What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
115 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+59So let's just recap what's happened this week:
Osama has died for the third time, coincidentally during the time period where US fatalities in Iraq exceeded fatalities for 9/11, thereby coincidentally pushing this off the front page -- and then been coincidentally resurrected for the third time. (First was that he died in a missile strike, second was that he died of kidney failure, this is the third death and resurrection for Osama).
An NIE comes out and since the administration knows that no one will read it, they just say whatever they want, completely contradicting everything in the report.
Rice claims that there was no strategy left for them on how to attack Al Qaeda, then a thirteen page document is shown which is all about attacking Al Qaeda.
Fox all but puts itself out of business with Clinton ripping it to shreds on their own station.
Good week. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37corporate:
>Can anyone see that the blogger is taking very small video clips and thereby removing the context of the statements?
No, I can't see that. You can read the transcript of the entire press conference here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
My favorite part is where he lies with "weasel words" here:
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.
Here's the message to congress justifying the war:
Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
Here's what Cheney said:
“pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.
I could go on, but you get the point. - nypix, on 10/12/2007, -13/+41Clinton wasn't impeached for a BJ. He was impeached because he lied on the stand.
The fact of him being on the stand for getting said BJ was a joke, but since Mr. Clinton was unfortunately there he still perjured himself.
I digress, back on topic. The Bush admin apparently has a policy of admit no mistakes. Bush shouldn't be impeached for lying. If that were the case we'd have no politicians in office at all. Bush should however be impeached for starting an illegal war against a sovereign nation. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Yes, we must win. That is true.
But we never should have gone into Iraq.
I wonder, what does "winning this war" exactly entail? At what point is it considered won? After we find WMDs? After the Iraqi people have the democracy we spread to them? After the terrorists are all dead?
Does anyone know the answer to that? Cuz I'd really like to know. - helchose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Hmmph. Amazing that no one is bothering to READ the actual report.
Well, here it is for your amusement and enlightenment:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Seems pretty spot-on if you ask me. Conclusions reached are: we need to garner the support of rational and influential muslim leaders to drive a wedge between the jihadists, and the bungled Iraq war is fueling radical sentiment among muslims--strengthening the terrorist factories. Most jidahists are simply poor people who have had their families bombed and/or livelihoods destroyed by Westerners. Every day that goes by, we give them more and more reasons to hate our Freedom®.
I coulda told you that would happen back in January '03. Why did no one else see this? We desperately need new leadership in the U.S. government. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29How do you figure that's a hit piece? The only content there is the video clips and transcripts thereof? If it doesn't show Bush and Cheney in a good light, it would seem they only have themselves to blame.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23corporate:
>A UN Charter is the law of the land? Can you show me where it says this in the US Constitution?
Certainly.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
It also says some things about the government not being able to make ex-post facto laws, ie. retroactive laws. Bush just did that too.
He's really pissed all over the constitution. - jkavvy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32Agreed.
Clinton was the subject of an 8 year partisan witchhunt that changed focus atleast a half a dozen times.
Bush/Cheney only agreed to testify at the 9/11 commission if they didn't have to take the oath, nothing was recorded, and the testimony ultimately kept secret. Additionally we've yet to have any real serious inquiries into Bush's handling of pre-war Iraq, a matter you would figure to be more serious than a frickin' blowjob. - grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Bury it all you want.. it just hit the Frontpage!
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -23/+39Shocking!
Bill got a BJ and they impeached him, George lies, lies, and lies and what happens?
Man you have to love hypocrisy, its seems to be the Republican way of life. - truspector, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24@corporate
The whole document is not declassified, only the part Bush wanted to declassify. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25no way, our leaders lied to us, knowingly?! no... no, I shant believe it!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20corporate:
>By all accounts, this war is very much legal.
Except that although it obeyed the law you cite, it violated the UN charter, which is the law of the land under US law.
That's illegal. Oh yes, and preemptive wars are also a violation of international laws, and could even be considered (in combination with torture) a war crime. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Beanlover:
>So the UN charter is now a treaty? Aren't treaties made between two sovereign nations?
No, treaties can be between two nations or a group of nations, such as the non-proliferation treaty that we're accusing Iran of violating. Yes, the UN charter, signed by the US, is a treaty. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17corporate:
>we do know that Iraq had contacts with the 9/11 terrorists. It has already been confirmed that the Iraq government had ties to an individual who also had ties to the hijackers. This was all over the news back before the Iraq war. Do you need me to dig up that guys name?
Yes, please do. Which 9/11 terrorist was even in Iraq?
Show us your hand, and I'll take a look at what you've got.
And yes, it's good that Saddam was "taken down." But since there was no phase IV planning we now have a much, much bigger problem than we started with. - lj535i, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25Clinton was impeached for lying in response to a question he should never have been asked.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Not true, I personally like Joe Biden's plan for a strategic redeployment
- ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Look at the latest polling numbers on Bush's approval ratings and give it the tiniest bit of thought, and you will realize that the entire country is losing faith in the republican lie machine.
It's not just the people who post here. It's America as a whole, of which the posters on this website reflect. - honkeyd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Dognose, I agree with you that these videos don't prove Bush and Cheney are lying.
It does prove that what they believe contradicts what many intelligence experts believe. I hope you can agree with me that George Bush can not be considered an expert in military intelligence or foreign policy. So maybe he needs to listen to these experts, and possibly revise our long term plans for the Middle East. - togra, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression " just about covers it.
Look up the Nuremburg trials. Under established international law - technically - they should all be shot. - thegreyfox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Yet you are willing to support the current Administration's plan of "stay the course"?
You know same people that didn't support our troops by not sending enough protective gear/people into a war? The same people would rather reinterpret the Geneva Convention, and put our troops in danger when they are in enemy lines? - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18So instead of admitting that yes he did these things you're going to complain that everybody in the world doesn't see things your way.
Big surprise there. - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -17/+25bill lied to a grand jury. it is called perjury. it is a felony
he lied to the american public left and right but you can't impeach someone for that, it isn't a felony.
take a civics course. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Second:
>1. You say Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. Where is it, then?
In 60 countries at last count, whereever Al Qaeda or terrorist groups have a foothold. Since we can't invade 60 countries, we have to come up with an alternative plan.
>2. You say that America is not as safe because of Bush policy. Yet we've heard examples of plots thwarted, as well as examples of other nations attacked for being allied with us or in successful efforts to scare them out of Iraq. What leads you to believe that we can withdraw from Iraq and the threat will subside?
Yes, you have heard many anecdotes. However, it is clear that terrorism incidents have shot through the roof since Iraq. And I won't try to support this argument with anecdotes like you just did -- you can see the statistics here at the MIPT terrorism database online:
www.tkb.org/
>3. Our government must protect us from foreign aggression, even from non-state actors. How do you suggest we do this unless extremely aggressive, covert operations against these enemies (wiretapping, coercive interrogation, etc.) is permitted?
No one has ever argued against wiretapping, just that people have to get it legally. It is easy to go through the FISA court, even 72 hours after the fact and they approve almost all comers. As for "coercive interrogation" -- treaties such as the Geneva conventions are the law of the land, according to US law, we cannot violate them.
It's the difference between believing in law and order and not believing in law and order.
>4. Bill Clinton pursued a policy of mostly "diplomacy". Yet North Korea backed away from their commitments,
North Korea was accused of violating the nuclear proliferation agreement in 2002. Initially they were conciliatory, however, the Bush administration escalated and then with the war in Iraq, all countries realized that if they didn't want to be invaded they absolutely HAD to deveop WMDs.
>Saddam did not live up to any of his
Saddam did, he had no WMDs.
>(and Clinton bombed him in Operation Desert Fox in 98), and Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon have all become terrorist hotspots despite no American aggression (and in fact monetary support).
I hardly think that the Middle east became a "terrorist hotspot" in the last decade only.
>Can you name one example where diplomacy has worked against a hostile or enemy power?
Certainly. Russia, where we agreed to the ABM treaty (which Bush violated). Or Iraq, where we insisted that they eliminate their WMDs -- along with the threat of force -- and they did.
>And these are just the foreign policy questions. The reason half of America won't elect a Dem for president is because they can't figure out where they stand on these issues. America would rather have a corrupt, but calm leader than an honest but angry/jealous/obsessive one. By continuously attacking Republicans for EVERY SINGLE THING under the sun, they are not looking like leaders. They are looking like complainers.
Actually the Democrats are hardly saying anything right now. Pelosi did stand up for Bush a few days ago, saying that Chavez was out of line, and that's about it. Mostly they're just watching the Republican party implode.
And if you want to know about their policies, you can check out their website online.
>The Dems need their own new ideas, not just reasons why the Republican ideas don't work. Otherwise they should shut the hell up.
The Democrats are under no obligation to suggest solutions to problems that the Republicans have created.
But yes, they have plenty of ideas -- for example, staged withdrawal has been proposed, and it looks like the Republicans are adopting that while simultaneously attacking it as "cut and run." Real nice guys, those Republicans. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Cosmo:
>Bush and Company were responsible for blowing up the towers on 9/11 after the two plans crashed into them
That's hardly the Democrats coming up with that nonsense. - nypix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16The admin just has a no admittance to mistake policy
- Alcorsu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@datastorageguy
There's nothing "left wing" about pointing out when Bush lied about the contents of the NIE. Look at the videos for yourself. Most people in this country (and an even larger percentage worldwide) don't happen to agree with the president either, and most importantly the facts on the ground constantly contradict Bush's spin.
There shouldn't be anything controvertial about the fact that invading Iraq has fueled terrorists worldwide and in Iraq in particular. There shouldn't be anything controvertial about the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9 aceg1357 --
What exactly does NEI stand for? And what does that have to do with this discussion?
Just reading through all the comments you can EASILY distinguish "far left wackos" from reasonable people with critical thinking skills. Just as you can weed out all the "far right wackos" from reasonable people who are interested in having an intelligent discussion. Which one are you? From your reactionary, derogatory comment, I'd say you are in the extremist group. Here at digg, you are what you post.
Just FYI -- not everyone digging and commenting is "far left" or "far right" -- most of them are somewhere in between, and I would say most of them are having an intelligent discussion. If you don't like the drive-by postings of the extremists, just bury their comments or put them on your ignore list. It's very easy to do. - helchose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7People are generally the same, no matter what color, ethnicity, religion, or political ideology they were indoctrinated with.
Let's turn the tables for a moment. If a foreign power were to attack the United States, occupy your towns and cities, raid your homes and ransack your houses and rape your women, abuse and torture your countrymen in prison, annex your national landmarks for military purposes, install an occupation government and transition to a 'democratic' government friendly to the occupying country, establish checkpoints and hinder travel around your own city, erroneously shoot your family members and friends because of misunderstandings, etc. etc... wouldn't YOU as a patriotic American feel compelled to establish and join an insurgency against the occupiers? Wouldn't you or your fellow Americans feel compelled and justified and desperate enough to sacrifice their lives to try to drive those occupiers out of your homeland? Might you feel compelled to support or even participate in a counterattack on the occupying country's home soil to send a message to GO AWAY AND LEAVE US ALONE?
I know I would. "Red Dawn" anyone? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13aceq:
>author of this article knowingly misrepresents NEI report.
That's funny. And you got modded up. It's a video and two quotes directly from the administration.
You'd think that you'd bother to actually click the link before telling us that the "author" of the "article" misrepresented something. - BWhaler, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Glad to see the Republican Operatives are out in full force to mark this article as inaccurate.
Seed of doubt clouds the truth... - helchose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The War on Terrorism® cannot be won with bullets and bombers. The United States must earn back the admiration and respect of the world. Right now we are considered public enemy #1. We desperately need to work on improving our image.
We should treat the United States as a corporation. It's time to call a stockholder meeting and talk about replacing our CEO and his staff, and perhaps some other executives as well. I believe our stockholders would be quite pleased with that decision. Our profit projections this year don't look good, and neither do next year's. However, if we act now, we might be able to experience a turnaround by 2008 or 2009. - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@Nougat:
Because people who take sides in politics instead of thinking critically always discount anything that doesn't relate to their worldview. - slois50, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Just because you immediately dismiss everything that comes out of "the libs'" mouths does not mean they do not have plans.
Also, recognizing incompetence in our leaders and calling them on it does not constitute "liberal bias".
I cannot deny that this site leans left. But, crying about it and reporting EVERY article about Bush as false does not help your case. - Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7datastorage:
I believe he's referencing the current generation of Jihad inductees. True, the attackers on 9/11 were not poor farmers. But the people that our war is affecting -are-. There are a lot of people who have lost everything without having a damned thing to do with the Iraq War - except for possibly being in the way. Their fault for living on traditional, inhereted land, huh? These are the people who are becoming easy converts, and for good reason. What we're showing the citizens of Iraq (remember how we were, like, SAVING them at one point? Weren't we?) is that Americans are everything the elite Jihadists say they are.
Holier-than-thou? Check.
Supremacists? Check.
Imperialists? Check.
Set for a rude awakening? Check.
Evil? Well, that's an arguable point, but I certainly don't think our administration is fighting 'the good fight' right now.
Add to that getting your farm destroyed and your family killed or maimed because of a war that's done you more bad than good, initiated by America for the wrong reasons, and you've got yourself a righteously angry individual with legitimate complaints. - evilunleashed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A war on an intangible can never be won. War on Drugs, War on Terrorism. These are not armies that can be decimated. Let's just group them all together and call it the "War on Anyone Who Doesn't Think, Act, or Speak In A Way That Will Increase Our Profits and Augment Our Power."
I say we initiate a War on Uneven Tire Wear, rotating tires is costing the American people entirely too much time and money. We will be greeted as liberators and have the support of local wheels as it's just as much a problem for them as it is for us. - honkeyd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13So does this mean you have read the whole document corporate70?
- spectrox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What everyone is missing is that the NIE is over a hundred pages long and they are just declassifying a bit of it. Within the parts government of the government that create the NIE, people are chastised for "cherry picking" intelligence items to make themselves, their organization, or their agency look better. It seems as if the White House is doing the same. The media is doing a disservice to say the NIE is declassified when in fact they are giving less than 10% to the public.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8& the fact that reality has a known liberal bias isn't helping either. =(
- corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution reads:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…
Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 11 says that Congress has the power:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
On October 10th, 2002 the resolution (H.J. Res. 114) granting President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq was passed by both the US House (296-113) and Senate (77-23). This resolution authorizes President Bush to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
By all accounts, this war is very much legal. The Executive and Legislative branches of government have followed US Law and are now executing a war in accordance with US Law. - togra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@corporate70
"Iraq was already the aggressor (by being a continuing threat)". I disagree with your assertion - actually I think it is ridiculous (in hindsight maybe). Did Iraq pose a significant threat to the US? No-one would dispute for one second that Saddam was an evil tyrant and that he was a destabilising factor in the region (although not as destabilising as removing him by force as it turns out). Given that he had no WMDs and no connection to OBL I would say Iraq was not a genuine danger to US security.
The fact that the US & UK government did everything possible to make out that Iraq did pose a threat, and that the media went along with this portrayal doesn't change this.
It is not the first time a government has fabricated a threat by a foreign power as a justification for going to war. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Either bush was foolish to think that it was possible to somehow eliminate all terrorism with his actions, or he was clever enough to believe that his voters would be foolish enough to believe it.
- jkavvy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7After witnessing the Republican plan of 'attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Islamic extremism, basically ignoring OBL, strengthening Al Qaeda, weakening U.S. econimically and militarily'. I'm just about open to any plan brought up by an opposition party.
- thomas317us, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15You know the headline looks nice but if you read the whole report that they let out. There is both good and mostly bad for the admin. Yeah Iraq did create more jihadists but Bush did not lie when he told the american people that we must win this war. To show the johadists they cannot win..
- Alcorsu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@datastorageguy
"--translation: Creating a democratic government in Iraq will lead to a more secular
and less prone to terrorist society. "
Go back and read your own quote. The second half actually says the opposite -- that reforms "will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit" - Deosyne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Precisely. It is the ideal struggle for the executive branch. Declaring war on poverty, crime, and drugs were all silly and futile objectives that made for excellent steps toward increasing executive dominance within our government, but the actions of the executive were limited by the level of response that they could justify to the American people against those "threats." By declaring war on terrorism have they created the perfect situation of a dire threat to the safety of the nation that cannot, by its very nature, ever be won. Anyone who stands in the way of any action that impedes the ability to wage war on terrorism can easily be branded as endangering the nation. Any action that can be loosely associated with fighting terrorism can be justified.
Until the human race is extinct, terrorism cannot ever be brought to an end because it is not a nation or a person but an idea, an interpretation of the actions of another. Terrorism only exists when someone labels an act as terrorism so one need not wait for terrorism to occur but rather can simply choose to interpret activity as being related to terrorism. It addresses the fatal flaw in Orwell's vision of eternal war by eliminating the need to change opponents on a regular basis. Machiavelli himself would bow down in tribute to such a brilliant power grab. I know I certainly have to nod in grudging respect even as I resent the erosion of ideals that I personally believe to be far greater than their unapologetic pursuit of power through fear. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Second:
>Great response. Thank you.
My pleasure. I like your tie. :)
> #1 - I still don't know how a foothold in 60 countries is somehow "more" of a central front in the war on terror than Iraq, where the Al Qaedist/jihadist ideology is on full display nearly everyday in the bloodiest of ways. Americans aren't dying at Al Qaeda's hands in Indonesia like they are in Iraq.
Is it on display in Iraq? Or are most of the people fighting us there just trying to defend what they perceive as an invasion of their country? Because I suspect it's the later. What would you do if your country was invaded? You would take up arms, of course. Not for any group, but simply because you're defending your home.
>#2 - I really don't care that our president can't prevent terrorist attacks against other countries. I care that he can prevent them against us. Considering neither president understood that we were at war prior to 9/11, the score as I read it is this: Bush 1 attack against America and Clinton 6 attacks against America (WTC 93, 2 embassies, 1 military base, USS Cole, and the Millennium plot).
Well that would be wrong. In fact, if you check out the database, there have been plenty of attacks over the last few years. Just off the top of my head, just last week there was an attack on our embassy in Syria. Just last week.
As for the Cole, you're absolutely right about that -- it happened just a few weeks before Bush took office, and the report linking it to Al Qaeda came out after Bush was inaugurated. What was Bush's response to the Cole? Nothing. As a matter of fact, he eliminated the investigative group working on that, and demoted Clarke from the cabinet.
As for the rest, the Millenium plot was foiled, the group was rounded up and put in jail. Same for the first WTC bombing. And, it's worth noting, that the first WTC bombing happened just a few weeks after Clinton took office. He did not blame the first Bush administration.
>#3 - I'd argue that many Dems have vehemently opposed the Patriot Act.
Yes, it's a fact that congressmen didn't read it before it passed. Beware of any law that calls itself the "freedom happy goodness act" or the "patriot" act.
>And from some prominent Democrats' statements, Bush is only wiretapping "to spy on Americans".
Bush already admitted that he has wiretapped Americans. Illegally.
>So it really doesn't matter if he gets a warrant to do it or not
Well Bush claimed that it requires a warrant himself.
"You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example." April 19, 2004
>- the simple fact is that Democrats think Bush wants this power to hurt Americans rather than fight the war. I don't believe this is the case, but it's a matter of opinion. Either way, it doesn't earn my vote because the Dem position is not in the spirit of effectively fighting this war - in fact, it comes off as a reason not to. Sorry.
That's called a "fallacy of the false choice" or a "false dichotomy." He might want this power to fight the war, instead of "rather than" and it could still be wrong or illegal. Or there could be legal ways to do the same thing and fight the war (which there is, as Bush pointed out, with a FISA warrant.)
So the question becomes, "why does he want this power but is unwilling to go to court to get it -- even after the fact?" And why the need to wiretap Americans instead of foreigners? I suspect because he's wiretapping indiscriminately. What other reason could there be?
> #4 - It doesn't matter when North Korea admitted that they violated the Clinton-sponsored aggreement. The fact is that they never intended to live up to it, and almost immediately began violating it. If Colin Powell hadn't called them out on it in 2002, none of us would ever have known that NK was violating the agreement. Funny how that's Bush's fault.
No, many things are Clintons fault, Bush's fault or no one's fault. But I'll tell you this -- the policy of escalation that Bush implemented against North Korea has been a dismal failure. Now, guess what? Bush wants to negotiate. You just told us that negotiation was fruitless.
>ABM treaty with Russia? You think this is what won the Cold War? My goodness! Not only that, the treaty eliminated a strategic DEFENSE, not any offensive weapons.
No, I don't think that's what won the cold war and you'd have a heck of a job pointing out where I said that. However, you asked about successful examples of negotiation and I gave you two. There are others, of course. Negotiation is just one of the many tools in the toolbox. Bush only uses the hammer.
>And as far as Geneva is concerned, we must recall what a "treaty" really is -- which is "only effective if both parties agree to it." So when Al Qaeda chopped off Daniel Pearl's head, or Nicholas Berg, do you think that was honoring their end of the treaty. This is all not to mention the fact that Al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, and all those other lunatic regimes ARE NOT SIGNATORIES TO THE TREATY!!!!! Thus they are not entitled to those protections! Sorry, Mr. Law of the Land. Hate to burst your bubble, but it just doesn't work like you think it does.
Well you've given the country a lot to live down to. How low should we go? As bad as the worst non-signatory? Whatever they do to us we can then do?
Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?
>Finally, I will honor your statement that "Saddam did not have WMD" as true. But like many things the Democrats talk about, the truth wasn't exactly known.
Well it might have been if Bush hadn't ordered UNMOVIC and the weapon's inspectors out of Iraq.
>While taking Saddam on his word seems compelling,
No one is suggesting that Saddam should have been "taken at his word." The weapons inspectors were there, on the ground, and had been for three months. They had reported back that Iraq was cooperating.
>the fact is that he used them many times in the past (Halabja, Iran-Iraq War, etc.) and, despite the fact that he didn't have WMDs, no Democrat before the Iraq war ever said so. In fact, I can pull out the list of Democrats who said that he DID have WMD before the war: Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton (Bill and Hillary)...the list goes on.
Of course. They believed what they were told by the administration. The weapons inspectors, however, told a much different story. And as we're learning now, the "slam dunk" intel was actually not a slam dunk at all, but at best, mixed. At worst, negative.
>Again, I'll concede the truth, but it doesn't earn Dems a vote since they were not part of that truth at the time.
Well, the good news is that as incompetent as the Democrats are, they weren't involved in the lie.
>Good discussion, thanks.
You too. Bye for now. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12What hysterical conspiracy theories?
And it's not their job to suggest solutions to the guys in power. If you want the Democrats' help, then you'll have to elect them.
As it is, they have zero power. Now all they have to do is to sit back and watch the administration, the Republican Party and Fox peel apart at the seams. - RCinBigD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Kinda like outing a CIA agent is treason, huh? How is the prosecution of the traitors in that case going?
- helchose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, now that you bring up that point, you could be right. I was pushing an assumption with that statement without providing any proof, and I shouldn't do that. Can you provide an economic demographic for convicted terrorists to refute me?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 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