What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
175 Comments
- 55mph, on 06/06/2008, -9/+87"The report was supported by only two of the seven Republicans on the 15-member Senate panel."
Till the bitter end these morally corrupt Politicans will deny the truth even when they are faced with corraberated evidence.
They have no interest in the truth. Only in their agenda. - rawg, on 06/06/2008, -2/+63Let's not forget that the media were complicit in pushing these lies and derelict in their collective duty to provide objective information to the American people. I'm not making excuses for the Bush Administration but they couldn't have done it without the drum beating from the mainstream media.
- westbay1, on 06/06/2008, -3/+42It's amazing what you can accomplish when you have a stronghold over certain media outlets.
- inactive, on 06/07/2008, -3/+34The truth is, you were warned that it was full of *****, and you ignored the protesters, the world community, the UN, and most New Yorkers. We wouldn't be in Iraq without this stupid Neocon rag.
New York Times, Go ***** Yourself. - alapoet, on 06/06/2008, -4/+22Not only did Saddam NOT want us to think he had WMDs -- he actually opened Iraq to multinational inspectors to proven that he didn't.
None of which deterred George W. Bush in his rush to take the oil fields, of course. - xieodeluxed, on 06/07/2008, -0/+18Man, i keep thinking that "War" is used too much.
It should be "Occupation" - inactive, on 06/07/2008, -2/+18Never forget that the New York Times and the Washington Post were instrumental in "catapulting the propaganda" for Bush. Remember Judith Miller and her lies. These two rags are just tools of the propaganda machinery.
- dbzer0, on 06/07/2008, -0/+15What did you expect. Here, the Nazi leaders were denying the Holocaust while amongst the dead bodies of concentration camps...
- Scotty87, on 06/07/2008, -1/+16http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
- swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -1/+14Not to mention a covert propaganda campaign piping Department of Defense talking points straight to all major networks via "independent military analysts."
- swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -4/+15Correct me if I'm wrong, none of those people you quote would have had access to the intelligence information George W. Bush had in 2003, information which contradicted George W. Bush's public statements.
If you want to show that Democrats' false statements were morally equivalent to Bush's Iraq lies, you are going to have to prove that the Democrats you quote also had information at the time which contradicted what they were publicly saying. - vanebeard, on 06/07/2008, -2/+12I really don't care anymore. He lied, his friends lied, congress is a bunch of spineless aristocrats, blah blah blah. Wake me one someone is actually in jail over this *****.
- QuantumBios, on 06/07/2008, -2/+12This guy put it best - Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient, Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisar ...
please
Read it, digg it, and pass it on to friends and others.
"Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." - swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -2/+111. Bush was told that Saddam might still have weapons, or he might not. Congress was told that Saddam HAD weapons and we knew exactly where they were.
2. The "conjecture" you refer to is fully substantiated by the Senate's report.
3. Some analysts believed Saddam had weapons, others didn't. Bush simply chose to believe the analysts that supported his agenda.
4. Why do you think the title "The Truth About the War" contradicts the statement "we cannot say with certainty whether Mr Bush lied about Iraq?" - APOI, on 06/07/2008, -1/+10It's pretty easy to connect the dots here. We're talking about the "connect-the-dots that you find on the back of the Denny's menu with a crayon" easy. Bush planned regime change from the day he stole the election.
Paul O'Neil - O'Neill: Bush determined to invade Iraq from Day One. (2004)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaFE0mywaek&feature ...
Alan Greenspan - Blood For Oil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FyT2zWgVtw&NR=1
Scott McLellan - What Really Happened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljk6BUuZTaI
Now we get this report from the Senate Intelligence Committee ( Intelligence Committee??) that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice lied about the facts that led us to the war in Iraq. It seems to me that one after another, the puppets are starting to turn on their master. It's only a matter of time before we start hearing about what really happened on 9/11 and who was really responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Who really benefitted from those attacks? Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda? According to the FBI website, they still have no proof that he was responsible for 9/11 and he certainly didn't benefit from them.
Let's see...who benefitted from those attacks? The Military Industrial Complex sure made out nicely. George Bush was relelected in 2004 largely based on his ability to "protect the nation" from "the terrorists". Remember the commercial with the Wolves stalking us from the woods? The Wolves are already in the hen house people.
Where was the Air Force on 9/11, when communication with 4 US Airlines was lost and the planes were no longer on their scheduled flight path?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzYd7Iq9xyM
9/11 - The Myth and the Reality - Professor David Ray Griffin on the motivations behind 9/11. This speech took place before all of the Bush Insiders began coming forward with insider information on the lies that took us to war with Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydPbYIyjKEo&feature ...
What about WTC Building 7? It was not hit by a plane and was the first steel framed building in history to collapse due to a fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISW9sXP_Sik&NR=1
I think it's pretty clear that there was some sort of Government complicity in the attacks on 9/11. It really pisses me off that there are people who completely ignore the scientific facts because they just refuse to believe that the the Government can be involved in and lie about the attacks on 9/11 that killed American lives, but they CAN believe that they were involved in and lied about the attacks that followed that killed American and Muslim lives. It also pisses me off that anyone that believes in this is a conspiracy nut and whenever one of the MANY highly respected professors, scientists, military officers, CIA insiders and others appears on TV to discuss the attacks, the interviewer, especially FOX news, Tucker Carlson and Glen Beck will compare the 9/11 conspiracy to UFO's, bigfoot and other ridiculous *****, while simultaneously putting up pictures of Aliens and ***** and playing that spooky music, during a serious discussion.
The 9/11 Commission was ***** and I hope that people will start coming forward with information, just like they are with Iraq, because I think that's what it would take to get these criminals to stand trial. We all know nothing is going to happen to them just because they lied about going to war with a bunch of dirty muslims to steal their oil. But if they were caught lying about attacking their own country...We might finally see some real justice.
Flame On! - biotch, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8Who ever said low gas prices were part of the plan?
Take a stab at how many billions of dollars, that have actually been reported, the US has paid Halliburton alone. - Waiting2awake, on 06/07/2008, -3/+11You silly rabbit. You, the average guy, was never going to benefit. They benefited, doesn't mean you were ever supposed to. You are merely the cheering section for them.
- inactive, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8Too bad the new york times was part of the drum beat war machine that led us into Iraq into the first place. Their opinions often reflect whatever the majority opinion happens to be. Sadly.
- perkoff, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8He had to lie because of Terrorism. TERRORISTS!! You hear me? It wouldn't have been safe for him to say the truth because of the terrorists. You see he had to lie because of terrorism. We don't want another 9-11 do we? Nope we don't want another 9-11 so that's why we went after the country with zero people on those planes. They had no one on those planes but after we invaded Iraq people in the country started shooting at us. TERRORISTS!!! Not like if the gold old boy USA got invaded any of the people who are free to bare arms would be shooting at the people who are occupying our country. Nope, we'd be nice to them and welcome them in. I'd love to be bombed out of my home, and if it happened I would not shoot at the people who made me homeless, I'd welcome it with open arms.
- solidcube, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8This whole thing seems to be heating up, in a big hurry.
The honeymoon is over. Too bad it's lasted 8 years. It's shading rapidly into unrest, and I wouldn't want to be any of the party apparatchiks right about now. I'm really thinking there are going to be warcrimes trials if Obama gets in.
And if they want to pull shenanigans of one sort or another, they can go right ahead and do that, and suffer the consequences which will be worse and worse the longer they are delayed. As it is, it's going to be a real hot long summer. I just hope nothing should happen to Obama, because if it does the gloves will be off. - WolfDV, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8the truth ... War is big business
- 55mph, on 06/06/2008, -5/+13True enough. There's no party difference for the Liars. We have a one party system now that every single Politician is paid off by the same special interest groups.
- inactive, on 06/07/2008, -1/+9The official source of government lies was the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_special_pla ...
headed up by Israeli spy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith
There are better sources for this info than Wikipedia. - jvittetoe, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7there were plenty of people telling you the truth from day 1. you just weren't looking.
- JKap, on 06/06/2008, -2/+9Crack open a copy of the Constitution sometime and you'll see there in Article I, Section 8 that only Congress has the power to declare war, that of which there has not been passed by Congress since World War II (despite numerous "undeclared" "wars" like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq I & II (really just the same "conflict" started by Bush I and continued by Clinton), and countless other, smaller "conflicts").
Also, the Constitution prohibits the Congress from delegating its rightful powers to the Executive, such as in the case of the extra-constitutional "Authorization to Use Military Force" (AUMF) in Iraq that has been used by the President and the many disloyal members of Congress to justify the framed-up and engineered chaos in Iraq. - Cranq, on 06/07/2008, -1/+8Sure, both parties are *****. But the Repubs are ***** beyond what the Dems are. The Dems bought the story, but it was the GOP that polished the turd for all to consume.
- Shaman760, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7And when are the trials going to happen in the world court? Probably never.
- crowbar77, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7"I'm really thinking there are going to be warcrimes trials if Obama gets in."
Don't hold your breath. - nick111, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7Yea, we all know this - and most of us knew it before the war had even started.
Nothing will happen before the election. After that, lets send these people to prison. - inactive, on 06/06/2008, -3/+9Yep, they had to push it along. They already had their reporters locations thoroughly scouted for the best possibly live coverage.
I still regret not ever getting my Geraldo beheading video I was wishing for. - Corvidae, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6That's like saying Air force generals can order the bombing of countries on their own say so. They have to be authorized by the president. The president has to be authorized by congress.
- biotch, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6hah... before you call someone an idiot consider that lowering gas prices was never part of the plan.
The Bush administration repeatedly echoed that this war would be paid for by Iraq's oil production. - mr5150, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7The neo-con, pro war, oil hungry whores who pushed for the occupation of 2 nations should be impeached for their collaborative manufactured lies. Let the mob (public) decide what to do with these murdurous thugs when found guilty. Death is too good for these *****....perhaps send Lord Cheney and his Chimp for a walk accross an Iraqi desert with a small canteen of water an a 6 shooter like in the old westerns and see how well they emerge after a week in that place.
- redslash, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6Good job New York Times! Five and a half years late, but still!
- biotch, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5Sorry Lone... but the majority of those quotes come from congress members and others who were lied to by the Bush administration just like you and I. And a UN weapons inspector hardly counts as a "LYING democrat". The invasion taught us that Clinton's strategy kept Saddam's threat to a trivial level without the need for a full scale 600 billion dollar quagmire invasion. The Senate report illustrates the Bush administration's calculated dishonest remarks regarding more recent and detailed intel, at times completely fabricating assertions and/or leaving out important information countering Bush's case for war. There is no doubt that by far the vast majority of supporters and promoters for an actual invasion based on these lies came from the republicans. Therefore the majority of the blame lies squarely with them.
- bphicke, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5When put to an official vote, a declaration of war was overwhelmingly opposed. Being too spineless to withhold funding for the "war" does not equal a declaration of war.
- Arcueid01, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5I really wish we would quit debating this ***** and impeach them and try them already. It needs to happen to establish what the people do to representatives that so flagrantly break the law.
- stinkymonkey, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5I think everyone will agree that those people did play a part. They never asked the right questions or quite frankly, did the right thing. And they were wrong.
BUT.....
There is a major difference between them and Bush - This information came from Bush. And a lot of the conflicting information never made its way to Congress.
Bush needed to be honest and forthright - and he wasn't. He set the tone, he set the agenda, and he set the stage for war, and nothing was going to stop him. The United Nations tried to stop him and we blasted them as insignificant. Countries like France wanted to give diplomacy a chance and we changed a food item to freedom-fries.
The culture Bush created in Washington was that of fear, and I'm not talking about the fear of the "terrorists". I'm talking about dissent. If you dare say anything, you would be labeled a terrorist lover or un-patriotic. The Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed Bush was from Texas and most of the country went ballistic on them. They showed a very mild form of dissent, and they payed a huge price for that.
Bush wallowed in this type of fear, mastered it, bathed in it, and got off on it.
Even when the war started, if you said anything bad about him you were adding the terrorists. It was a sad time in our history.
Sadly, America will forget this lesson and the next war will be sold the exact same way unless Washington changes. I hope Obama changes this type of culture in Washington. I hope he gives back the monarchy to the people. I really do. - Belin, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6It is an opinion article. In their opinion section. It expresses some opinions of the author. They are backed up by a few facts.
- swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5I think you are trying to say that believing a lie is morally equivalent to lying...
- TonyQClifton, on 06/07/2008, -13/+17THE most biased news source in the WORLD.
couple of points here..
1. from the article - "The report confirms one serious intelligence failure: President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials were told that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and did not learn that these reports were wrong until after the invasion." Bush and Cheney were both told, along with congress that weapons were there. That's the bottom line. That's why congress (including Kerry and Clinton) voted to go to Iraq.
2. this article has a LOT of conjecture, here are some examples...
"he could have learned the truth if he had asked better questions or encouraged more honest answers."
"It seems clear that the president and his team knew that that was not true, or should have known it — if they had not ignored dissenting views and telegraphed what answers they were looking for."
"Claims by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld that Iraq had longstanding ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups also were false, and the Senate committee’s report shows that the two men knew it, or should have."
SHOULD, COULD, MIGHT? Is there ANY fact in this article? any non-subjective, substantive proof of anyone lying? WTF?
3. another admittance from the editorialist (like pulling teeth) "The report said Mr. Bush was justified in saying that intelligence analysts believed Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. "
4. the article ends with this...WTF?? "We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq." THEN WTF IS UP WITH THE TITLE?? - solidcube, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4You think the senate democrats are happy about what's gone on for the last 8 years? Bush has run roughshod over them for the better part of a decade and made them look like total asses.
I don't entirely buy into the "one party" meme. Time will tell, and we'll know very shortly what the score is.
I do know this: many of the democrats are some very nasty people when ***** with, who don't ever give up. A good example is Harry Reid.
When they have a massive majority, which I think they will very soon, I think it's going to be time for the belt to come out. They have the chance to absolutely destroy the GOP and get a Democrat majority for the foreseeable future. Do you really think they're not going to jump at the chance?
McClellan's book is one of many cracks in the dam and the weather is starting to look rather sanguine... - swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5The congress had WHAT same intelligence report? I "read again" and I still have no idea what the ***** you're talking about. Your post reeks of desperation and GOP talking points, or as the author of this editorial puts it: "sophistry transparently intended to protect Mr. Bush."
- nosecohn, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4The problem is, many of those Democrats voted for the war.
- edstate, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6Among other places, that recent 60 minutes piece about it? ...look, I'm not saying the administration wasn't hell-bent on going in there, evidence or no. They certainly were. I'm also not saying more couldn't have been done to prove that WMDs were/weren't there... it's not even a discussion that multiple intelligence agencies dropped multiple balls, they most certainly did. All I'm saying is that have been several accounts/reports that Saddam (stupidly) went along with the insinuation. Which didn't help things.
- hivoltage815, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4The NY Times also has reported plenty of nonfactual stuff too. Don't make them sound like they don't have their own agendas.
- eliot2000, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Does anyone know which rock Digg's sudden wave of vitriolic and extremely long winded neocon commentators are crawling out from? If you do, could you please tell them it isn't working?
- swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3that's the CHAIRMAN of the committee.
- jaxcs, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3You don't understand the article do you? These conjectures you write about are substantiated by the report. The editorial is not making these conjectures, it's the overall thrust of the report.
- Jamihabs, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Apparently, John Edwards also misled the American people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2JfndMusfc&eurl=ht ...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is