digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Treason: Cheney Caught Making Fake Intel to Attack Iran!

ipsnews.net — A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been illegally withheld for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme. Two former Central Intelligence Agency officers blow the whistle on Cheney.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • WaterDragon, on 11/13/2007, -11/+935It's too bad there isn't some kind of a Congress, representing all of the people and sworn to uphold the Constitution!
    • gmiley, on 11/13/2007, -1/+72What a novel concept...
      • nospinhere, on 11/13/2007, -11/+2But for that these stories actually have to be true.
        • mightydavefish, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3How right wing of you. You offer the opinion that the facts are not being represented, and yet you don't bother to link to any refuting evidence.
          Yep, typical rightard.
    • Corrosionx, on 11/13/2007, -2/+114YOU'RE A RADICAL!!
      • whiteninja, on 11/12/2007, -3/+51Someone get the antioxidants!
        • spucky, on 11/12/2007, -0/+20Don't worry. If he is in the US, he is not a *free* radical.
          • danomagnum, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1It's true, Americans undergo Markovnikov addition.
      • Aesculapius, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8They only work for FREE radicals. None of them in this country these days.
      • arbulus, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1To Gitmo with him!
    • TopherT, on 11/12/2007, -27/+1Comment abuse: Mirror Please?
      • robbh66, on 11/12/2007, -16/+2If you need a mirror for something supposedly ground breaking as this- it's probably not correct information.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 11/12/2007, -2/+60It's too bad there isn't some sort of executive office that includes an oath demanding that its sole responsibility be to defend the Constitution.
    • chukd, on 11/12/2007, -4/+28You are missing the point of the current Congress. The Dems are letting the current administration dig a big hole so it is easier to elect a Democratic President in 2008. The problem is that we have the Rep. that want to attack everyone. The Dems in Congress are following the leadership, telling them to vote for this stuff so the Dems look good in 2008. This is the reason why Washington warned us of a party system when he left the office of the President. The current leadership in both the executive and legislative branches are letting this country go down a road that will be near impossible to recover from.
      • TheReport, on 11/12/2007, -0/+16If you haven't noticed the Democratic Congress we elected last Novemeber isn't doing the job we sent them to do and their approval rating is just as if not lower then the President himself.
      • latrosicarius, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8The only thing Congress is doing is making ITSELF look bad. Too bad, I thought the new majority in congress would change some things. Apparently, they are just as susceptible to bribes from lobbying.
        • WaltDismal, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Bribes, and blackmail. It makes a lot of sense that all the wiretaps, email-reading, and other surveillance items put in place by this fascist administration are probably being used to gather anything that can be used to blackmail our representatives. Since many of them are dirty with little self-interest deals on the side anyway, and some filthy with bribes (oops, campaign money donations), I'm sure it is easy to find ways to twist their arms to get them to go along. And an administration that enjoys torture surely doesn't find it hard to twist arms.
      • chukd, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3Congress overall has a poor approval rating, but the Dems in Congress have higher ratings than the Reps. If you look at most polls, the country is displeased with both but they blame the Reps more than the Dems. To be fair, this was part of the Rep strategy at the end of the Clinton administration. They held up things or used the press to make Clinton, Dems by association, look bad so it was easier for a Rep to get elected president. The parties are more concerned about gaining power than doing what is right for the country. This is why the current system is flawed.
        • InfiniteNothing, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Current system isn't flawed. It's people who aren't smart enough to see through it all that are flawed.
    • BelXul, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5The best advice then would be toput the fire under their feet, so to speak. Send letters, encourage others to do the same. If they still do not listen, then take it to the next step. Show up with friends at their office, or get involved in some sort of march letting them know you are NOT happy with them. If they still refuse, make it clear that come next election, they will not be there. If problems persist, take it to a new level.
      • therightclique, on 11/12/2007, -5/+2oh, shut up.
      • dfsjdkflasjk, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0You'll only be wasting natural resources and filling up landfills in the grace period until another president steps in. Not doing anything productive, sorry!
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/12/2007, -2/+14I'm in ur alternative media... introducing radically novel conceptz?

      ....*I quit*
    • PurpleDingo, on 11/12/2007, -5/+4Yeah, I messaged Ron Paul's myspace as to why he voted to table the last impeachment resolution and his myspace manager passed along a statement to the effect of "waiting for the correct channels and cold hard facts so his impeachment will actually be constitutional." I expect the pair to be impeached at the eleventh hour.
    • PurpleDingo, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I messaged Ron Paul's myspace as to why he voted to table the last impeachment resolution and his myspace manager passed along a statement to the effect of "waiting for the correct channels and cold hard facts so his impeachment will actually be constitutional." I expect the pair to be impeached at the eleventh hour.
    • j1ggy, on 11/12/2007, -1/+15In Nazi Germany, we manipulate the truth and take rights away in order to be more 'secure.'
    • Wraithius, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5;_;
    • lordterrin, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6I saw this movie one time about this crazy "fanatic" America where the people voted for people who represented them... it didn't go anywhere though, the government quashed it out of fear
    • countrygirl31, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Well, representation? Don't hold your breath. If it doesn't line the pockets of congress, they won't do anything for you. I am sure the administration has bullied congress a bit also. Hey, if you don't play ball with them they will ruin your career, force you to silently resign, or put you in jail somehow. They have gone through people like tissues, you ever wonder why? They don't do or say what the administration wants to hear. This is no longer a government people. It is a crime ring.
    • Billybones, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5Seriously America, get off the couch and get control of your country.
      • DirtySnachez, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Seriously, Feed me.. Getting off the couch is for terrorist loving fags.
        • maverex, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Seriously America, get off DIGG and get control of your country.
    • toetagger, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Press_Service
      • Senchou, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for that, I had never heard of the IPS before and was curious how credible this story was.
    • PIPBoy2000, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Oh no thats just a political shindig where people write fat checks!
    • gwolf, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Let's not be too hard on the opposition just yet, the Neocons still control two thirds of the government and the Dems don't have enough of a majority to override veto's.
      I really miss divided government. It was so much harder for them to do something stupid.
    • Reaper2806, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad the American People are too apathetic to get up and do anything about it themselves.
    • nobogeys217, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1The only the time congress thinks about the constitution is when they run out of toilet paper.
    • MALONN, on 11/13/2007, -1/+0At the time of this, the first post has 911 diggs. Refused to digg this comment simply to leave it at the current number. But I digg you in my heart...
  • rhedwolf, on 11/13/2007, -7/+500It's too bad the mainstream media doesn't cover news like this.
    • Darkhacker, on 11/13/2007, -7/+158*Fox News Alert* - Treason: Democrats Caught Reading Real Intelligence To Not Attack Iran.
      • troye, on 11/12/2007, -20/+7Edit: *Fox News Alert* - Treason: Cheney and cronies caught reading real intelligence to not attack Iran.

        Democrats and Republicans are equally evil. Let us all admit it. Don't you remember what George Washington said about political parties and European waring countries?
        • GeneralFault, on 11/12/2007, -1/+20But lets face it, neither of them have as much evil as a Neo-con has in his or her little finger, or as much as Cheney has in a single hair.
          • spucky, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Haha! Like arsenic, Cheney's hair can be tested for evil. And a nearly lethal does of treason.

            Sorry... I'm really not twelve... honest...
        • Darkhacker, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1I agree. They both are evil and Fox isn't as bad as people say it is. The New York Times is probably just as (if not more so) biased. The Digg community is pretty predictable though in what gets dugg up or down. Most of the time they are logical but you also have a lot of extremists that will register multiple accounts to digg stuff up/down that they agree/disagree with. Thus the reason for so much Ron Paul spam despite the fact that he ranks so low nationally. Naturally this comment will get dugg down, as anything short of absolutely zealotry in favor of what the Digg community believes is a mortal sin. I just wanted to get this out there so I don't look like a sheep for my original comment. Unfortunately, looking like a sheep is exactly what gets you dugg up here. Not thoughtful, realistic commentary that is backed up with hard data to support it.
    • Grumps, on 11/13/2007, -3/+72It's too bad all the mainstream media is own by the billionaires who controls our government.
      • consoneo, on 11/12/2007, -0/+13Wasn't there a quote about some guy having a dream where Ted Turner was elected President, but declined the position because he didn't want to lose power?
        • spyd3rweb, on 11/12/2007, -0/+19Thats sounds more like rothschild or rockefeller.
          • bitcloud, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1finally people are reading history...
    • Drogoganor, on 11/12/2007, -22/+9It's too bad Americans are too high on war fever to give a *****.
      • gmiley, on 11/12/2007, -2/+45... Do not mistake the blood-lust of our corrupt leadership for the sentiment of our entire nation. You are severely confused about this situation if you think Americans, in general, are the ones "high on war fever".
        • offspring06, on 11/12/2007, -2/+22Americans may not be for war but your politicians are and they are your representatives.
          • empraptor, on 11/12/2007, -0/+18More like our ruling class, at this point. Who among them really act in accordance with the Constitution? Who among them is acting as our voice in the government rather than for their cronies and big corporations? All any of them care about is how they'll win the next election and how much money they can make on the side for all their friends.

            There needs to be more parties and more candidates for office of every level so there's higher risk of incumbents getting voted off. We need to start new parties - and they need to start at local level so a large queue of experienced politicians can continually take bites out of Washington. If we do that in a few decades maybe we'll have some semblance of representation in Washington.
          • aukxsona, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2More like our kingship. We no longer have a pure democracy.
        • stubear, on 11/12/2007, -0/+18@offspring06: They are our representatives but they are failing to act on the will of the people and are just as culpable as the President as far as I am concerned.
        • IBadassI, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5I'm sorry to have to point this out but the reason GWB is the President is because you guys voted him in as a majority, not just once, but Twice! I mean you can't make that mistake again as he can't re-stand a third time, but boy why did he get in the second time?

          I bet that the voting will be rigged in the next election anyway, because the wrong people will not want to lose that power.
          • gmiley, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Well, I'll tell you that I have never voted for him, and I know plenty of people who also did not vote for him. Unfortunately the popular vote does not always win. The people vote for who they want in office, but the only votes that really matter are those of the Electoral College. When the people vote, their votes are only used to determine witch slate of Electors are chosen to make the final State votes.
        • RSPDude, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1well think about it. GWB or Kerry. No contest. This is why bipartisan politics is inherently flawed.
      • AirRaven, on 11/12/2007, -9/+3Screaming "TREASON! HANG THEM!" is only a *slight* step up from the insanity of the current administration.
        • empraptor, on 11/12/2007, -0/+17How about "TREASON! LOCK 'EM AWAY!"

          Not going to happen, but I'd personally like to see them get life sentences. Make them serve as examples.

          Though now that I think about it isn't GWB all for the death sentence?
          • MacEnvy, on 11/12/2007, -0/+11Only if you're black or retarded. Then he's all for it. And the execution stats from TX prove me right.

            What a despicable human being this President of ours is.
      • headcase, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5Is that what I'm smoking?! Why didn't anyone tell me we made the switch?
        • SupaSolly, on 11/11/2007, -2/+4He's been smoking foldgers war fever for months now & doesn't even know the difference.
    • silversalute, on 11/12/2007, -14/+2If it were true it would!
    • j1ggy, on 11/12/2007, -5/+3Given time and understanding, user generated knowledge will replace mainstream media.
      • Lukesed, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1User... generated... knowledge...
        I think the web bubble 2.0 has officially started.
        • j1ggy, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Hello? User generated knowledge and content? Ever heard of Digg?
        • vat0r, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Reality as we know it is "user generated knowledge". It's in everything.
    • bbrodsky, on 11/12/2007, -1/+8Countdown with Keith Olbermann does!!!!
      MSNBC is our last hope in america of a real news channel....
      • DukeMojo, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Olbermann must get the O.K. from his bosses before he's allowed to do anything.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1I can't believe people fell for Olbermann. What a bunch of fools.
          • bbrodsky, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1how so?
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1He's obviously a red herring. He has a boss right? That boss is a billionaire who owns a major news corp right? All major news corps have been controlled since the streamlining of the dissemination of information due to the printing press right? We now know to never expect big articles like bush and cheney having cooked the "evidence" for the Iraq war and now the Iran war right? Well why do you expect this seemingly good guy who obviously has a script to come in at the EXACT moment when its acceptable to bash bush like we've always wanted to. You've heard of the term distraction right? Its just like positioning A democrat that you have in your pocket to take office after you've used up a Republican. People think they're goingn to get a break now that the parties have changed, but nope, still in the pocket.

            As an example. What is the most villified news medium that is mainstream in the world? Fox News right? Who is its president? Rupert Murdoch, right? He's a known staunch neoconservative Republican, correct?
            Ok...well guess which presidential candidate he's been backing behind the scenes? HILLARY CLINTON! WOOOW! Since 2004 he's been having dinner with clinton after Bush's victory, presumably discussing how they are going to conquer the white house in 08. Money has flowed out of him like the Thames River towards her and all his palls and cronies have been giving her money like its going out of style.

            Nothings changed. We're all still being played, and unless you turn off tv and devote your trust to your own sanity and the internet, then you'll keep getting played.

            I'M OUT!

            *rips off tie and storms out*
        • vat0r, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Olberman, Oreilly .. both puppets, just a different hand up each ass running the controls.
          • bbrodsky, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1olberman seems pretty good to me, whats wrong with him?
    • Mouser58907, on 11/12/2007, -3/+2Maybe because there is no fact behind it. An investigation should be held first.
      • bitcloud, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1"I hereby appoint Cheney's former business partner to be in charge of the investigation..."

        you'd laugh... then you'd look at the rockefeller commission, or the 911 commission, or the abu ghraib investigation...
  • WiseWeasel, on 11/13/2007, -39/+162Interesting article, but the complete lack of cited sources, and of reputable publisher are worrisome. Some confirmation would be nice...
    • dafragsta, on 11/12/2007, -10/+6Define reputable publisher.
      • Coded1, on 11/12/2007, -1/+9To start, someone who gives us the "National Intelligence Estimate report" and what the "Two former Central Intelligence Agency officers" are saying.
    • an10ae, on 11/12/2007, -3/+52This is a well known wire service, it is the source and it will never be cited in the U.S. because no one in the media will even attempt to report or try and confirm the story.

      More About: IPS
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Press_Service
    • billyjack1958, on 11/13/2007, -3/+75Did we read the same article? After reading your comment, I went back to the article and reread it. I saw quoted sources throughout it. I possess two journalism degrees and consider Inter Press Service News Agency a reputable source.
      • WiseWeasel, on 11/12/2007, -3/+30Actually, you're right, they did provide some names. My bad. On first read, I missed the cited names for some reason, and I had never heard of this wire service, so I was skeptical. Digg me down.
        • GeneralFault, on 11/12/2007, -1/+26Good to see an open mind willing to be convinced by reasonable argument and evidence here.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

          Oh, I mean...

          ...Kidding... :/
        • vat0r, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3There is civility on the internet occasionally and it's good to see it on digg.
      • cyclingco, on 11/19/2007, -0/+0two journalism degrees from where? a community college. I could cite my anus for all that it matters(and itd be worth more because I'm at a much better university than you came from), citations aren't worth ***** if you aren't intelligent enough to rationalize your argument. journalists should leave the thinking to the smart people. go snap your pictures and pretend you are worth something
    • gmiley, on 11/12/2007, -25/+1Exactly, I would really love to believe stuff like this, but lack of sources and confirmation makes me hesitate to accept it as truth, even if it is.
    • offspring06, on 11/12/2007, -5/+8Do you mean Fox news?
    • djpants428, on 11/12/2007, -0/+19IPS is basically like the AP. They are basically an international reputable source.
    • therightside, on 11/12/2007, -10/+1Dont let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 11/12/2007, -1/+7IPS is reputable, just not well known in the US. The stuff they cover doesn't sell Pepsi, diet supplements, and mobile phone plans.
    • Trav3133, on 11/12/2007, -4/+1IPS is reputable, Kevin James told me so.
    • cyclingco, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0thank you! the article said very little, other than they released a report saying the nuclear program could be a few things. If the white house came out with a split report, then the liberals would be yelling at them for not making up their minds and leaving it open. The author tries to make it seem like the white house wants the info skewed towards them, but all of those links are assertions by the author and have basically no backing to them. Its like coming back from a lot of investigating with your hands in the air, and the white house is saying, no, make up your mind, and let us know, this is important.

      If I were you all I would read up on the reports from explosive experts about the types of explosives being used in Iraq and how the level of competence of Iraqi resistance is actually increasing as the war goes up in very abrupt spurts, very indicative of a more organized and intelligent force coming in and training them. Iraqi resistance went from not being able to hit ***** with their mortars to systematic and highly accurate bombing in a matter of weeks. Plus the explosives being used are nearly identical to Iranian special forces. They didn't figure it out on their own......
  • senorcool, on 11/12/2007, -9/+74Off with his head!
    • LukasSmith, on 11/12/2007, -29/+1Seriously how do you democrats keep finding this crap? I mean obscure biased garbage like ipsnews.net. I mean seriously wtf is ispnews.net, rawstory.com, thinkprogress.org? Hell id believe New York Times over this garbage.
      • offspring06, on 11/12/2007, -1/+26They are news agency. They have more credibility than Fox News.
        • shadowsurfr1, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5That doesn't say much...
        • chijim70, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4They have more credibility than ANY American news agency. LukasSmith... just because it isn't something you already knew about and didn't agree with your narrow views doesn't make it something you can't learn about and learn something from. Open that closed little mind of yours and read this article about who they are... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Press_Service (be sure to scroll down and read more than the first paragraph)
          Remember my comment to you before. Read up before talking out of your ass. It only takes a sec to check your facts before making yourself sound foolish.
          This news service is pretty much the most reputable in the world, not based in the US, and yet just because they don't agree with your narrow little views they must have an agenda and be liberal Americans right?
          How many more times am I going to have to prop open your eyelids and shove your face in the truth before you open your eyes on your own? Do you like sounding like a partisan parrot?
          You don't have to be liberal man... you just need to wake the hell up.
          • LukasSmith, on 11/12/2007, -3/+0and this proves they are credible how?Reputable by whose standards? jeez even I could start a news agency tommorow. Will you be my first fan? And as the last comment before you mentioned perhaps you should read more then first sentence of comment and none of article provided.
      • LukasSmith, on 11/12/2007, -18/+1OMG always the FOX thing. LEARN something new today Democrats. NOT every republican watches Fox News. In fact my only news sources are reuters, bbcnews, abcnews, Daily show, and Colbert Report. But more on point stating these sources are more credible to Fox news doesnt make them any more believable. Or maybe that was your point?
        • senorcool, on 11/12/2007, -1/+16dude chill out with the whole democrats vs. republicans thing.
        • GeneralFault, on 11/11/2007, -0/+7Great... so you really do fit the saying, "If you are not completely outraged, you are not paying attention" then don't you?
          • LukasSmith, on 11/12/2007, -4/+0and you fit the comment "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" you are just a pawn of liberal media and your bieng fooled again. I just pulled a saying out my hat. doesnt mean anything but its cool.
          • GeneralFault, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1I suppose, but I wasn't fooled into thinking that Iraq had WMD's or that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or that Iran will have nukes "very soon". So, who is getting fooled again?
        • Mindzai, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8Look past the partisan politics clown...this criticism of Cheney has nothing to do with dems vs repubs, but rather with his crimes against the American people.
          • LukasSmith, on 11/12/2007, -3/+0look past partisan politics? pff. Your comment is as partisan as they get. Not everyone thinks cheney is the devil note 2 time elected republican president aka Bush and cheney vs 0 time elected democrat president, actually with next election make that 3 time elected republican. And crimes? apparently none of your representatives seem to agree because no impeachment no court trial. You know with democrats yelling out innocent till proven guilty you think they would know better.
      • AdamGeld, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1What, exactly, makes you think senorcool is a democrat? There are not only 2 political parties, you know. The world has more shades than black and white.
        • LukasSmith, on 11/11/2007, -1/+0Those other shades hardly exist. Even poor Ron Paul has to jump on republican ticket to even get thought of for five seconds. Ultimately though he will probably lose.
    • madmonkey300, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1To the gallows! O_o
    • deadnoob, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2whats a dick with its head
    • aazn, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1We could always waterboard him or something.
  • SilverStandard, on 11/13/2007, -4/+125Lord Cheney can do no wrong because he is a special creature constituting the fourth branch of government. How dare you question his lordship, for the law flows from his hand!
    • krnldmp, on 11/12/2007, -4/+1That's not funny, and the psychologists that actually make this ***** up have you playing right along.
    • ruley, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4he's the fifth branch. media is the 4th. try to keep up.
  • Grumps, on 11/13/2007, -3/+33Its not his first time and he still gets away with it. No wander all these politician would lie about anything to get elected.
    • pkonink, on 11/12/2007, -0/+14This is exactly the same behavior that was going on in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion. Selectively using intelligence and silencing (or attempting to, at any rate) anyone who disagrees with that selectively chosen intelligence.

      As someone famous once put it, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
      • srgtTarantula, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1He probably just finished listing to The Who on is iPod.
    • GeneralFault, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8It makes me almost as mad at Pelosi for refusing to impeach him. After all, Cheney is just doing what we know he will do. It's in his nature. It now becomes Pelosi's fault for refusing to recognize and deal with the inevitable actions of Cheney and his closest followers. I was a Pelosi fan, but now I'm jaded and would vote her out in a second if I was in her district.

      Vote Kucich! He is the only man in government with both morals and balls.
      • GeneralFault, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3If only his name were easier to spell... I know it's Kucinich.
      • LOCK3D, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5I like Kucinich, but he seems to be against the second amendment. "Gun control" takes away the rights of good people to legally defend themselves, their families and their freedom. There will always be criminals with guns no matter what legislation gets passed. The 2nd amendment is primarily meant to give the people the power to prevent criminals from hijacking the government and destroying the foundation that defines The United States of America, it's Constitution, a document they are sworn to uphold and defend. The only candidate I've seen that has proven by his voting record and everything he says, that he takes that oath seriously is Ron Paul. Sorry, I know that name is either loved or hated around here, but it's just my honest opinion.
    • L.Jenkins, on 11/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, man exactly! It really is no wander.... what a shome... : (
  • zdiddy85, on 11/12/2007, -6/+21Burn Cheney, burn.
  • spyd3rweb, on 11/13/2007, -5/+36Impeached Yet?
    • nphase, on 11/12/2007, -1/+6Nope!
      • spyd3rweb, on 11/12/2007, -1/+6What about Now?
        • JonAce, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry, not now either. Please check back when congress grows a spine and finds their balls.
          • spyd3rweb, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2OK i'll be back in 100 years if digg is still around.
  • KevenM, on 11/12/2007, -6/+18They have WMD's!!!!
  • toomanyhandles, on 11/12/2007, -38/+10Good thing they cite credible sources, or even.... name a source... oh wait
    THEY DON'T

    I'd like to get these guys out but if it's OK to make ***** up to get them out, then why isn't it right for them to make ***** up to support their worldview?
    • OswaldKenobi, on 11/12/2007, -11/+1You're dugg down because you point out a fallacy in the article these idiots want to believe. If the same organization published an article detailing why we should go to war with Iran, using the same "unnamed" sources, these morons would digg it down very quickly.
      • cherwilco, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2no you imbecile. you are wrong he is dugg down for trying to purposely and simplemindedly spread mis information without even bothering to check the facts for himself (or maybe he did)! there was a time when people could just openly believe their preferred news outlet with no doubts about the credibility or truthfulness about the news in which they where reporting, but those days are long gone now what with the lies and "spun" truths of the CONSERVATIVE media outlets! This article clearly and PLAINLY states its own sources so I would like to toomanyhandles for him to state where he got HIS information from that this article does not contain any sources because I can tell you that he didn't get it from clicking on the ***** LINK!
        The mis-information spreading neo-cons are the lowest for of ***** slime on this planet and they should be held accountable for the lies they try to spread!
        • abeduler, on 11/14/2007, -3/+0'conservative media outlets'... Yeah... RRRight. Like Dan Rather's report on Bush and the forged documents? the neocons are the only ones keeping your coward ass safe.
          • cherwilco, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1I am a whole lot less afraid than those ***** that actually voted for bush because he said he would protect us against the terrorists and the terror spread with their terror attacks (gee remind you of anyone with the all the terror references?) THOSE idiots (you?) are the cowards! oh and when I mentioned the lies coming from the conservative media outlets I didnt mean that all the media outlets are conservative...just the ones doing all the lying!
    • GeneralFault, on 11/12/2007, -0/+11oh wait... THEY DO! Go read it again idiot.
      • GeneralFault, on 11/12/2007, -0/+9Some sources in the article:
        Philip Giraldi, Former CIA officer
        John Negroponte, Former Director of National Intelligence
        Robert G. Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and an ally of Cheney
        Frank J. Gaffney, a protégé of neoconservative heavyweight Richard Perle,
        Newsweek
        the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate (as released by the WH)
        Thomas Fingar, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, in an interview with National Public Radio (I suppose that would be 2 sources)
        Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and founder of the anti-war group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

    • Arcesius, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3If it's not on TV, it didn't happen, right?....
    • TantrooM, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5So what source does Chaney site that they want to make a nuke again?
    • TheLoneHoot, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2I'd say "Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi" is a named, credible source. "In October 2006, Giraldi wrote in The American Conservative..."

      "...chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Thomas Fingar, said in an interview with National Public Radio..."

      "...Robert G. Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and an ally of Cheney..." is another source for the basis of the story. Granted, he may not have been INTERVIEWED for the story, but citing his actual words and actions rather than rumors is reasonable.
  • bushisterrorist, on 11/13/2007, -37/+17Rule of law is only for peasants.

    The elites rule, and what are you going to do about it?

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!
    • djbon2112, on 11/12/2007, -8/+3Whatever you say...
      • bushisterrorist, on 11/12/2007, -6/+3Is that supposed to be a clever response when you can't dispute what the person is saying?
        • djbon2112, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1No, it's a formulaic response to a formulaic ***** post.
    • Midvicious, on 11/12/2007, -4/+1Oh for Christ's sake, get a Facebook.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 11/12/2007, -4/+2I am reporting you as abusive for your non-stop copy and paste spamming. I've called you on it numerous times. I encourage everyone to digg you down and report you as abusive for this behavior.
  • GhettoMan, on 11/12/2007, -9/+2Oh My Gosh.
  • AmonAmarth, on 11/12/2007, -4/+21It's time to get out guys.

    Our government has been usurped by these insane, money hungry deviants. Flee while you still can.
    • bushisterrorist, on 11/12/2007, -0/+14Is that your idea of defending the Constitution?
    • noremorse1, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Was our Country not founded by a large group of people who fled to pursue life in a place where they could uphold their own idea of freedom? (regardless of what they did to the Native Americans, that is an entirely different can of worms).
    • Arkavus, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
      If I can't live free here I'll die trying.
      • pcflea, on 11/12/2007, -2/+1Sadly you are already dead. People who have lives don't waste it on a computer.
        • rune420, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Seriously, spending an hour or two on the computer every day doesn't mean you're life is necessarily any less exciting than the average persons, who would probably just spend that same time watching TV (or at least not going on some wild adventure like you make it sound).
          I'll admit I spend quite a bit of time on the computer, but I still work out three times a week, go to school and go partying almost every weekend. And I don't even have a TV.
        • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Ironically, you posted that from a computer, no?
      • AmonAmarth, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1I wish I could say the same. I'm actually pretty disgusted with where everyone is in this country. No one cares to question anything anymore, no one cares to experience anything outside their little bubble of comfort. No one takes the time to know the real truth, not the mind-controlling ***** being spewed out on television day after day. I'm being sincere as possible when I say this, America is proper *****. No matter what you think you or I can do as citizens and contribute to making a change, spreading a truth that people just simply don't want to hear (we've got some guilty here on digg) won't help regardless of whether or not the people in question do the research, they simply refuse to believe it.

        All I have to say is connect the dots people. Do some research with an open mind and connect the dots.
    • abeduler, on 11/12/2007, -1/+0LOL!!! Yeah, all who agrees they all are money hungry deviants, please leave!!
      • AmonAmarth, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Hey look man, I implore you to do some research on the amount of money Cheney has made since the war in Iraq started. I don't mean to condescend or anything, but there's a reason why we're going to war, and it ain't because of the ***** nukes, buddy.
  • colonels1020, on 11/13/2007, -16/+124fake Intel = AMD?
  • heystoopid, on 11/13/2007, -5/+19This man and all his evil deeds would make Saddam look like a saint in comparison which means he is a certifiable war criminal for all his misdeeds , so why indeed would he care that he will add another million or so innocent Iranians to his current butchers tally !
    • wangl3r, on 11/12/2007, -3/+2Are you serious? Sure, Cheney is a gigantic douche, but worse than Saddam? No ***** way. How many people has Cheney killed? Well, besides the whole "shot in the face" debacle.
      • Arkavus, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4Over 1 million Iraqi Civilians and 3860 (as of right now) US soldiers
  • Leomarth, on 11/13/2007, -2/+28A one act play, by me.

    Cheney enters, stage left
    "I find your lack of faith disturbing." while curling fingers.
    Curtain closes.
  • ZenMojo, on 11/12/2007, -0/+39If this is true, then he HAS to be impeached. We can't let this ***** hold power anymore.
  • Corrosionx, on 11/12/2007, -2/+35If anyone had the balls to impeach him, they could have done that years ago. Do you think maybe all the phone spying collected some useful blackmail material?
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 11/13/2007, -1/+17Wow. Sure is lucky this didn't come out two days ago, when the Democrats decided that doing their job as oversight was going to be too "distracting" from haggling about a farming bill.
  • sjbdallas, on 11/12/2007, -7/+11Did anyone read the article? It doesn't even begin to justify the title of this post. I'm no fan of the administration but it doesn't help matters when both sides promote terribly innaccurate information as fact. I would prefer detailed, credible information, not opinion pieces and slanted reporting.
    • pkonink, on 11/12/2007, -4/+5I read the article, of course. While the title is incredibly sensationalist in a way that would bring a tear to Rupert Murdoch's eye, it is in the same ballpark at least. I would consider manipulating intelligence to fit one's policy agenda to be a treasonable act.

      Also you must realize that the people who write the titles are not (usually) trained journalists, let alone talented and intelligent editors. Of course you're going to get idiotic titles. I thought the article itself was quite well-written and credible.
      • p0s3r, on 11/12/2007, -7/+2Speaking of "trained journalists", neither is the author of this "news article". He's some liberal hack huffpo blogger.
    • mikes1, on 11/12/2007, -2/+3You're correct. For all the pissing and moaning about the "rule of law," and the Constitution, it's obvious that those people haven't even read the Constitution. It gives a very precise definition of treason, and this doesn't qualify even if all the undocumented "facts" were true.
  • TopherT, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Mirror Please?
  • eryximachus, on 11/13/2007, -20/+3I really find it comical that all these liberal digg posters actually believe the vice president has any authority in our government. He doesn't. The formal powers and role of the vice president are limited by the Constitution to becoming President in the event of the death or resignation of the President and acting as the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate. As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College.
    • offspring06, on 11/12/2007, -2/+13Apparently you are blind and deaf to think Cheney has no power. He is the brain behind Bush.
    • pkonink, on 11/12/2007, -2/+10That statement would have meant more before 2000. You would also think an adviser would have relatively little to no power also, yet I present to you Karl Rove.
    • p0s3r, on 11/12/2007, -10/+2Whats even more comical is some dudes blog post dressed up as a news article gets the diggtards foaming at the mouth.
    • kreneskyp, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5You give the description of what the VP's defined role is. He should have almost no authority. however, its very clear from many sources that cheney from the beginning was not taking a ceremonial position. He has his hands in alot of things and this was approved by bush.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Edith Wilson had no official power either, but don't tell a historian that she didn't run the country for a time when her husband fell ill. You are remarkably naive to think Cheney has no power.
  • x083, on 11/13/2007, -2/+33repeal the federal reserve act of 1913... this is their catalyst that gives them control of all congressmen and senators. they are all bought with money stolen from the people through inflation, and then large government war contracts, then kick backs, then bribes... This country is headed for another Civil War
    • cherish592, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5True, but who would be on each side? Lets see, most of the american public (provided we aren't obese or on prozac) vs. cheney and his goons?
      • p0ss, on 11/12/2007, -2/+1His goons would be the American military and military contractors, the American public doesn't stand a chance.
        • Corrosionx, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah just like the Iraqis with their ***** weapons, they don't stand a chance!!

          • p0ss, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2The distinct difference being that American military and police forces all ready control, and have large bases at, all the stretegic areas within America, Also, American soldiers in America would have local knowledge, the ability to speak the language, no social differences and many other advantages.

            Above and beyond that, Large corporations have a vested interest in prolonged warfare in Iraq, the more sectarian and paramilitary violence there is, the longer they can continue to reap the benifits of defense contracts and unfetered resource aquisition. If the war in Iraq were to come to an end, the economic forces that tricked us in to war in the first place would cease to draw such a hefty stipend.

            Whereas, an american civil war would reduce corporate profits and threaten the current international commerical status quo. You can bet that the banks who currently own the US government would be bending over backward to lend the US government money to aid in the suppression of its peoples. Anything to garuntee an amiable (dare I say enslaved) government stay in power.
      • Corrosionx, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3I think it would be statists vs. the pro-freedom people. The statists would get their asses handed to them.
    • jaymzdean, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, U.S. soldiers happen to be big Ron Paul fans. Which is probably a big reason Cheney want's them in quagmire.
  • macgecko, on 11/12/2007, -11/+5Who are the mystery "Two former Central Intelligence Agency officers" and do they even exist? Next if you are a fool enough to think that if only their were a 100% democrats in all offices including the oval office then things would be different? They I some cheap swap land Id like to sell you. I have some news for you, nothing will change. Guess what they always rewrite the facts to serve whatever point of view they want. Do you honestly think the best company ever wins a government contract? Things only change when people have the interests of the whole in mind and not some small group with an agenda to push. Sorry to be such a wet blanket but it's the truth folks...
    • pkonink, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5I think fewer and fewer people are believing that a 100% democrat- or 100% republican-controlled government would be fundamentally different in terms of corruption and abuse-of-power, in fact it would be far worse. One of the few positive things Bush has done is open more people's eyes this fact.
    • queenstarsha, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1when we had a democratic president, we were not universally hated by the world. that is a difference that matters a lot to me. i travel, see.
  • dkern, on 11/12/2007, -2/+9Its all beginning to fall apart as people with a conscious try to buy back their souls. We will witness whistle blower after whistle blower spilling their guts and tell us the truth- the question is: What are we going to do about it? And what are THEY going to do to stop us?
    • Leomarth, on 11/12/2007, -4/+4What are we going to do about it? Nothing.

      Nobody will really move against him, or Bush, because they're lame ducks. Nobody is going to realize that the entire system is the problem, because to the populace, it's better to have an abusive, overreaching government, than no government.
    • pkonink, on 11/12/2007, -2/+6*Conscience* - most of us are conscious whether we do good or evil.
  • Benminnn, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4The *most* important part is that the messed with reports didn't get out this time. That, at least, is good.
  • synthpop, on 11/12/2007, -3/+33read first.
    Cheney is not making fake intel this time (like he did with Iraq), he's blocking real intel that says Iran is not such a big threat. For over a year Darth Cheney has been desperately seeking anyone in the intelligence community to sign off on his lunatic "bomb Iran" scheme, but everyone is refusing. Can you blame them? Why would anyone agree to rubber-stamp some bat-***** crazy Neocon lies that are going to start World War III? So what now? He's gonna keep blocking the real intel until someone in the CIA delivers the goods, if no one delivers then Cheney will go for "plan B" and forge some documents (not the first time)
  • BarbadoSlim, on 11/12/2007, -2/+12I'm wondering; how are we in any way prepared to go and start dicking around in Iran? We barely have enough people to do what we are doing now, I'm guessing they'll start some sort of draft to reel in all the black folk and Hispanics, but what happens when all them nice white kids have to go and spill some their nice suburban blood? Meanwhile the youth of China, Germany, Japan, India etc...are getting educated and leaving our sorry asses behind Hehehehehehe, we are gonna reap the whirlwind.
  • SupaSolly, on 11/12/2007, -1/+6It is obvious that congress will do nothing to help the American people. To cowardly to impeach Bush or Cheney & the next president will have the same tyrannical powers most likely just getting worse. Well atleast we can vote for our dictator for now.
  • Steelhound, on 11/12/2007, -12/+2I hate it when stories like this get Dugg because they always come from some wackjob source with no way to cite where it came from. If it came from an even half-ass source I'd believe it.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Obviously you don't read well, or research the sources yourself do you?
    • abeduler, on 11/12/2007, -1/+0Steel, I couldn't agree more. These guys need serious help. This website is a good example of mob rule. Reason gets buried, speculation and lies get dugg.
    • dinAlt, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1The IPS is an major international newswire service, much like the AP. What do you consider reliable, "Fox News?"
  • streaky, on 11/12/2007, -9/+2The RDNS of the server that site is sat on is carfinancing4u.com - I'm sure they're a really reliable source though if you like talking crap.

    The IAEA says they're probably a threat to world security, that's not really up for debate - the real question is what's to be done about it, I doubt Cheney will have any say in the answer to that question given the time-scale of the situation. Why do you guys get so heated over nothing all the time? Just makes you look 'tarded.
  • cavsct94, on 11/12/2007, -9/+2And the intrepid IPS news service, sans actual verifiable sources, cracks the case and Digg readers froth...
    • p0s3r, on 11/12/2007, -3/+2Some how, this outstanding reporter, Gareth Porter, convinced the infallible editors to publish is prior blog posts as a news piece.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/che ...
      • dinAlt, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, Gareth Porter maintains a blog on Huffinton Post. The Inter Press News Service story was also written by Gareth Porter. If you had bothered to compared the two, you might have noticed the IPS story is NOT a copy of the blog post you linked to. For that matter, the link you provided is not even the most relevant blog post. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/how ...

        Is there something inherently wrong with a Journalist maintaining a blog and commenting on his own work? The journalistic integrity of the IPS story appears to be very solid. The weakest aspect of the story is the unnamed source, but even without the this, the article is pretty damning.
        • p0s3r, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Porter is a self admitted "anti-war activist". I'm sure none of his bias crept into this "news piece".
          • dinAlt, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1What, holding a personal opinion about the war disqualifies you as a journalist? Do you believe there is a journalist alive, who has does not have a personal opinion about the war? A blog or op ed piece is the proper venue for opinion pieces, whereas news articles are not. He appears to understand this distinction. There has never been a news article written, which did not have some degree of bias. This article is no exception.
            Restated more explicitly, your argument appears to be: Gareth Porter has claimed Cheney, a key advocate of war on Iran, is manipulating the NIE on Iran in furtherance of his goal. Gareth Porter is against war with Iran, therefore he _must_ have made it all up. This argument is asinine.
            First off, having a strong opinion does not imply you are willing to sacrifice your integrity in furtherance of your agenda. Perhaps you are projecting? You might have a case if you could point to past deliberate deception on the part of the author, as we can in the case of Cheney, but all you can come up with is "he is anti-war." Pathetic.
            Next, have you even read the article? Yes, he quotes an unnamed source. It is understandable why you would not want your name printed if you were this person. It is also possible, although unlikely, that the author just pulled this out of his ass. This happens from time to time, on both side of the journalistic war camp. If this was his only source, you would have a point, but unfortunately for you, he does have another source and this one is named.
            "Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi provided a similar account, based on his own sources in the intelligence community. He told IPS that intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House."
            This named source strongly corroborates the story of the unnamed source. This is a fact that can be verified and is not a matter of opinion. His anti-war feelings have no bearing on the truth of this matter.
            Sure, Giraldi might have made this up, but the author's anti-war sentiment in not relevant to Giraldi's statement. Your argument is a red herring.
          • p0s3r, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1"Philip Giraldi is a former officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency who became famous for claiming in 2005 that the USA was preparing plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons in response to a terrorist action against the US, independently of whether or not Iran was involved in the action."
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Giraldi
            Yeah, getting some loonie Truther-type to corroborate your unnamed source adds alot of credibility to the story.
  • stanleyford, on 11/12/2007, -9/+3Link to the article is broken. When I click on it, I see a story about how Cheney doesn't want an intelligence report released because the conclusions of the analysts differ from those of the White House. Where's the link to the article about Cheney making fake intel? Can someone post it, please?
    • abeduler, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Na... saying cheney fakes intel fits more into these guys agenda.
  • offspring06, on 11/12/2007, -2/+14Unfortunately Dick Cheney has some kind of cloak which allows him to do whatever he wants with no consequences.
    • krnldmp, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah. That cloak is you.
    • Radar3D, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1It's more of a field that distorts reality. I believe his apprentice also has this field.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1It must be Kevlar.
  • PalIkas, on 11/14/2007, -2/+10Impeach....!!!!! just do it!!!!
  • alphacritic, on 11/12/2007, -4/+2All I can say is WOW!
  • bsmang, on 11/12/2007, -2/+9Headline is a bit overreaching, but I think the general theme of the story is probably pretty accurate.
  • eth3l, on 11/12/2007, -11/+3I am dumber for having read this digg post.
  • londubh, on 11/14/2007, -1/+11Can we impeach him now?
  • seanhive, on 11/12/2007, -1/+9If I had dog ears they'd be up right now. I sense a crescendo soon, no? These types of stories, whether I read read them on the internet or on TV News, seem to be coming at us increasingly quicker and with more shock and credibility every day.

    Interesting times.
    • Mindzai, on 11/11/2007, -0/+2Hopefully a sign of good things to come...but bad for war criminals.
    • queenstarsha, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1i've noticed, too. i think bush's comment that if he were iraqi, he'd be thanking god for freedom may have been a tipping point. who is that stupid?
  • SoulDesigner, on 11/11/2007, -8/+1in before ron paul
  • Mercedes383, on 11/12/2007, -6/+0I know it is nigh impossible to happen, but what happens if no one votes? Draw straws?
  • Dominea, on 11/12/2007, -3/+14Impeach him. Try him for treason then hang that son of a bitch NOW!
  • DeFex, on 11/12/2007, -4/+4i hear they have cool sniper rifles that are accurate a mile away..
    oops i think this might be the wrong thread.
  • sixela, on 11/12/2007, -12/+2Cheney for president!
  • EarlOfLade, on 11/14/2007, -10/+30The American people love being lied to. They go out and buy more ***** with money they don't have with credit cards they can't pay for before watching more American idol and pray for grandma's cancer that they can not get treated because it would cost them $300000 they don't have and with no insurance, it's game over for grandma, just skydaddy left and he never do anything..

    Then they go out and buy a gun so they can protect their family against burglars while skipping the alarm system because they can't afford it. and at this point the average American has forgotten all about Iraq and Iran and war, which will change for a week or two while they bury the neighbors son who was killed outside Fallujah, a name they have heard but which they have no clue were is situated. When it dies down, they will go back watching their stupid prime time series and be disgusted over homosexuals again.

    USA must have the dumbest citizen of any first world country, you are all being robbed and you can't drop your pants fast enough in order to be ass raped too and you are all loving it! Talk about brainwashed sheeple


    • Balath, on 11/12/2007, -0/+15We're not all like that. I know many that are, it's true, but there are those few and far between that pay attention to world events.
    • Mindzai, on 11/12/2007, -1/+10The MSM makes it seem that way to you, as they paint an inaccurate picture of American sentiment. But the thing is, there are a lot of Americans who are aware of whats going on and have no voice other than the internet. Your generalized perspective is a failure on your part.
    • jessenoob, on 11/12/2007, -5/+1*cough* dumbest citizens
    • DiscoJohn, on 11/12/2007, -3/+2Don't forget about the gratuitous tasings, bro!
    • hinchb, on 11/12/2007, -2/+8That's true another country has never been misled by their government.
    • 180andback, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Not all of us, brother.
    • Rhenthalin, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Your country must be so perfect. How is it that in your country is really happy. O right because ignorance is bliss and you are just the happiest son of a bitch around. If you're from Canada you're our bitch. If your from Europe, you are definatley your country's bitch don't even try to say you're not. If your from mexico, you must be in America.
    • Rhenthalin, on 11/12/2007, -2/+2Your country must be so perfect. How is it that in your country is really happy. O right because ignorance is bliss and you are just the happiest son of a bitch around. If you're from Canada you're our bitch. If your from Europe, you are definatley your country's bitch don't even try to say you're not. If your from mexico, you must be in America.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, but some of are trying to change things.
  • chrisjs169, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1http://duggmirror.com/politics/Treason_Cheney_Caug ...
  • GrizzWolf, on 11/12/2007, -10/+2Buried for spouting totally ridiculous, unsupported, unsubstantiated TRIPE!!!
    Also buried because it's SAD to see how many liberal SHEEP actually take the time to comment in support of this nonsense.
    • dinAlt, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Ridiculous, unsupported, and unsubstantiated, eh?

      "Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi provided a similar account, based on his own sources in the intelligence community. He told IPS that intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House."

      This would tend to support the statements of the unnamed source. Did you even read the article?
  • daxsymbiont, on 11/12/2007, -1/+7this might be the epitome of what's really going on in the middle east: http://www.petrodollarwarfare.com
  • burningmanstan, on 11/12/2007, -2/+4The title of the submission is pretty excessive, however the article is good if you read down to where they start quoting people that are willing to be named.

    I am not surprised. This sort of stuff has been exposed in the past[1] The difference this time is that people are blowing the whistle BEFORE the ***** hits the fan and we end up in another war. Now if only US MSM would pick this up.

    1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.