sorry for Vanny. Chris Wallace tried to get Rove off of him but Rove made him pay for his spin. lol. Bring It On.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1Of the 47 democrats that voted, 24 voted for it. That means 23 voted against it.
- hittnrun, on 12/03/2007, -3/+2the truth (with backup) was on Rove's side. He even let this demo b!tch read his papers. lol. Of course the demo kept putting his hands on Rove like a freak.
- amn3, on 12/03/2007, -6/+4Well, the Dems in congress went with him and Bush into the war -no matter how you and others try to obfuscate that fact, the vote record is clear. If you want to cherry pick those that you lay your criticism upon that's your choice, but you appear "petty partisan" by doing so.
Congress may try the "we were tricked by Rove" excuse, but that's not responsible leadership. Are they saying that they are so gullible that the "sophmoric" Bush administration tricked them? If so, do they deserve to hold positions on Armed Services committees, etc? Remember, these positions see the 90% of information that does not make it into the news. No, they made informed decisions to support the war back then and are now trying to slink away from those decisions.
If you oppose the Gulf War, that's your choice -and you are perfectly right to do so, but to ignore the fact the Dems in Congress went to war with Rove and Bush is dishonest. They share in the responsibility of the 3,800 Americans that you cite. - inf0, on 12/03/2007, -3/+1of the worse kind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is