digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at rawstory.com

Study Shows 900+ Bush Crime Family LIES to start WAR

rawstory.com — Duh! you already knew it, but the Center for Public Integrity did a tally and it's more than 1, the number needed to require Impeachment.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ubetchaiam, on 01/23/2008, -12/+63Amazing that the number could actually be calculated; I lost count looooong ago.
    • khail250, on 01/23/2008, -6/+25there should be +1 crime for each individual soul lost because of the terrorist Bush. 15,000+ of my fellow soldiers, and the 600,000 innocent Iraqi.
      his crimes exceed 600,000. Bush is worse than any terrorist out there.

      FYI to my 15,000 soldiers, to include all that died outside combat, all that died due to mental disorders from PTSD, and suicides.
      • ViperDaimao, on 01/23/2008, -17/+11I'm still waiting for us to impeach Lincoln for the hundreds of thousands americans he killed...
        • vibrokatana, on 01/23/2008, -14/+7Booth took that into his own hands. Maybe it is time for us to do the same.
          • Digger1123, on 01/23/2008, -2/+11This is the kind of hate that America doesn't need. There is no way to justify murdering someone.
          • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2......Maybe it is time for us to do the same.........
            I'm sure if you ask your mom nicely she'll buy you a gun.
          • TopherT, on 01/23/2008, -7/+2What about to keep them from murdering 5 people?
          • norman619, on 01/23/2008, -4/+3@Digger1123

            Sure there is. I'd kill anyone to deffend my life and the lives of those I care for. Wouldn't you? Or would you just stand there and watch your loved ones be killed?
        • trevorjez, on 01/23/2008, -3/+6careful what you type. you do know that domestic spying is going on right now don't you? ...hello? ...still there? ...too late i guess.
        • jmpeagle, on 01/23/2008, -7/+2just because Lincoln supported the Corwin amendment which would have made banning slavery ILLEGAL does not mean Lincoln was a bad person. He needed the wedge issue to keep the British from siding with the Confederates. Once the states seceded, their peoples lost their rights as American citizens and therefore their protection under the law. Lincoln had every right to burn through the South and send his men raping and pillaging eveywhere from Savannah, Georgia to the Sioux uprising in Minnesota in 1862.
          • TopherT, on 01/23/2008, -4/+5Because another country isn't your country you have the right to send your men raping and pillaging everywhere?
          • jmpeagle, on 01/23/2008, -4/+1@topher
            I would have thought the tone of my comment was pretty clear after the 1st sentence....guess not
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -8/+5khail, I thought the latest Lancet numbers indicated that 2.836 MILLION Iraqis have been brutally murdered by George Bush PERSONALLY.
        • Digger1123, on 01/23/2008, -4/+3I was under the impression it was 2.9836 million, your source must be wrong...
      • Digger1123, on 01/23/2008, -13/+51) Current estimates put the civilian deaths at under 200,000, the 600,000 figure was made up by a company paid by George Sorros.
        2) Far less then 1% of Iraqi civilians dead were killed by Americans, and far fewer than that were intentionally killed by Americans.
        3) I am yet to see Bush kill 3000 civilians in a few hours, and tens of thousands of more over the next few years, it never has happened, and never will happen.
        • TopherT, on 01/23/2008, -5/+11How many lives is this war worth? At what point do the hundreds of thousands of deaths racking up equal genocide? How many have to die for the lie of weapons of mass destruction? Is 200,000 really more acceptable than 600,000?
          • Himself, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3So screw the 400,000+ killed by sodamned insane with chemical WMD?
          • TopherT, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1They're already dead. Oh, and I'm pretty sure you just made those numbers up.
        • calbff, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3You going to source that? Because otherwise I call *****.
        • mightydavefish, on 01/23/2008, -2/+4Don't you love how rightard ***** like to pretend that Soros got to pick the results?
          What a bunch of dumbasses.
        • carcar314, on 01/24/2008, -2/+2That's funny, I saw George Bush kill 3000 on 911. And then he prevented an investigation for 441 days. Then he rigged the investigation. Then Sibel Edmonds came up with proof that he is a terrorist involved in 911. Then he gag ordered her so that he could genocide millions of innocent people in Afghanistan. Then he, Chaney, and Powell lied about WNDs in Iraq as our intelligence agencies said they had no WMDs so that George could genocide millions of innocent people in Iraq. Now he is doing the same thing to Iran. So, if you can't see... maybe you should pull your head out of your ass!
    • FatherVic, on 01/23/2008, -3/+8Interesting that...

      "Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

      ...for those of you too impatient to read let me highlight...

      "on the basis of erroneous information" means that these "lies" were regurgitations of "erroneous information". The proof is in whether or not the erroneous information was actually "propagated" by the Bush Administration.

      To prove this, you must prove that the Bush Administrations has tight control over MI5 and other world wide intelligence organizations.

      But if you say that these statements are lies based on "erroneous information" then you must also conclude that all of your Democratic Senators and Congressmen who also believed this "erroneous information" and supported the war in its initial stages were also liars and guilty of the same crimes.
      • Linzee82, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2You make a good point and not to seem like a bitch but there is a little bit more to that quote.

        "...on the basis of erroneous information THAT IT METHODICALLY PROPAGATED..."

        Sounds like it was propagated by the Bush admin. I still feel you on the point that there needs to be proof of this. Not enough to go on in this article.
        • FatherVic, on 01/24/2008, -2/+1How can you "methodically propagate" information unless...
          and I quote from my post...
          "the Bush Administrations has tight control over MI5 and other world wide intelligence organizations."

          Please read more carefully. And if you need help...
          http://vclass.mtsac.edu:920/readroom/context.htm
          This is a lesson in "Context Clues"... enjoy.


          Also... to propagate, you must be repetitive which the Bush Admin was... I give you that.. However the information was also propagated by Leading Republicans and Democrats. So all are guilty.
          • Linzee82, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1And from my post: "I still feel you on the point that there needs to be proof of this."

            I was actually on your side. Perhaps you should read your own link.
      • norman619, on 01/23/2008, -0/+4No *****. I find it funny that they give everyone else a pass. I'd love to see these "lies" and what data they used to determine they were "lies." They must have this info handy if they really did the research.
        • SabrinaHeaven, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Resu ...

          Just a quick glance at this and you'll see that the vast--vast--majority of their claims are complete *****. They seem to have taken every mention of WMDs, Al Qaeda, and "threat" and counted each as a lie. Only a few of these provide any explanation, and the explanations I have read don't hold water.
          • FatherVic, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Your website lacks the integrity to also post public and private statements of the ranking members of this country's legislation. These members were both republican AND democrat. All were on board. All repeated the intelligence.
      • Willy0Panhandle, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1"But if you say that these statements are lies based on "erroneous information" then you must also conclude that all of your Democratic Senators and Congressmen who also believed this "erroneous information" and supported the war in its initial stages were also liars and guilty of the same crimes."

        Of course, it is important to remember the hysteria taking place in the country at the time. If anyone stood up to question the validity of the claims made by the Bush administration they would have been branded as anti American terrorist sympathizers. That being said, I agree that Democrats suck just as bad as the Republicans.
        • FatherVic, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2You are right about the hysteria. But we cannot exempt the Bush Administration from the Hysteria can we? What is good for one must be good for all to be fair.
    • jamesallen74, on 01/23/2008, -4/+9What the hell is this "Warning: The Content in this Article May be InaccurateReaders have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate" crap?
      • fyngyrz, on 01/23/2008, -6/+10That's just a signal that the morons who support Bush have used the little button because their world view is threatened by the truth. It doesn't mean that the article isn't accurate, it means that the perceptions of neocons aren't accurate, that's all.
      • thcobbs, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5Look at the ***** picture with the article and TELL me that its not biased.
        • mightydavefish, on 01/23/2008, -5/+1Yeah, what a bias holding someone accountable.
          Pathetic right wing extremist *****.
      • DirkBelig, on 01/23/2008, -5/+6This "journalists group" is a George Soros-funded front and they are twisting comments out of context in order to provide boob bait for the Digg herd. What were MISTAKES are called LIES. What seemed true from the intel on the outside, didn't bear out when we finally got on the inside. Being WRONG is not the same as LYING!

        Try these thought experiments to test your intellectual honesty:

        * Bush comes out and says that "based on the past records of the teams in the Super Bowl, I believe that the Patriots are going to win." People bet money based on his comments. The Giants pull off an upset victory. Does that mean Dubya LIED about who was going to win the Super Bowl? To the close-minded, Bush Derangement Syndrome-addled Digg mobs, I guess so.

        * A crack house has been operating in a neighborhood for years. The cops witness people coming and going and undercover buyers have purchased drugs. Based on this history and intel, they get a warrant and raid the place. During the raid, a gunfight breaks out and some children get caught in the crossfire and are harmed. Did the cops LIE about their reasons for raiding the crack house. To the close-minded, Bush Derangement Syndrome-addled Digg mobs, I guess so.

        FACTS ARE FACTS!!! Not that the close-minded, Bush Derangement Syndrome-addled Digg mobs care. Their hate and rage obscure the inconvenient truths of the issue. Not that they care.
    • LongShlong, on 01/23/2008, -6/+7Ooooh! Oooooooh! Can we tally up Israel's crimes next?!
      • trutek, on 01/23/2008, -5/+4is their a number that goes that high?
      • pintomp3, on 01/23/2008, -2/+5those numbers would be anti-semitic.
      • mightydavefish, on 01/23/2008, -5/+2It's just get buried by the traitorous scumbags over at LGF.
        They'll send shout after shout to the other asshats to come bury.
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5Holy *****. This is the kind of diehard Moonbattery that people don't believe when I tell them about it.
  • davecskul, on 01/23/2008, -15/+17Great article thanks.
  • HeartlandUSA, on 01/23/2008, -15/+73This has been the worst presidency, rubber stamped by the Republican majority Congress for 7 years with 300 scandals (see: http://scandalist.info/ & here too http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html) & several indictments & even some Republican officials behind bars as we speak. Real smooth right wingers. Go to http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3011profile_ ... & http://www.peuplesmonde.com/article.php3?id_articl ... & educate yourself about neoconservatism.
  • SheilaNoya, on 01/23/2008, -20/+37I'll give Bush credit for one thing - He has helped to kill the Republican party for many years to come. Americans are fed up with the lies, the unaccountability, the corruption, the incompetence, the arrogance, etc.

    It's time to let the Democrats have a crack at restoring America to what it once was.
    • rnwen2750, on 01/23/2008, -3/+15I sincerely hope you are right, however, I do not believe that the democracy will be restored. Republicans are still very powerful and by distancing themselves from the Bush regime, may not be under as much scrutiny as they should.
    • elvenseven, on 01/23/2008, -5/+6Thats true. If it wasn't for bush, I wouldn't even be interested in politics.
      • sweetholymosiah, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1If Americans were interested/convinced their politics was worthwhile, I'm quite sure Bush would never have happened.
    • madeingermany, on 01/23/2008, -16/+6But if one party is able to ***** things up again it's the Democrats.
      (I'm really hoping they won't, but I wouldn't put it past them)
      • banmaster, on 01/23/2008, -3/+9So, um, who left the current administration a record surplus that has since been pissed away by Bush and his crime buddies??
      • Scottamus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1I afraid it would be way too much work to try and be a bigger ***** up than the current admin.
      • madeingermany, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3I meant the democrats might ***** up winning the election ....
        • Knucklecallus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1That is much clearer that implying that the democrats would do worse than the bust administration.
    • Pake, on 01/23/2008, -1/+7I wish I could live in this fairly tale land where one party wasn't corrupt, but sadly I don't. Only a handful of members from each side truly care about the people and do the job, while the rest just figure out how what lies they need to produce to win the next election.
    • fyngyrz, on 01/23/2008, -6/+1The Democrats already had their chance. They've been on control of congress for a year now; we're still in Iraq, our liberties are still being eroded, ***** laws are still passed on a regular basis. Face it: There is only one party, the party of the self-interested and the corporate PACs.
    • random19, on 01/23/2008, -0/+7*SPOILER*

      They won't do any better.
    • Xenufield, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1"It's time to let the Democrats have a crack at restoring America to what it once was."

      When was America a socialist state with a huge federal government?
    • MakeChange, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2HELLO..??...The Democrats are JUST AS CORRUPT and have done absolutely NOTHING to stop the illegal war in Iraq, nor anything else. Clinton murdered thousands upon thousands in Yugoslavia, but because he's a democrat he's such a great guy. Yeah...get a clue...read up on your history. I could go on and on about the lies, the unaccountability, the corruption, the incompetence and the arrogance of his administration. You could ask Vince Foster all about it, but conveniently they shut him up and made it look like suicide. So....again...don't think for a minute that there is ANY difference between being a Democrat or a Republican. It's the individuals and the movements of their puppet strings that determine whether they are corrupt liars or patriots who are looking out for the PEOPLE'S best interests.
      • willhahn, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0Exactly! They are just two sides of the same Federal Reserve fiat money-controlled system! WE - and I mean we Americans - need to stop thinking of ourselves as Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservative, Independent, Libertarian, ... etc. WE the PEOPLE need to stop supporting talk show and news hosts who seek to divide us and talk about how to make the "other party" lose, instead of talking about what is best for America and its people and how to make us strong! This is what Ron Paul has been talking about and what needs to be done to save our country!
    • Knucklecallus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Democrats, Republicans, I still see them in the same illuminating light that shows their true colors. They are politicians, no matter what party they are affiliated with. Although, I must admit, there are always a few exceptions, politicians that have actually managed to hold on to their dignity and humanity.
  • dinsy, on 01/23/2008, -17/+65impeach now
    • flogistan, on 01/23/2008, -5/+12Kucinich is bringing it to the table. Vote it up when you see it.
    • TemtNosce, on 01/23/2008, -4/+2YES!
    • OC73, on 01/23/2008, -3/+5Give it up now.
      • pintomp3, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1give up on justice, accountability, and restoring checks and balances?
        • ralphie81, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Impeaching is not going to solve any of that
    • dracostimpy, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Dude, please; "chimpeach" is the preferred nomenclature.
  • cageybee, on 01/23/2008, -26/+48VERY URGENT: Inevitable - Nuclear War or Extreme Economic Meltdown

    I invite you to look at my research which concludes that a Nuclear War or an Extreme Economic Meltdown is inevitable. In addition, my research proves that Bush has lied to the whole world, and, that allegations against Iran are false.

    The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target (not what they tell you on TV)

    The reason why Bush wants to attack Iran is because they have stopped accepting US dollar as a payment for their oil in December 2007 and instead they want Euro. This is Iran's "Nuclear Weapon."

    This is the exact same reason why we have invaded Iraq, because in 2000, Saddam Husein switched from USD to EUR.

    William Clark "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq" January 2003
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

    William Clark "The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target" 26 Oct 2004
    http://www.energybulletin.net/2913.html

    Krassimir Petrov "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse" 17 Jan 2006
    http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

    Iranian Oil Bourse Timeline
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse

    Russia: "Attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as attack on Russia."
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06. ...

    Russia: "Moscow is ready to use force, including pre-emptively and with nuclear weapons, to defend itself."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7198181.stm

    Result of the Extreme Economic Meltdown - HyperInflation: The Nightmare German Inflation
    http://www.usagold.com/germannightmare.html

    Nelson Hultberg "Apocalypse This Way Comes"
    http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hultberg/ ...
    • khail250, on 01/23/2008, -10/+26sadly some morons will still dig you down as spouting "liberal ***** with no facts".
      • mike17032, on 01/23/2008, -16/+9And they would be right.
        • Digger1123, on 01/23/2008, -14/+3Yep.
          • mightydavefish, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4LOL
            *****.
            You ***** neocons are pathetic.
            I wonder what you guys would be like if you had basic ethical understanding.
    • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -7/+12"The reason why Bush wants to attack Iran is because they have stopped accepting US dollar as a payment for their oil in December 2007 and instead they want Euro. This is Iran's "Nuclear Weapon.""

      How can that be the case when Bush has been talking about Iran for much longer than that?
      • khail250, on 01/23/2008, -8/+12because bush is a terrorist that wants oil
        • ViperDaimao, on 01/23/2008, -3/+5good come back
          • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5The funny thing is he's rebutting me, but his statement also rebuts the statement I was rebutting that he is defending. Holy ***** that's confusing.
      • cageybee, on 01/23/2008, -6/+12read my research to understand
      • mightydavefish, on 01/23/2008, -14/+4I guess you rightards are too dumb to pay attention to the changing stories.
        Or maybe it's that you are so dumb that you believe the crap the Bush PR machine releases.
        Either way I don't see any reason to waste my time on right wing extremists ***** like you today.

        • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -4/+9"Either way I don't see any reason to waste my time on right wing extremists ***** like you today."

          Then why are you commenting? Just like to call people names? I think my question is pretty ***** valid, which makes you pretty ***** irrational.
          • TopherT, on 01/23/2008, -3/+4He sounds like a troll to me. Probably a strawman.
          • hambend, on 01/23/2008, -2/+7It's a valid question, except that it was already answered in cageybee's second link. Iran has been making euro-denominated oil transactions since 2003, and were negotiating to make such transactions for some time before that. Only last month did they stop accepting USD transactions altogether. I can understand not bothering to read through that many links, but then maybe you shouldn't bother to reply either.

            Not that I want to be seen siding with davefish. People who think the world divides cleanly into left and right bug me no end.
          • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -2/+6Thank you for actually answering my question. The reason I didn't read the links is becuase I tend not to waste my limited time on the copy paste spam comment/links.
        • khail250, on 01/23/2008, -4/+1funny.. i think the "you", you are referring to is probably 99.99% a lefty... but since you are attempting to bash the right, I will neither digg you up or digg you down.
    • simplicityiskey, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5I believe nuclear war and/or an extreme economic meltdown is inevitable too, but I also believe it'd be inevitable if Iran wasn't a country and Bush had never been born.
    • SabrinaHeaven, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1Digg users seem to have forgotten the way society works.

      You're supposed to bury that guy and yell something crude, like, "Go preach on a street corner, you ***** nut!"

      You're NOT supposed to hail the random conspiracy nut as a hero.
    • bcamp1973, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1bush was talking war with Iran long before they quit accepting the US dollar. i hate the S.O.B as much as the next clear thinker, but buried this as inaccurate b.s.
      • cageybee, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2you did not even bother to read my research and buried. hm, do i need to make a movie for you???
  • LucidOne, on 01/23/2008, -11/+11Great stuff Cageybee, thanks!
    • banmaster, on 01/23/2008, -1/+7Whats even greater is when people use the 'reply' function.
  • p0s3r, on 01/23/2008, -38/+26Study doesn't show that it was funded by George Soros, you know the same guy that paid those people to make up that Lancet study *****? George Soro's owns the DNC and you liberal retards.
    • mightydavefish, on 01/23/2008, -15/+17Right *****.
      The Lancet is for sale. So why don't you right wing extremists just scrape up the cash and buy a study?
      Oh, right. Because the Lancet doesn't work that way.
      Geez loser, don't you have anything better to do than block progress?
      You'll be so proud years from now when you tell your kids all about how you did your best to support corruption, lies, and the murder of innocent people.
      Could you please enlist, you *****? If you believe half of the comments you make you are a coward for not stepping up.
      Oh, I forgot. Mouthy rightards are too cowardly to do anything but lie from their couches.
      • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -8/+8http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article31 ... .
        • swrostmore, on 01/23/2008, -7/+7Your ridiculous conspiracy theory doesn't hold water; OSI donated money to MIT 6 months AFTER the study was commissioned.
          http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/nationa ...
        • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -2/+7Even if what you say is true, it doesn't change this fact: "Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead."
        • swrostmore, on 01/23/2008, -4/+4It doesn't change that fact, but it disproves the assertion that the study was wrong because of who funded it. And more recent studies that aren't disputed (100-250,000 dead) are 5x higher than "consensus estimates," and thats without even surveying the high-risk areas that Lancet II went into.
        • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -3/+4Mathematical fact tells me you are incorrect. The latest and greatest study puts the toll at 151,000; and that number is on par with the average of all other previous 8 or so studies.
      • swrostmore, on 01/23/2008, -5/+4http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=579060
      • Wargalas, on 01/23/2008, -3/+7http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2008/01/study-fals ...

        It was put out by a group that's supported financially by George Soros. The study was put out by two groups, and they both have a member of the board of directors in common. It's fairly easy to find.
        • swrostmore, on 01/23/2008, -7/+4Money was donated to MIT from an institute linked to Soros 6 months AFTER the study was started, so implying that there was a liberal conspiracy to fake the numbers is ridiculous.
          • Wargalas, on 01/23/2008, -1/+7Never said that. I'm saying that hiding your backers leaves your conclusions as questionable.
        • pintomp3, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2http://iliketurtles.com
      • surfacewound, on 01/23/2008, -4/+8*****: check.
        Loser: check
        *****: check
        Coward: check

        Mindless diggtards digging up worthless poop-flinging drivel posts: check

        Me still wondering why I still read comments on this site: check
    • kenedamick, on 01/23/2008, -7/+2I'm really sorry that you voted for the guy that lied to the American public 259 times before the Iraq War
    • lucutus, on 01/23/2008, -5/+2Nice nick. It sure adds a lot of weight to your lamer comments. (sarcasm)
      • p0s3r, on 01/23/2008, -2/+5Aye aye Captain! Starship Enterprise is at full warp power! Beam me up, Scotty!
        • lucutus, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2Keep looking "Locutus of Borg was the Borg designation forced upon Captain Jean-Luc Picard after his assimilation in late 2366" This has nothing to do with "Lucutus"
          • p0s3r, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4Aye Aye Captain! Phasers on stun! Warp Factor 9!
  • Waskonator, on 01/23/2008, -18/+28"I Pledge A Grievance,
    To The Flag Of The United States Of America,
    and To The Republicans Whom I Can't Stand,
    One Nation, Under Smog, Indispicable,
    With Liberty for Just US not all."
    • VaporBro, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5I heard they suck live...
      • bmnrocks, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1But will thank you for the shoes...
    • Digger1123, on 01/23/2008, -10/+4Wy to take a great pledge of allegiance and make it as trashy as yourself.
      • MacEnvy, on 01/23/2008, -3/+7It may be harsh, but at least it's accurate.
    • Knucklecallus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Hey, I had that T-shirt. It was my favorite shirt, and I wore it so much, the letters disappeared.
  • khail250, on 01/23/2008, -19/+14I just applied for a job today, my requirement "outside USA"
    • Lucas123, on 01/23/2008, -4/+12Bye, bye.
      • TopherT, on 01/23/2008, -8/+3Enjoy your economic downturn lucas, I just got my EU citizenship papers in order.
        Norway has the highest standard of living in the world suckas.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -4/+11Your parents must be thrilled that you're finally leaving the nest. Don't rush back!
      • khail250, on 01/23/2008, -7/+3I was in the US navy, lived abroad for a us company, been to 25 different countries... and was not born in the US... I left the nest a while ago, friend.
        • ventralnet, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3i bet
        • Wargalas, on 01/23/2008, -0/+5First off, thank you for your service. That being said, it's one thing to throw your hands up in surrender, it's another to actually stay and do something about it. Leaving your home because things aren't going "your way" is a cowards way out.
        • khail250, on 01/23/2008, -5/+3there is no way out anymore... it seems to be the majority of the people in the US are content with the way things are going.. multiple lies, even as recently with the Iran nukes fiasco.. no one is doing anything about it. Heath ledger had 14000 diggs! how many did the article that bush lied about nukes get? tell me whats wrong friend.. I am not going down in this sinking ship, pun intended..
    • heebeejeebie, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3Good for you. I'll buy you a first class ticket if you'll stay for good.
  • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -36/+17I don't get how a false statement necessarily translates into a lie. And technically we found a whole ***** of WMD's, so technically this study is also false.
    • nblsavage, on 01/23/2008, -9/+14links to the WMD information please. And a "false statement" becomes a lie when you knew it was false to begin with.
      • wintermd, on 01/23/2008, -12/+9Google 600 WMDs and it will be found.
      • nblsavage, on 01/23/2008, -9/+15Old canisters of mustard gas? Fail.
        • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -4/+12Can we store them at your house? Cool!
    • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -22/+14Here’s proof of WMD. Where’s the proof of Bush’s knowledge and intent?

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/ira ... .
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/ira ... .
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/ira ... .
      http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=507 ... .
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html .
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html .
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A330 ... .
      http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ... .
      http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-14 ... .
      http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?i ... .
      http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873019&nav ... .
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01 ... .
      • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -19/+11Lol, bury the links you asked for. I'm still waiting for proof of Bush's knowledge and intent to lie...
        • MadKennyP, on 01/23/2008, -11/+9Your boy Bush is a liar. Deal with it.
          • appleann1, on 01/23/2008, -2/+5Kenny,Kenny,Kenny.
            http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2008/01/imagine-that.h ...

            "How many of these so-called lies were repeated ad nauseum by the likes of President Bill Clinton, First Lady/Senator Hillary Clinton, Sec. State Albright, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards Business-Should-Not-Fear-Edwards Jan-08 , and all the rest of the Democrats during the 1990s? It only came after 2003 that people realized that the CIA intel about the Iraqi WMD programs was found to be incorrect."
            DEAL WITH IT.






      • MadKennyP, on 01/23/2008, -9/+12STILL WRONG.

        "Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, Aug 21, 2006.
        • ViperDaimao, on 01/23/2008, -8/+9so he could have made them then? That's not dangerous?
          • jezsik, on 01/23/2008, -6/+6Yes, he could have made them. Just like you could buy a gun and shoot someone. Should we put you in jail because you have the potential to do harm?
          • ViperDaimao, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4if i've shot someone before, and am still attacking people, and say i will again, yes.
        • coinman987, on 01/23/2008, -4/+6anybody has the potential to do evil but it doesn't mean you will. you have the potential to try and kill the president but does it mean you will? does it mean you should be put in prison or executed because you have the potential to do harm? the fact is there is no evidence that he was going to do anything towards the united states. that fact that we took out Samddam's army in less than a week is evidence of the fact.
          • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4.......that fact that we took out Samddam's army in less than a week is evidence of the fact..........
            No, that was just evidence of the fact that we have a fantastic military, whereas Saddam's--despite being the largest in the middle east--sucked ass.
      • bowens44, on 01/23/2008, -8/+8Technically , there were no WMD ands if you don't see how knowingly making false statements is a lie then you're morally bankrupt.
        • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -8/+7Where is the evidence they were *knowingly* false statements?
          • hambend, on 01/23/2008, -5/+5Firstly, your links (the first six, anyway, my connection is insanely slow right now) refer to the mustard and sarin nerve gas that was found. What they fail to mention is that those agents have a shelf life of maybe a year or two, and the substances that were found were around ten years old. Probably not safe to drink, but not exactly a threat to homeland security, either.

            As for evidence... well, that's another valid question. Frankly, there's nothing solid that I'm aware of, but there's any number of clues and pointers that will set off a properly calibrated ***** detector. They sent in Hans Blix, asked us for patience, overstated what little they did find, and then when it became clear that nothing else was going to turn up they jumped the gun and invaded.

            I'd like to go into all the CIA operatives who were disenfranchised when their reports were modified or outright disregarded at the time, but honestly I can't back it up (I swear, a google search is taking me a full minute to load right now). Anyone care to help me out?
          • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -4/+6It's still technically WMD. Anyways just because we didn't find the WMD we were looking for doesn't mean they did not exist... So I have a hard time with someone claiming the WMD absolutely did not exist when they simply do not know.
          • hambend, on 01/23/2008, -5/+4"Technically" is a ***** poor excuse to invade a sovereign nation and you know it. Maybe they're WMDs as defined by a UN charter somewhere, but they are clearly not weapons capable of destroying anything on a massive scale. Hence, they are not weapons of mass destruction. To put it another way, they might have been a good excuse for war but they certainly weren't a good reason.

            I didn't claim absolute certainty, and I'll agree that anyone who does is a fool. There's a rather long list of things that weren't found in Iraq which may or may not exist. But can you really justify dismantling a government, casting a nation into vicious civil war, sending off good patriotic Americans to die and damaging relations with the rest of the world over such a slim possibility?

            Besides, a good number of the dismantled Iraqi army have by now joined the "insurgency." If anyone knew where there were some WMDs, I'm guessing they'd have been used on American troops by now.
          • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -2/+5I never said it was an excuse to invade. People here and this study we're talking about are however saying that there were absolutely no WMDS, and that is incorrect. How can they say Bush's statement is false if they don't know in reality what is correct? How can they say Bush's statement is false when technically it isn't? I don't think it was our responsibility and wouldn't have invaded if it were up to me. I've compared the deaths due to us with the deaths due to Saddam and adjusted them for the time difference, and Saddam killed people at a slightly faster ratio than those people kill each other because of US. I thin they have a much better chance for improvement in this future as compared to a future under Saddam. And as far as I know, we overheard Saddam's generals instruct to use the WMD's on our troops when we invaded only to find out they had been moved. So I wouldn't have gone in, I didn't condone it, but I think it was unselfishly done with good intention and I don't see how withdrawing towards the end after the major damage is done helps us or them. I don't think they'd be in a better position without us. I do think we would be in a better having not invaded but the reality is that we already did.
          • hambend, on 01/24/2008, -2/+3I'd recommend the documentary "Killing the Children of Iraq," by John Pilger. I know it's a pretty bombastic title, but the content is good. Iraq is a desert nation which relies heavily on imports to provide for its populace, and UN trade sanctions on foods, medicines and construction supplies were by far the main factor behind their high mortality rate throughout the nineties. Not Saddam, although corruption amongst his cronies leading to horrible misallocation of what little Iraq did receive certainly exacerbated matters.

            If you don't mind, I'd like to steer clear of arguments that use words like "absolutely," because I think we both agree such arguments are absolute *****. I know you didn't say WMDs were an excuse to invade. But it was the reason given by the administration, and if you'll admit that that's only technically true doesn't that upset you a little? We agree that the possibility of WMDs is a rather weak reason to invade (I really do hope I'm not putting words into your mouth) and I for one don't believe the administration is half as incompetent as their front man makes them look. I expect they were fully aware that WMDs were not sufficient justification for a war. But they had other reasons for invading. That is a fact, whether or not those other reasons made it as far as the press room.

            "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

            That's taken directly from the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which I'm sure you're aware was first published well before even 9/11, let alone the war in Iraq. I don't want to start off on some ***** "blood for oil" tirade, all I'm saying is that in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the US government had other reasons for wanting to invade, but they didn't let on. Now, that isn't necessarily a lie, but it is a deliberate attempt to garner support for the war based on false pretenses. And that's bad enough for me.
      • orangefly, on 01/23/2008, -8/+0still my favorite collection of lies....
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1261635877 ...
      • kenedamick, on 01/23/2008, -5/+4I'm really sorry that you voted for the guy that lied to the American public 259 times before the Iraq War
      • TopherT, on 01/23/2008, -5/+4Lol, degraded canisters of mustard gas buried underground are enough of an outstanding threat to invade a sovereign nation preemptively and against the general will of the world? To abandon hundreds of years of Just War theory? I'm hereby revoking your license to participate in public discourse, you'll only embarrass yourself.
        • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -3/+5I never said that. I'm just saying technically, they are classified as WMD, so technically they are WMD. I'm never said that is a reason to invade and personally I don't think it is.
    • Kizilbash, on 01/23/2008, -7/+12Gosh, how odd. You understood it so well when Clinton lied, sorry, made a false statement...
      • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -11/+9You must have me mistaken for someone older. If I'm not mistaken Clinton was convicted of an impeachable offense by a court of law.
        • coinman987, on 01/23/2008, -6/+3When is it time that Bush is convicted of an impeachable offense by a Court of law then? By your count Bush has many more impeachable and serious crimes compared to Clinton. What I don't understand is why a blow job an impeachable offense but killing hundreds of thousands, lying, treason, destroying evidence, breaking the la... okay? I guess the facts don't matter when you refuse to see the truth for what it is.
        • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -1/+7If you think the blowjob was the impeachable offense then you shouldn't be commenting.
        • Coven, on 01/23/2008, -4/+4actually...Clinton was acquitted of all charges by the US Senate. He was impeached, but they did not find him guilty.
      • aw2131, on 01/23/2008, -3/+7So your saying that Clinton had reason to believe that he did not have sexual relations with Monica?
        The difference here is that Clinton knowingly lied, under oath i'll add, and Bush was telling what he thought to be the truth. It was only later that we found out the intelligence was wrong.
    • mightydavefish, on 01/23/2008, -11/+12Of course you don't.
      You are an ethically destitute right wing extremist, uninterested in facts or truth or being a good person.
      You support liars on a scale I can barely comprehend.
      You support corruption and scandal, and cheerlead for the murder of innocents.
      Why would a piece of ***** understand "right" from "wrong"?
      • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -6/+12No, I am interested in ONLY the facts. I have yet to see the proof they knew what they said was false. I don't think you would want Bush to convict you of treason based on one of your many comments that turned out to be false. You guys have lost your way in that people are not innocent until proven guilty anymore. I just proved the the study false with my links. Something tells me you aren't going to accuse the study or rawstory of lying. This is one big confirmation bias *****. Bush had a confirmation bias on Iraq. You guys have a confirmation bias on Bush. And I have a confirmation bias on everyone being retarded.
        • cageybee, on 01/23/2008, -7/+4read my research
        • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -2/+9googling some ***** != research
        • coinman987, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3There is a difference between not being to see the facts and blatantly ignoring it or refusing to see it.
          • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4There is a difference between fact and assumption.
      • CamperBob, on 01/23/2008, -6/+1"I have yet to see the proof they knew what they said was false."

        There is an invisible 40-foot-long grass snake in my basement. No lie.

        Really!

        Well, at least I don't *know* that there's not one!
    • MadKennyP, on 01/23/2008, -12/+9Even Bush admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq. Or did he LIE?
    • MadKennyP, on 01/23/2008, -11/+5You are quite stupid. Do you even listen to your own President?

      "Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, Aug 21, 2006.
      • nirav72, on 01/23/2008, -2/+3Right..so why didn't we invade north korea or pakistan? Both nations had (or have) the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. While we're on the subject..Why didn't we invade Brazil or south africa? Both of them have worked on on nuclear programs in the past. But opted to get out of it due to the inherent baggage.
      • kenedamick, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2I'm really sorry that you voted for the guy that lied to the American public 259 times before the Iraq War
    • aw2131, on 01/23/2008, -5/+9I couldn't agree with you more. You will quickly find out it is useless trying to argue with the left wing lemmings that frequent this site.

      @Mightydavefish

      my god, you are quite an ass, what mastermind said is not offensive at all and, to a rational person, mastermind would seem like a pretty level headed person. Unlike your comments that reveal what a total idiot you are.
      • truspect0r, on 01/23/2008, -6/+3Bush said himself there were no WMDs, so whos right?
      • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5Sometimes digg makes me question my sanity. It's almost enough to drive a person insane.
        • chrissandvick, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3heh, go back and read cageybee's posting history. He IS insane, in a high function paranoid way. But I think you are giving the people you are arguing with too much credit in assuming they will debate honestly.
    • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -3/+8Ok guys, you are misinterpreting me. Bush made false statements. That is provable. Every other politician makes false statements. That is provable. My problem lies in saying they are intentional lies without evidence to prove it. That is not defending they guy. It is the same exact concept of Bush crying WMD without the evidence to prove it. Do you see the irony and hypocrisy, or am I really crazy. I just don't get whats so evil about asking for proof of claims and suspending judgment until I see the proof.
    • soulpiercer7, on 01/24/2008, -4/+1old aging chemical weapons from the Gulf war don't count.
      • masterm1nd, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4WMD != WMD? Then... Invading Iraq != invading Iraq. Problem solved.
  • MrEthiopian, on 01/23/2008, -12/+36Why is it that all news organizations including this outlet continue to dance around the truth? George Bush knowingly lied to get the rest of the country and world behind him for the run up to the war. George Bush lied and because of that lie over 3 thousand of our soldiers have been killed, over 100,000 Iraq kalians killed, innocent people tortured, billions of dollars spent on nothing, bankrupting this country with a war that he lied to get us into.

    George Bush and Cheney should be impeached and then brought up on war crimes!
    • DaniDives, on 01/23/2008, -3/+8I believe Stephen King commented in Time Magazine a few years ago that the one thing he wants to see before he dies is Bush tried for war crimes against humanity.
    • zaren, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3I just emailed this to my senators, congressmen, and local newspaper:

      "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
      ...
      The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both."

      -- http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Study_False_s ...

      And these lies only cover the justification to lead us to war with Iraq! This doesn't cover the invasion of Afghanistan, or the build-up to a war with Iran!

      Can the Bush administration shame this country any further? Will it take ANOTHER unjustified war, built on hundreds more lies, to get our elected representatives to act? It will take years, if not DECADES, for the reputation of the United States to be restored in the eyes of the world community.

      Over 3,000 US soliders, DEAD. Over 600,000 Iraqi civilians, DEAD. Hundreds of billions of dollars WASTED that could have re-built our school systems and health care systems and energy development. Kidnapping and torture of innocent civilians. Documented WAR CRIMES! What will it take for our elected officials to STOP THIS MADNESS?

      This administration MUST be stopped before it destroys the country it claims to defend. Pre-emptive wars based on lies only serve those that tell the lies, and the ones that back those liars. That is not the majority of the American people. Dennis Kucinich introduced House Resolution 333, "Articles of Impeachment Relating to Vice President Richard B. Cheney", last year, and it was promptly shelved. This resolution MUST be resurrected and acted upon before another pointless war is foisted upon the world. "

      Thanks for the inspiration, MrEthiopian
    • tgc1, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1You need only look as far as whom those news media outlets are owned by. And once you see the circle, you'll know why.
    • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1There's no way you can know if Bush knowingly lied about anything. The most anyone can say is he was, in some cases, wrong. The fact that yet another Soros group comes up with yet another anti-Bush study doesn't add anything to the discussion.
  • wintermd, on 01/23/2008, -16/+19Sorros? Anyone look below the covers on this one to find the real agenda here? BDS is in full force.
    • mightydavefish, on 01/23/2008, -15/+16Whatever the right wing extremist assholes have to tell themselves to rationalize supporting murder and lies.
      Man, you losers are so pathetic.
      What's it like to work against everything America used to stand for?
      • OC73, on 01/23/2008, -10/+10What's it like to be in denial? Indeed, in case you missed it, Saddam is dead, a new currency has been implemented, a new government formed, a constitution ratified, an army and police force has been formed, water and electricity are higher levels than they have been in decades, al Qaeda has no sanctuary, Muki Sadr fled for Iran... And speaking of Iran, the US now has american forces poised to strike them from Iraq, Afghanistan, the Caspan, the persian gulf, Kuwait, Doha... The islamic republic is pretty much surrounded. And it was all made possible with the leadership of the current president.

        People like you are upset because you know no one you'd ever vote for would have the courage to take on such a bold and noble mission. You're full of procrastinators who form committees and blue-ribbon panels while people rot under regimes that resemble concentration camps.

        Enjoy your place in history, cowards.
        • banmaster, on 01/23/2008, -8/+7Hmmm, you really ought to look at a news report not produced in the US by the fawning Bush felating US media.
        • lucutus, on 01/23/2008, -7/+5Heh, I find it Ironic that you tout all that as good. It sounds like you need to heed your own question of denial. You justify bankrupting the USA and killing 1/4 million people with "Some guy ran away" "This gang lost it's hideout" "We killed this other guy" But you forget to ask the big question. Why did we do all of that? Answer: LIES and false pretense.
          Thank you for the $42,000.00 bill each and every american gets to pay so some folks in the desert have water?
        • swaddict, on 01/23/2008, -5/+6If everything is going so well, how come that can't meet half their benchmarks after it's been lowered multiple times?
        • dansacks, on 01/24/2008, -3/+3You nailed it OC73. Thanks for the rare glimmer of hope in the sea of heads up butts here on Digg
      • Xenufield, on 01/23/2008, -6/+5You should be the one telling use. People like Soros are avowed socialists and you're a tool beyond description if you actually think today's far left democrat party is anything other than Socialists who will burn the founding documents as soon as possible.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 01/23/2008, -4/+8So if 100 people contributed to this report and Soros is one of them and you tell me he's biased and lying, does that mean the other 99 are also biased and lying?
  • swrostmore, on 01/23/2008, -20/+14In this thread we see evidence of a dangerous outbreak of Soros Derangement Syndrome. This ailment is brought on by the mental strain of attempting to comprehend the seemingly impossible existence of a public figure who is both rich AND liberal. CLASS TRAITOR!
    • nirav72, on 01/23/2008, -4/+2CLASS TRAITOR? So because he's rich and doesn't tow the usual right wing line..He's a Class traitor? Thanks for pointing out that there is a division by classes in this country. Shows exactly what the republican agenda has been in this country for the past 8 years.
      • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1It's "toe the line". TOE. T - O - E. Why do people get this wrong so often?

        As to the substance of your post - you proceed from a false assumption. The vast majority of the mega-rich in the US are Democrats, not Republicans. That's why Democrats are always on about taxing income but not wealth. And only earned income, too. The Republican "agenda" is lower taxes for everyone. The reason that benefits wealthy people more is they pay such a grossly disproportionate part of the total tax burden.
    • Xenufield, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Rich and liberal?

      Both Gates and Buffet are Democrats. Not Soros-grade socialists, but not right leaning conservatives either.


      You'll also find that democrats control more upper class and 'rich' areas of the country than republicans do.
  • Viking2000, on 01/23/2008, -25/+20FACT: Saddam gassed his people twice! FACT: Gas is considered by most intelligent people to be a Weapon of Mass Destruction! FACT: This article has to be questioned for its accuracy!
    • MadKennyP, on 01/23/2008, -13/+15FACT! There were NO WMDs in Iraq prior to Bush's war.
      • moin1097, on 01/23/2008, -7/+6Well then, I guess we're have to tell the 100,000+ Kurds he killed to stop faking it.
        • Iconoclast25, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Don't confuse crazy kenny with facts, his single brain cell can't process anything but the direct feed from the daily kos.
      • Pake, on 01/23/2008, -5/+4Fact: Bush and the Republicans weren't the only people accusing Iraq of having WMDs.
        So it's my firm belief we should hold them all accountable. Charge Bush, Cheney, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and all of them with war crimes for their bombings of Iraq post-Gulf War. All of their evidence for attacking have shown to be no good.
    • swrostmore, on 01/23/2008, -12/+17FACT: Bush SR. sold the gas to Saddam! FACT: Saddam had no programs to create WMD! This post has to be questioned for its accuracy!
      • chrissandvick, on 01/24/2008, -2/+2LIES. And your repeating those lies shows just how far out in leftwing conspiracy land you are swrostmore.
    • shaitanx, on 01/23/2008, -8/+6FACT: You lose.
      • OC73, on 01/23/2008, -9/+6Actually, Saddam, Iran and al Qaeda lose, but since when do lefties care about facts.
        • nirav72, on 01/23/2008, -5/+4*****. Last I heard..they were still around. OK maybe not Saddam. But the AQ guys are still running around and the war on terror is in full swing.
        • kenedamick, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3I'm really sorry that you voted for the guy that lied to the American public 259 times before the Iraq War
        • Iconoclast25, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1"since when do lefties care about facts."

          The next time will be the first time.
    • bahamutxd, on 01/23/2008, -6/+10FACT: We were only concerned whether he had WMD that would affect us or our interests. Keep telling yourself that Bush really cares about the Iraqi people.
    • poppieprong, on 01/23/2008, -5/+10FACT: Mustard gas was used in World War I. FACT: Atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I guess, then, that an invasion of Europe and the United States are in order.
    • georgemason01, on 01/23/2008, -1/+7Warning: The Content in this Comment May be Inaccurate
    • lucutus, on 01/23/2008, -4/+6FACT: The native americans were wiped out with germ warfare. ie. The USA was founded on smallpox.
      FACT: This war has killed more than ten times as many Iraqis than were gassed.
      FACT: Saddam got the gas from our old stockpiles left over from our own previous use.
    • HandsomeRuss, on 01/23/2008, -4/+7Dude, we gave Saddam that gas and when he used it, we didn't give a *****.

      And they weren't even really his own people. The kurds were living independently from Saddam and were not under Saddam's control.
    • bowens44, on 01/24/2008, -2/+3Fact: Saddam gassed kurds who sided with Iran in Iran's war against Iraq. Fact:"The US helped Saddam gas the Kurds. Fact there were no WMD in Iraq when the US invaded in 2003. Fact: commander bunny pants and his administration lied to the American people and the world. Fact: anyone who still supports that ignorant, arrogant piece of slime squatting in the oval office is a traitor.
      Fact: you're not the brightest bulb on the tree.
    • soulpiercer7, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1they're right. He got the gas from our old stockpiles and gassed the kurds. Discovering those old stockpiles in Iraq amounts to nothing. and following the format of this thread FACT: the pentagon authorized the use of white phosphorous shells in fallujah which is one of the worst poison smoke/incendiary weapons out there.
  • Nozferatu, on 01/23/2008, -13/+43As Hitler said:

    "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"

    Suckers...
    • swrostmore, on 01/23/2008, -3/+10That quote is Goebbels, referring to Churchill as a liar.
      • entrophize, on 01/23/2008, -2/+2Nozferatu = OWNED
      • chrissandvick, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1And swrostmore is a practitioner of that advice.
    • rpayne656, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1/FAIL
    • tgc1, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3Doesn't matter where the quote came from, does that make it any LESS relevant? I think not.
    • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1Yeah, but in this case the liar is Soros, not Bush. He thanks you for believing.
  • MadKennyP, on 01/23/2008, -15/+19BUSH ADMITTED IRAQ HAD NO WMDS:
    "Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, Aug 21, 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20 ...
    • jezsik, on 01/23/2008, -2/+5It's interesting that he started out by saying "part of the reason we went ..." I can't help but wonder what the other parts were.
      • mike17032, on 01/23/2008, -5/+2Because he was a brutal monster who was killing his own people.
        • bmnrocks, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately the USA has killed many more then he ever has.
        • jezsik, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Gee, I seem to recall Augusto Pinochet as being a brutal monster who was killing his own people. Of course, like Sadam in his earlier career, Pinochet was "our" brutal monster.
  • MadKennyP, on 01/23/2008, -13/+18“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." George W. Bush, State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
    LIE. Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

    "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
    LIE. Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there. IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

    "We gave [Saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
    LIE. UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003.
    • bingobongony, on 01/23/2008, -14/+10Saddam leading inspectors to only sites that HE chooses is not hte same as letting inspectors in, you fuciking idiot.
      Based on that lie told by you and rawwstory, I can alreay tell the kind of investigative reporting that this article is full of.
      • nblsavage, on 01/23/2008, -6/+11How about Bush admitting there weren't any WMDs? Got a snappy comeback for that one Bingo?
      • MadKennyP, on 01/23/2008, -6/+6I see your argument amounts to name calling and foul language. About right for one with no real argument.
    • mngop, on 01/23/2008, -8/+7as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom I happen to know some classified information that would make you eat those words. The Bush Admin did cover stuff up, but the opposite way that you think they did.
      • mike17032, on 01/23/2008, -6/+3As the Grand Puba of the current war, I know tell you for realz that bla bla bla....
    • chrissandvick, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2A LIE, to use Mk's wording. MadKenney and nblsavage are pretending Bush made those statements up out of whole cloth when he was he was passed intelligence from the CIA and other intelligence sources. Bush was wrong but then so were a lot of other people. But then that would get in the way of the Big Lie that they are pushing wouldn't it?
      "The CIA reported in October 2002 that the threat was incalculable. "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons," the top secret estimate said... And most terrifying of all, the CIA warned that iraq could conduct chemical and biological attacks inside the United States. The CIA confirmed everything the White House was saying. But the agency was saying fore more than it knew.... The agency produced a ton of analysis from an once of intelligence. That might have worked if the ounce been solid gold and not pure dross." Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner.
  • StatiK69, on 01/23/2008, -17/+24Anyone that marks these articles as innacurate are puppets of the corporate media and need to get their head out of the sand! These articles aren't innacurate. It's a fact Bush lied and often.
    • bingobongony, on 01/23/2008, -11/+8Or have common sense and are not worth it.
      You are gone from reality. Do you realize that? No one cares about you or ever will.
    • mike17032, on 01/23/2008, -6/+1"Anyone that diggs these articles as innacurate are mentally ***** retarded, and need to be locked the hell away in some state run facility for their good and the good of the world. These articles are innacurate"

      I fixed it for ya,
      • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -2/+2Anyone that diggs these articles is a puppet of socialist billionaire Soros and needs to get their head out of the sand. These articles are grossly inaccurate. In fact, Soros operations lied and often.

        I fixed it for *you*
  • ArnoldTPants, on 01/23/2008, -22/+25Buried for using the phrase 'Bush crime family' and capitalizing LIES and WAR.
  • bingobongony, on 01/23/2008, -27/+14awww, rawstory..will you ever learn that you are insignificant? No one cares what you have to say, and ***** like this is the reason.
    • bahamutxd, on 01/23/2008, -4/+2Somehow they make the front page a couple times a day?
      • MonsterChaOS, on 01/23/2008, -7/+5Not to mention its a friggin AP article.

        Neocons don't check the sources....
        • p0s3r, on 01/23/2008, -5/+6Associated (w/Terrorists) Press.

          Yeah, they don't have a dog in this fight.
        • nirav72, on 01/23/2008, -6/+5"Associated (w/Terrorists) Press."
          "Yeah, they don't have a dog in this fight."

          Wow..so now the press is the enemy. There goes the free society we so much cherish.
        • p0s3r, on 01/23/2008, -2/+8My bad, the AP is ideologically pure, have no history of working with terrorists, and are completely agnostic to American & World politics. They are just innocent and objective bystanders to this thing we call "life". Journalists are the purist of the pure.
    • milkmage, on 01/23/2008, -4/+4they charted the ***** data. I'm sure you can go back and validate each incident is true and correct because the statements were made in public.

      http://www.tfij.org/
      http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
    • bowens44, on 01/24/2008, -3/+1Hate to break it to you numb nuts but this was also on CNN today.
  • iamthearm, on 01/23/2008, -24/+16Another misleading Digg title.
  • TheActionCombo, on 01/23/2008, -23/+21Does anyone here actually consider Rawstory to be a reputable news source?
    • bahamutxd, on 01/23/2008, -7/+7The story hit MSM as well.
      • p0s3r, on 01/23/2008, -3/+5Does anyone actually consider the MSM to be a reputable news source?
        • nirav72, on 01/23/2008, -2/+6MSM? MSM isn't one source *****. Its all the news sources. Also. your beloved Faux news is part of the MSM.
    • mike17032, on 01/23/2008, -8/+9Only the libtards who are intent on turning this site into a joke propaganda machine. Stories from this site never stay on the homepage long for a reason, they are spam.
      • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3It's too late. This site is already a joke propaganda machine. This story is a two-fer - a story from a propaganda site about a propaganda report.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 01/23/2008, -6/+4When the alternative is Fox News, then yes, rawstory is perfectly legitimate.
      • ethornquist, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0Agreed.

        Wen Fox News becomes normal
        your bewilderment lasts a long long time

        - lost verse of the Tao Te Ching
    • Wacer, on 01/23/2008, -2/+2Go to their source. http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
    • soulpiercer7, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3I saw this exact same thing on CNN today. They aren't making it up
  • TemtNosce, on 01/23/2008, -17/+8impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com
    www.impeachbush.org

    Please, please, please. Stop. This. Man.

    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -5/+9Need a big tissue to dry up those crocodile tears?
  • loopist, on 01/23/2008, -6/+8Dear lord people, we know, we know he's an idiot quit with these stupid duplicate posts. If you really want the Democrats to F up the election and let some new idiot to take his place, than feel free start impeachment hearings. It will only screw you over in November...
  • whatthefu, on 01/23/2008, -15/+15Bush crime family? Bush is a ***** president but there is no need for you to put your own spin in the headlines and descriptions.
  • jmpeagle, on 01/23/2008, -12/+9none of these actually require impeachment. Lying is not an impeachable offense unless under oath. Also, hoodwinking the U.S. into a war is also not an impeachable offense as it is technically not treason. Oran's Dictionary of the Law defines treason as: "a citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the parent nation." As far as I can tell, most people complain of Bush aiding corporation and not foreign governments to overthrow themselves.
    • fyngyrz, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3Bush swore to uphold the constitution. He violated it directly (as well as the telecommunications laws) with his warrantless wiretapping; this is a violation of his oath of office. That is precisely the kind of "high crime" that impeachment was put in place to address.

      He also violated other constitutional provisions with his personal authorization of the continued holding of Jose Padilla, a US citizen, without access to representation and without a speedy trial or hearing.

      He also violated constitutional provisions and telecommunications laws via the conspiracy to monitor communications he entered into with AT&T.

      He also authorized torture - waterboarding and other techniques, as well as "extraordinary rendition" in order to use even more extreme methods - thus violating the 8th amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.

      "Treason" is not the metric for impeachment. "Misconduct in office" is. If violating your oath of office, as well as the very constituting authority for the government that you are employed to lead, doesn't rise to the standard of "misconduct", then nothing does.

      Look up "misconduct" in a dictionary, and contemplate the facts. It doesn't leave any room for rational, legitimate argument.

      The man should be impeached and convicted.

      Another thing: If the president of the united states does not have to obey the law and cannot be held accountable for his oath of office, then there is absolutely no reason any other citizen has to meet that standard either. There's a reason that his office is described as the office of the leader of the country.





      • jmpeagle, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2well given that the Supreme Court is given the power to determine what is Constitutional and not the people, then any "unconstitutional arguments" can be thrown out instantly. As to your "misconduct" arguments, that is up to interpretation by Congress and since they don't deem the facts fit for impeachment then by definition he hasn't commited any gross misconduct.
  • scheibs14, on 01/23/2008, -3/+5Already hit front page recently
    http://digg.com/politics/Study_confirms_Bush_Admin ...
    • mike17032, on 01/23/2008, -7/+2Ya but rawstory has to get its spam in for the day, and put its ***** propaganda spin on it to keep the libtards up in arms.
  • unfairunbalance, on 01/23/2008, -10/+8Bush and Cheney with the help of Carlyle Group, AIPAC, Mosad and CIA orchestrated 9-11 and opinion toward war. PNAC Documents say it all.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-663871370 ...
    • freezeout, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2don't forget the ISI (Pakistan's secret service) who wired the money to Muhammad Atta.
    • mngop, on 01/23/2008, -2/+6How many people would it take to coordinate an effort like The US planning 911? Hundreds...So why hasn't even one of them tried to come forward? You can't tell me if this was true that someone wouldn't see dollar signs in a book deal. Get a life. Radical Islam wants to kill you too...
      • LOCK3D, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2How many people? Come on. You ask that and yet the official story, which you seem to believe, states that only a handful of Arabs being led by a guy in a cave managed to undermine the most powerful and expensive defense system in the world. Seriously think about that.
        • chrissandvick, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4If that's the basis for your doubting the official story then you need to get a job working for the feds or join the military. You need some real life experience on just how inefficient, incompetent and bureaucratic the government really is.
        • LOCK3D, on 01/23/2008, -4/+1no, that is not the only reason why I question the official story. I was merely pointing out the lack of logic in thinking that a few Arabs with box cutters could do it, but that it would take hundreds of people if it was an inside job.
          • chrissandvick, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3A few guys did do it. Get over your delusions buddy.
      • tgc1, on 01/23/2008, -3/+0You think that any of those involved ca