digg

Join DiggAbout

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

White House Reveals Bush Lied: Was Told In August

thinkprogress.org — On Tuesday, President Bush said he was never forewarned by the intelligence community that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003.Now the White House is revealing that wasn ’t true. The White House statement released by Dana Perino Wednesday night also states McConnell told Bush...OK, they are not even covering for him.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rpi22, on 12/06/2007, -5/+186Whatever Bush says, its always the opposite.
    • RearNakedChoke, on 12/06/2007, -1/+19Yep. Its actually quite nice - you can know EXACTLY what he really intends or thinks about something by simply negating everything he says. Its a very black and white negation.
      • Terr01, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1There's no such thing as a black-and-white negation, since the opposite of something is actually a very strong relationship. To be truly opposing, it must be different in yet more ways. The opposite of up is not down, nor sideways, but may indeed be "waffles".
        • superjer, on 12/07/2007, -2/+0That's so cute! I used to think just like that in kindergarten!
          • Terr01, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1And opposite-theory is the only thing you've changed, apparently.
    • rspeed, on 12/06/2007, -3/+13I don't know... He said he wanted to invade Iraq. I wouldn't doubt that.
      • Alkali, on 12/06/2007, -0/+24Actually, he said we have to invade Iraq for the good of our people and theirs. The logic holds!!!
        • rspeed, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1What about the whole thing with Hussein trying to kill his daddy?
    • fermi, on 12/06/2007, -46/+2Thank you for that gripping analysis. You leftists amaze me.
      • MattB123, on 12/06/2007, -1/+35Yeah, only a "leftist" would dislike a lying administration bent on seemingly pointless war.
      • Elranzer, on 12/06/2007, -1/+15Apparently 73% of this nation are "leftists" so Fermi I guess you're in the minority there, rightard.
    • akula89, on 12/06/2007, -3/+24when will he be impeached? what is wrong with the United Sates?
      what a disgrace.
      • fermi, on 12/06/2007, -28/+2I don't know what's wrong with the "United Sates". Here in the United States, we think that ungrateful citizens of other nations calling us "disgraceful" shows a lack of intelligence and knowledge of history.
        • Spytap, on 12/06/2007, -0/+16Here's a nice exercise: prove that no matter what country he or she is from, that they should absolutely be grateful to the United States. This should be fun.
          • Lyph5, on 12/06/2007, -14/+5Have they ever used something that was transported by airplane? If so, be thankful that Americans invented it. What about if they've ever been able to afford a mass produced automobile? Thank an American for that, too.

            I'm not even going to mention the wars that would have dragged on for much longer if we hadn't gotten involved.

            I will mention that we're not the greatest country, we've got a failed public education system, we're all in debt, and we'd rather ask about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie than our president. We'd rather put rapists and famous people on the news than question the thousands of our children that are coming back crippled, disfigured, or DEAD from a war we shouldn't even BE in.

            But, while we're not perfect, we have done a lot of good.
        • RedHerringHack, on 12/06/2007, -23/+2Speak the GERMAN, *****? How about the JAPANESE? No? You can thank the United States for that.
        • fermi, on 12/06/2007, -16/+1Are you serious? Imagine a world without US innovation or food and economic aid. Not to mention that fact that this nation has helped liberate western Europe not once, but twice in the 20th century.
          • Elranzer, on 12/06/2007, -2/+11Twice eh?

            The first time, we were isolationist until it were only necessary to join in, since all of our allies were exhausted. Luckily, the enemy was exhausted too. We would have had to be absolutely retarded not to beat the Germans then.

            The second time, we only chimed in once we got hit in Hawaii (never got hit in the 48 states). Mexico proved the Germans had no way of getting to us. Japan only wanted Hawai, not the entire USA.

            Until we jumped in, we sold weapons to everyone, including the Germans. That's how we became rich and a superpower... war profiteering, including Germany's money. And you wonder why the French are not entirely "grateful". Sure we took out Germany (after a while) but they were able to take out France with American-made weapons.
          • rollem, on 12/07/2007, -4/+2Cambodia, Nicaragua, Colombia, Afghanistan (1980s), Afghanistan (2000s) and Iraq also owe us their gratitude, darnit. When will the rest of the world learn to accept some Democracy! USA! USA! USA!
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/06/2007, -0/+21"Here in the United States, we think..."

          You damn sure don't speak for everyone in the U.S.
      • iFrikkenR, on 12/06/2007, -0/+13Screw impeached. Bush should be imprisoned. Before his term ends too. He is guilty of so many crimes. He's also guilty of attempting to incite war with Iran. Thats terrorism by anyones definition.

        He should be immediately dismissed as not being fit to perform Presidential duties and then locked up.

        Also, with all this new evidence; any and all other countries should feel free to arrest and deport him the moment he sets foot on their soil.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5He's nothing that he says he is, and everything that he says he isn't.

      A general rule about George Bush.
    • Tyr7BE, on 12/06/2007, -0/+22And people were on Clinton like a hungry man on a cheeseburger because he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Something not even related to the well-being of the country!
      • hittnrun, on 12/06/2007, -20/+1Bu bu bu...Clinton! Get over it stupid.
        • misterRobot, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9I'll get over it when Bush is put on the stand for *his* mistakes as well.
      • tokyomonster, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8So...when democrats/liberals bring up Clinton in defense of a position, they should get over it, but when a neo-con/republican does it, it's completely ok.

        Awesome.
      • Dibou, on 12/07/2007, -2/+0I think you forgot about that whole UNDER OATH part. Oh, yeah, and it had something to do with sexual harassment. That's still a bad thing isn't it?
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5To quote one of the comments on the actual article.
      My God. Will we get the truth on Bush’s latest round of lies?

      Pat Buchanan said this morning on MSNBC that Biden should call Rice and Mike McConnell before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ask them POINT BLANK — did they tell Bush about the NIE Report? No more ***** Condi — give us a yes or no answer.

      Buchanan said if Rice or McConnell didn’t tell Bush about the NIE Report, they should be fired on the spot. If they did tell Bush and he continued with his warmongering threats against Iran, well . . . Buchanan didn’t say, but we can fill in the blanks. It’s impeachment time.

      By the way, it’s past time to demand the truth from Air-Head Perino. She tosses her hair, gives a slight smirk, and lies through he teeth to protect her buddy Bush. Enough already.

      Comment by Ditch Mitch KY — December 5, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
    • forgottenhope, on 12/06/2007, -5/+3Makes sense to me, 9/11 wan inside job. Bush lies about everything other than the fact that the 9/11 commission was rushed to finish and under funded. Why, why rushand underfund the most important investigation of american history? Because they would hav to report things that adhere to reality and laws of nature.
      • Monk22, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1becuase sandy berger stuffed a bunch of documents in his pants and well never know what was on them now.
    • Mavital, on 12/06/2007, -5/+1Public officials lying is certainly a problem and Bush needs to be put in the spotlight for this. But what we can't forget is that Iran is a very unstable country. Never, and I stress this, never let them think we have ruled war out as an option. To do so gives them a thumbs up to *restart* their program. I'm very relieved to hear this news, as I despise and hate war... however, I also recognize that Iran needs to continue to be hammered diplomatically to keep them from deviating from their current peaceful intentions.
      • misterRobot, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3I agree, the only problem is that this administration does not stop at "diplomatically". I would rather let Iran breathe a little easier than let Bush think he has a reason for another pointless war. Let some other country put pressure on Iran, we need to sit this one out imo.
      • dggeek, on 12/07/2007, -2/+1Indeed. The only way to keep peaceful countries peaceful is economic sanctions and war threats.
    • IsItTrue, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Bush also said "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11th."
      So RPI22 is right in my books.
    • mmazing, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Why wouldn't he lie? Nobody does anything to him when he does.
  • groinkster, on 12/06/2007, -1/+141I saw this in the comments - Pat Buchanan said this morning on MSNBC that Biden should call Rice and Mike McConnell before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ask them POINT BLANK — did they tell Bush about the NIE Report?
    What the world coming to when I agree with Pat Buchanan?
    • OC73, on 12/06/2007, -55/+1Buchanan and Biden are both tools. If anything, Biden should call his hair doctor and ask for better hair plugs.
      • RedHerringHack, on 12/06/2007, -0/+27You resort to base insults. You fail.
        • aliengoods, on 12/06/2007, -1/+12I disagree. He proved he's a moron quite successfully.
      • aman78, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1Why don't you consult a doctor before you have a heart attack thinking about the next terrorist attack when the stupid dems win the next election?
    • evil-doer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+23altho im liberal as all get out, pat buchanan is one of the real republicans. not a neocon, and tells it like it is, often.
      and yes ive agreed with quite a bit he has said lately
      • RedHerringHack, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3He has a new book. Always thought he was on the loony side too, but he was just before his time. He warned us about this ( Terrorism, Police State ) years ago.
      • mugicha, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Pat Buchanan is actually right on about a lot of *****. He was against the Iraq war from the beginning.
    • blackmage439, on 12/06/2007, -0/+17She'll just claim "I don't recall what I said..." It worked for Gonzalas...
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+11She will simply refuse to appear. That's the more recent tactic to deceive us.
    • DigitAl56K, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6If they claim they didn't tell him they should be fired for incompetency and gross dereliction of duty.
  • aman78, on 12/06/2007, -5/+128This lying sack of ***** has done nothing but lie during his entire time in office. And it is just amazing that no one else except Kucinich is talking about impeaching this bastard. Where are you Ron Paul. Everything else you say is right, how about impeaching the bastard.
    • Tangeuray, on 12/06/2007, -4/+18Paul is for Impeachment...but He wanted it done the right way(consitutional). He got Kucinich to go the the proper route.
      • PATSCRU, on 12/06/2007, -9/+18To scared to break party rank and do it himself? Remember people, he is a republican.
        • bjs3171, on 12/06/2007, -4/+9he's running under the republican party but really he's a libertarian. It's just that libertarian is way closer to classic republican than neo-con republican is now.
        • rarson, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2He's not a goddamn Libertarian. I wish people would stop saying that. He's a Republican. According to politicalcompass.org, he doesn't even lean libertarian.
      • aman78, on 12/06/2007, -0/+11I have never ever heard Ron Paul speak of impeachment. If you have a source, please cite it, I'd like to hear him say that.
      • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5Sure np:
        http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=60 ...
    • TomPhoolery, on 12/06/2007, -5/+2what's the point, he has just over a year left in office anyway
      • xt0ph3r, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Your apathy is part of the problem.
      • g2g079, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4To put order back into the United States government. To show that no one is above the law. Clinton was impeached but it didn't happen until he was done being president.
    • Phatt138, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Paul's got a chance of really changing things, but he'll alienate that remaining ~22% of Americans -and- his fellow Republicans if he pushes for impeachment. Personally, I'd rather have him get into office and try the bastard for crimes against humanity. : P
    • xenya, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5Kucinich is the man. I hope they lock Bush's sorry ass up.
      • Pulpfiction23, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1And I hope someone rapes him. That's pretty sadistic but I want that bastard to feel pain. Little babies going to Iraq with a gun in hand and no hope left. While his daughters are living the high life. That ***** still smiles and makes jokes. He's responsible for so much hurt in this world, he is the new Hitler.
        • aman78, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2And please do not forget the hapless Iraqis. Close to a million of them who had no choice. At least the ones in the army had a choice of escaping to Canada or going to jail for refusing to serve but the Iraqis had no choice whatsoever.
  • DeadElephantORG, on 12/06/2007, -5/+130Folks, this is a "tipping point". You can feel it. The lapdog press is FINALLY pressing in, and their tone is UGLY. Big name politicians are joining in. Most important, this lie could never have been exposed unless the cabal in power has come apart at the seams.
    • OC73, on 12/06/2007, -39/+6You keep telling yourself that.
      • revjustin2, on 12/06/2007, -2/+17You keep making inane comments.
      • Delphium226, on 12/06/2007, -2/+13Not much of an argument to make eh? Admit it, you have ended up on the wrong side of history and all you can do is make stupid meaningless comments.
      • Elranzer, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6OC73 why do you hate America?
      • forgottenhope, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5Speaking out against the government does not mean you hate america. Read a ***** history book you dumb *****. The founders knew that power will corrupt no matter what, yet you defend an intity our founders said to never trust.

        Do not marginalize my patriotism becase you are a ***** coward.
    • cvelusc, on 12/06/2007, -0/+20Good point about the unraveling of power. I really hope you're right and something significant happens because of this situation.
    • kooft, on 12/06/2007, -6/+4What good is a tipping point now with 27 minutes left of Bush's 8-year presidency? From now until the next president takes office, they'll be doubtful of Bush and trying to garner every bit of viewership/readership they can. Once the next president takes office it'll be 4 or 8 more years before we see this kind of 'backbone' from the press again.
      • Bing11, on 12/06/2007, -0/+15It's 13 months, not 27 minutes. In 13 months Bush has mis-managed some incredible feats. It took him only 18 months from 9-11 to invade Iraq. We can't afford 13 months more.
      • Trublmakr, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7A lot of folks wish it was only 27 minutes,.. but even if that were true it's 27 too long.
      • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Articles of impeachment can be held even AFTER the president is out of office, and if done will ensure that they can be brought up on criminal charges. This would also ensure no presidential pay will happen or benefits.
    • Wargalas, on 12/06/2007, -19/+2Yes, please talk about the upcoming "revolution" and how what you're going to do when it comes. Keep banging your head in tune with the latest System or Rage album. Keep thinking "I'm gonna make a difference!".

      We've heard it all a million times before.
      • GoneFishing, on 12/06/2007, -0/+13I still naively believe so, and I will continue to vote on what I believe. Bush needs to go, either follow the footsteps of Nixon, or be impeached.
      • Waiting2awake, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9You sir, will be enjoyed when it happens. The reality is it will stop, the only question that remains is who will stop it. Either the American people can, or the world people will.

        I know, I know...they can't do that! WE are powerful! We have the weapons! yadda yadda yadda.... What you say now, is what you said going into Iraq and were told then, that you were going to be slaughtered, that it was going to be Vietnam all over again, that it was the surest sign that leadership has fallen within the chain of command.

        But the pro-war pricks claimed that Iraq would fall, that it would be flowers and sunshine - and when it was obvious that they were wrong - they changed the semantics about "We actually already won", they aren't fighting us, they are fighting each other and a plethora of other silly claims to hide the fact that the leaders couldn't lead. But Patriotism must be parroted even when it isn't deserved and America went on ignoring it was leaderless.

        • Wargalas, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1What the ***** are you talking about? Iraq fell within months. We're "rebuilding under fire", a far cry from "losing" in Iraq like people would like to believe.

          What's funny is that people actually now have the idea in their head that the winners of war need to rebuild the loser's country. Do you think China or Russia would do the same if they attacked a country? Of course not, so why should we rebuild Iraq?
    • shi11, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1I wish it were true. Unfortunately, having read The Tipping Point, by Gladwell, I don't believe it can happen in modern american politics.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5You are so right. As I've pointed out in recent comments, even the classic conservatives are seperating from the NeoCons now.
  • Gabberwok, on 12/06/2007, -23/+12I think that technically Bush wasn't lying. You have to know what you're saying is wrong to lie - Bush doesn't know anything about what he's saying at all.
    • Packgrog, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9Sadly, this seems closest to the truth. I find it quite believable that he was told and either didn't remember or didn't pay attention. Implying that he willfully lied may actually be giving him too much credit. Cheney would be another matter, though, as he's quite competent. Just evil as hell.

      Bush should be impeached for utter incompetence. Cheney should be impeached for being a willful crook. Granted, this should have been done seven years ago, and trying to do it now seems like too little too late.

      *sigh*
    • trutek, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Stupidity is the best guise of evil.
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3A lie by any other name.........
    • Dumbledorito, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2This is further evidence of how Bush is lowering the bar even further in politics. He "won" the debates vs. Gore by lowering expectations to the point that if he didn't ***** his pants while uttering profanity, he'd come out looking good.

      Now, if you want to get away with pulling stunts like this, you either have to pretend to be or actually be mentally deficient; nobody will ever hold you accountable. "Aw, he didn't mean to nuke that country. See, folk like him, they jus' don' know no better. Bes' to jus' let 'im be."
    • TheLoneHoot, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Supposedly he's smart enough to fly an F-102... I can't imagine he didn't know he was lying.
  • spoiled1, on 12/06/2007, -4/+68Looks like the puppet masters are pulling out their hand from him.
    So, even he is impeached, the real puppet masters will escape unscathed. The real criminals are, but not limited to, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz.
    I'd rather have a president who gets a BJ from an intern, than to have a president who lies about every thing that affects our lives in so many ways.
    • pcpimpster, on 12/06/2007, -0/+37"I'd rather have a president who gets a BJ from an intern, than to have a president who lies about every thing that affects our lives in so many ways."
      I cant even count how many time ive sad that to myself over the past 7 years.


    • RedHerringHack, on 12/06/2007, -14/+3It wasn't the BJ that was the problem. It was the Lying Under Oath about the BJ that was the problem.
      • Spytap, on 12/06/2007, -1/+12Your lack of perspective is the problem. Under oath or not, "to lead us into multiple wars" and "to get off with an intern" are two completely different planets of lying. To grip so tightly to one while ignoring the other shows a severe lack of integrity on your part.
      • Elranzer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+10If Bill Clinton could be forced to answer about his BJ under oath, why can't GW Bush be forced to answer about Iran under oath?
      • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6A president has to break the written law to get into trouble. Bush, has been able to do everything by enacting new laws.
        You want him to get nailed? Get the congress to to ask him a few questions under oath. I think they should start with the 9/11 commission and end with todays lie... hats about....... 674 lies to cover...
    • bjs3171, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6even if bush was the one impeached and the real puppet masters get away, it'll still send a message to future presidents about what power they really have. that not being that of Emperor.
    • RANDUMpurple, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2I couldn't agree with you any more.
    • raskali, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2I resent the suggestion that Lewinski's BJ didn't affect my life.
    • HippyInASuit, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2I agree, but he and Cheney still need to be impeached.
  • Bing11, on 12/06/2007, -1/+50Call your Representatives. He still has 13 months left to commit more treason unless we IMPEACH. Short of representatives, we march on the White House.
    • snatchmstr, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1Mmmmmm peaches
    • cambob76, on 12/06/2007, -5/+1And then what? Stand around until you're bored and decide to go home?
      • Bing11, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I was thinking something more aggressive. If this sort of thing continues, there will be a second revolutionary war.

        When the government ignores the voices of the people they are meant to represent, the people will only wait for so long before knocking down doors and toppling the government.
    • funkyjunk3, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Look what the citizens of Yugoslavia did to save their country from Milosevic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1ev ...

      There was a massive country wide movement. There is an Excellent youtube documentary on this movement, but for the life of me I can't find it. If you search youtube for it you might be able to find it. The organizers of the movement were able to organize a general strike, which halted all happenings in the country. They took mass protests to the capital and forced Milocevic out of power.
    • mrgreen4242, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Gotta get Cheney at the same time or before. Only thing worse than an imbecile President bent on evil would be the puppet master taking over.
  • JasonCox, on 12/06/2007, -2/+15"I saw this in the comments - Pat Buchanan said this morning on MSNBC that Biden should call Rice and Mike McConnell before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ask them POINT BLANK — did they tell Bush about the NIE Report?"
    Anyone else seeing the 'Gonzales Defense' coming back again?
    • green67, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3I can't recall.....
      • Chaoticfist, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2.......i was just about to post a really Long off topic story about me using "i do not recall" to get out of some random ***** at work. Anyway i got away with it to. THE "i do not recall" method works all the TIME!!!!
  • blackmage439, on 12/06/2007, -4/+13It doesn't matter. Just one more lie to add to the pile of countless others ignored by the mainstream (see: government/religion/interest-group controlled) media. He'll get a free pass, just like the rapist that Huckleberry pardoned, and he'll return to rape the Constitution again once the "political dissent is terrorism" bill passes.
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Bush will NEVER have a free pass. He has gotten too many killed, maimed, murdered.... he will be taken care of one way or another.
  • Gillfactor, on 12/06/2007, -1/+15The picture they used in the article is perfect. Classic "Oh *****" look.
    • feb420, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2That dude's thinking evil thoughts in that pic.
    • green67, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I think the correct term is " aw sheeeiit.."
  • 4twenty, on 12/06/2007, -4/+44Thanks be to all the US citizens who gave this bozo (and his circus) a second term. Rest assured, you are roundly despised the world over.
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+14Bush voters don't even have the honor to apologize.
      • JetWolf, on 12/06/2007, -0/+11Bush voters don't realize they have anything to apologize FOR, that's the tragedy.
      • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6Approximately half of the Digg population probably voted Bush. Where are they now? Why don't they stand up and take some of the responsibility for what they've done to the country?
        • hittnrun, on 12/06/2007, -6/+1here I am b!tch. George Bush will be proven right in the history books.
        • Hamanu, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3hittnrun......i'm betting alot of germans said that about hitler in the 40's
      • texpundit, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Believe me, I've apologized many a time for voting for that asshole...twice. The first time, I got snookered. The second time, it was a vote against Kerry. I should have just voted for Badnarik like I had thought about.
    • abran1984, on 12/06/2007, -15/+2I voted for Bush! And I'd do it again if my choices were either him or Kerry; I *still* have no idea where Kerry stands on 95% of the issues.
      • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9The choice wasn't just between them. There were numerous people running. You voted for the worst president of our times and you're proud.

        Kerry's positions were all on his web site. You don't know because you didn't want to know.

        Your ignorance of the opponents position is not justification.

        It's time for you to apologize for your failure.
        • exgop, on 12/06/2007, -6/+2Kerry positions were simple. The military sucks, America sucks and anyone who is not liberal sucks
      • abran1984, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Kerry's positions were on his web site? What about the ***** coming out of his mouth? Give me a break...and third-party candidates are a throw-away vote.

        I'm standing by my ballot.
        • biotch, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Yes and indeed they matched what came out of his mouth... if you ever took the time to read it.
          You probably dont like the fact that he voted for the war spending bill before he voted against it. This was a right wing ploy to try to confuse people. If you paid attention to what he was saying, youd understand he voted for the bill before an amendment was passed that he didnt agree with. I know its tough for people to understand more than a segment of a sentence these days but that whole issue was despicable.
          And by the way, he was right. The amendment he voted against lifted restrictions on record keeping of where the money was going.
          Lo and behold, the US later "lost track" of 9 billion dollars in Iraq.
          http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq ...
        • starkruzr, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1You probably should have paid more attention in school. Then you'd be able to, you know, parse sentences.
          I love that anyone who says anything nuanced in politics is painted as someone that "no one can understand."
        • aman78, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Yes stand by it. These is why morons like you are hated by people like me the world over. The epitome of the ugly ignorant American.
      • biotch, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1funny ... I didnt have a problem understanding him.
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3I did not vote for Bush, but then again so did most people. its all those millions of dead guys and electronic ghosts that voted for him that won.
    • kertong, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Remember the Simpsons Halloween episode where Kang gets elected to office, and enslaves the human race? They had bumper stickers that said "Don't Blame Me - I Voted for Kodos".

      I think I'll make a bumper sticker for my car that says "Don't Blame Me - I Voted for Gore". Or Kerry.
      • BlackStrain, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Coleman
    • aman78, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1You are true. I can't believe who were the zombies who voted this asshole in the second time. First time, maybe there were fooled and I assure you people don't care about the "sorry everybody" websites.
  • CanadianGuy, on 12/06/2007, -2/+25I can't believe there are still Americans who support Bush, right Bill O'Reilly.
    • sb66, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9Big government republicans seem to appeal to the uneducated and ignorant. Just look at typical digg posts from right wingers - they typically take this form:
      "blah blah lib-tards blah blah stupid liberals blah blah foreigners suck and the USA kicks ass blah blah blacks and mexicans blah blah ron paul is a liberal"
    • APretender, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2I'm American and I can't even believe it.
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Sadly there are and they fall into two camps 1 - those that are profiting directly from the damage to the nation and 2 - the ignorant.

      No one else would support the worst president of modern times.
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Bill is a ENTERTAINMENT only show. His views are not actually the views of his show. Read up on the stupid worthless excuse for a show sometime, and try listening to it as entertainment, NOT NEWS.
  • icegoddess13, on 12/06/2007, -2/+11they've already said that congress will not impeach bush because he will declare a state of emergency and ***** us all over....again...but even harder
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Cite?
      • cowboy86, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1It's definitely been said on MSNBC and on various sites here on digg.
    • bjs3171, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2what does a state of emergency have to do with impeachment?
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Bush will need much more support than he has now to be able to pull off the state of emergency ploy. There WILL be rioting in the streets. It will make the illegal immigration marches look like nothing.
      • Logicexe, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2All Bush has to do is make his declaration of Martial Law at the same time as the season premier of the next American Idol. There will be rioting in the streets, but it'll be from all the ***** of American Idol fans wondering why their favorite show was cut off for some boring speech.
    • cambob76, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5You're assuming that Bush would have the support of the military. I really doubt it at this point.
      • cowboy86, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2What person in the armed forces would act against their own country? For that matter what jury would find them guilty for not doing so?
        • BlackStrain, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1If Bush ordered them to declare marshal law because the congress was about to remove him from power, do you really think the generals would be like 'I guess that's ok..'
    • Psi57, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I would love for him to do just that!

      Anyone up for a civil war? It wouldn't last very long, though. Everyone in our military swears to uphold the Constitution FIRST and the LAWFUL orders of the President and the officers above them SECOND.
      • cowboy86, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I forgot all about that. Good Post.
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Being that (made up statistic here) 75%+ of the military will not even shake Bush's hand, I doubt there would be much there to "defend" him and his stance.
  • wolvyne, on 12/06/2007, -2/+16Son of a bitch
  • drdepoy, on 12/06/2007, -3/+21New law: anything any public official says in a speech or any other form of public communications shall herein be treated as if it was said under oath.
    • lazyfisherman, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Damn.. you'd put every single one of them in jail in a few days.
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I agree! There should not be a SINGLE word that the pres & company should be allowed to say that does not count as under oath. This will do two things:
      1. Get every person in office out.
      2. Have our next govt officials say a total of 4 words their entire term, thanks!
  • gatorgreenwell5, on 12/06/2007, -23/+1How is it that Bush lied? This is from the Council on Foreign Relations-August 2007:

    "With help from Russia, Iran is building a nuclear power plant, but U.S. officials say that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy. In April 2006, President Ahmadinejad announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium. Experts say Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) to produce a bomb in three to ten years. The international community has called on Iran to stop its nuclear program." http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/state_sponsors ...
    • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Outgoing White House adviser Dan Bartlett:

      " I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."
      http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-01-01/talks-2.php
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+14What he says he knew to be untrue. Iran was NOT close to nuclear weapons having suspended it's program in 2003.

      That's how it is that Bush lied.
    • dbs1221, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Unless your building a heavy water nuclear power plant (iran is in a desert they don't have a large enough source of water to get suitable quantities of heavy water) you need enriched uranium, not that support Iran but thats a pretty simple explanation for Ahmadinejad meant when he said iran had successfully enriched uranium, in fact it was in your quote.
    • jetsetter883, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1does thou speaketh a neutral statement towards Bush on Digg? no wonder you got dugg down.
      (whats ironic is how most Diggers are Democrats yet the comments section is hardly Democratic (people trying to silence others by digging them down)
      • MoreIntelligent, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1WE silence you because thou art Fools and villains with the most contemptible views on justice and society, for the righteous and the brave know a falsehood when shown. The Republicans stand side by side with the Democrats and the Independants on an issue of the most compelling nature to subvert the intelligence of the Great American People into ignorance and to not question authority but ponder the query is a crime made in itself.

        in other words, your an idiot for believing that the government is telling the truth when it has not in the last 54 years.
  • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -2/+11Why are the Bush voters not coming out in public to apologize/
    • Delphium226, on 12/06/2007, -1/+8To be fair some have seen the error of their ways and admit it, but a lot aren't man enough to fess up. They have no character.
      • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5I've heard of some turning against Bush - but I've not heard one admit it was their screw up. They phrase it as an innocent mistake. Like they couldn't have known what a poor choice he was.
    • ukfoole, on 12/06/2007, -7/+2I believe most are waiting for you to appologize for giving the only other option of president as Kerry and that you forced them to vote Bush as at least they knew how he would handle situations. Now, you have the gaul to ask for an appology and while shoving Hillary down their throats.

      That is more gastly than spending a few years at Gitmo.
      • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Did you know how Bush would "handle" situations? You knew he would handle situations through lies, disinformation and deceit? You knew he would run from our enemy like a coward and attack an unrelated country instead? And you voted for him anyway?

        You have twice what the typical Bush voter has to apologize for then.

        As a Bush voter you have a surprising lack of shame to be still pretending Kerry or Hillary would have been a worse choice.

        Why don't you start apologizing for what you did to the country - or don't you care?
        • cowboy86, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Because if you voted for Bush you're a terrorist.
      • Delphium226, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1If you don't like any of the options, don't vote. Don't be a lemming.
  • slicecom, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6I don't believe this. Bush would never lie to us.
    • DigitAl56K, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I was going to digg you up for sarcasm, but it's just become too painful..
  • mrdeathgod, on 12/06/2007, -2/+29Congress needs to grow a pair and throw this stupid ***** sonofabitch out on the street.
    • ukfoole, on 12/06/2007, -6/+0And as I understand it, they would need to resign themselves for being even more incompetent.
    • digitdean, on 12/06/2007, -1/+0A+ for cursing.
  • m4lomb, on 12/06/2007, -3/+30Impeach now before it's too late. Also, put him on trial for treason.
    • Sippi, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Send him to Gitmo and tell him he is being held for terrorist activity on US mainland. That way they can hold him for how ever long they feel without charging him.
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Why does everyone keep saying "too late"? Articles of Impeachment can occur AFTER the presidency is over. He can still be brought up on criminal charges, and that would get him the death penalty. (though I would much prefer to have him hand delivered to the families in Iraq wearing nothing but a sign that says "***** Iraq, wheres the oil?"
  • fleischner, on 12/06/2007, -13/+2When something like this "happens" I like to imagine what current Dems/libs/lefties would say if something like the Bay of Pigs invasion and its aftermath happened today. And a Republican were in the White House instead of Democrat JFK of course. Same goes for, say, the use of atomic bombs in warfare. Of course we'd have to have a GOP president for this to matter, instead of Democrat Truman. Let's all just imagine...
    • imnojezus, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7What?
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Get into the current century why don't you... important stuff is happening here.
    • Coven, on 12/06/2007, -0/+11Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have our first "But but but...Kennedy!" and "But but but...Truman!"
    • Donnageddon, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4fleischner, I dare you to make less sense. I double dare you!!
    • dbs1221, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4The bay of pigs wasn't expensive, wasn't American lives (they were poorly trained cuban expatriot volunteers), Nobody defends it or praises it, after it failed we didn't send billions of dollars trying to take Cuba, occupy it, and pacify it
      Other than the fact that Iraq and the Bay of Pigs were mistakes, and failures (or at best in Iraq the most pyrrhic victory in US history) they aren't comparable

      The nuclear bomb was secret, the manhattan project was expensive but expanded science and was justified because the japanese and german's were also pursuing nuclear warheads, and finally the dropping of the atomic bombs is one of the most controversial ( along with price, that it killed innocents and that its impact and damage weren't accurately predicted are its only similar and comparable aspects with iraq) it was also because justified in that it shortened the war, reduced the cost of the war, and prevented further loss US soldiers lives in a land war.

      A better comparison would be how did the public react to escalations of troops in vietnam under presidents kennedy and johnson, and the answer is they were pretty ***** *****.
  • anagai, on 12/06/2007, -4/+5He doesn't give a impression of sharp mind or good memory. He just forgot what he heard. Just listen to the guy talk. Hes a simpleton. Iran is going to cause wwIII? I think hes thinking of WWE. Im sure hes there target audience. Worst is going to happen is some middle eastern nation is going to be wiped out by us if they ever nuke us. This nation will be iran. Any national leader has to be clinically insane to attack us with a nuke on our soil. We will bomb the hell out of all the suspected nations that attacked us and last resort will nuke the nation when we find out who attacked us.
  • pantspatrol, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7If lying to the nation and continuing to threaten our security without an indefinite reason then I don't know why we even have the option of impeachment if we aren't going to use it. I think those reasons are enough for a trial and conviction of numerous defiant acts against our nation and our INTELLIGENT constitution! Bush needs to go! So Pelosi...get your vagina in order so we can move on from this dictatorship and finally implement a democracy...its all you baby! Choose wisely!
  • toddcat, on 12/06/2007, -1/+15Bush lied? I pretty much assume he lies every time he talks.
  • Enochyang, on 12/06/2007, -0/+45Seriously, what the ***** is it going to take to impeach Bush? And how does he have an approval rating of anything higher than 0%?
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -1/+9It will take convincing enough Senators to support conviction so that impeachment can be effective. An impeached and acquitted Bush does us no good. The problem is that Republicans hold party over country.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4Fundamentalism. They feel that Christians are superior to all others.
    • tmessing, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2and his approval rating is higher than congress's
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2I imagine that Bush has hired in all people that he has serious dirt on.
      They should draft up a list of people that are KNOWN guilty of high crimes, then offer immunity to all other party members to expose and convict the listed members. That would save them from being scared to do it.
    • callmejordy265, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Texas.
  • radink360, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10one word. Impeach.
  • atomic811, on 12/06/2007, -3/+9he lies and he is a drunk...did anyone hear how drunk he sounded when his daughter called him from the ellen show "hey where you going" "I just wanna tell my little girl I love her" It doesn't matter we all see these news stories and we are mad as hell about it but we won't do anything about it.
    Sometime I wonder if I went to DC and sat there with a sign to impeach him 24/7 and wouldn't leave if anyone would even join me. Millions of people not leaving would get attention. But what would happen is I would sit there like some chump as everyone watched me on a 30 sec news story and you would all still do nothing because "I have to goto work" "I have to pay my bills" whatever excuse you and others would use.
    • zengonzo, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1So is 'I don't want to be a thirty second story' your excuse?

      Lead the way, chump.
      • atomic811, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1no its not my excuse ass wipe I could care less if it was 30 sec or an hour or non stop coverage I am saying people would just think it was good and not join in..just sit there and watch from their homes. I also never said I was any better than anyone else...I am guilty of the same things. We have all been pacified and domesticated. The government knows we won't do crap about it which is why they keep doing it.
    • clackerd, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0"id anyone hear how drunk he sounded when his daughter called him from the ellen show "

      you had me up til "the ellen show." the fact that you admit to watching the ellen show reduces your street cred by a factor of 10.
  • ninjaface, on 12/06/2007, -3/+15IMPEACHMENT??? or wait.... ready, set, go.....DO NOTHING!!! Gotta love how america caves for these rich, privledged, thief, murderers. Thanks media. Tell me more about Paris and Brittiney. Ahhhh, there we go. They've lulled me back into my false sense of security.
  • mal1964, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2Sus·pend; http://m-w.com/dictionary/suspended
  • brite2006, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1No - don't say - I thought politicians always told the truth?
    • DamnLogins, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Fool :) His lips were moving. D'uh!
  • gatorgreenwell5, on 12/06/2007, -9/+0Council on Foreign Relations-August 2007

    "With help from Russia, Iran is building a nuclear power plant, but U.S. officials say that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy. In April 2006, President Ahmadinejad announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium. Experts say Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) to produce a bomb in three to ten years. The international community has called on Iran to stop its nuclear program." http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/state_sponsors ...
    • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4" I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."



      Outgoing White House adviser Dan Bartlett:
  • jeep066, on 12/06/2007, -22/+2Buried............thinkprogress
    How anyone believes this B.S. is beyond me. People think for yourself
    • RavagesOfTime, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10Think for yourselves...watch FOX!
    • imnojezus, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11Yes, Thinkprogress must be making this up. Obviously quoting President Bush and the White House DIRECTLY qualifies as total B.S. I can't believe I've wasted all this time not thinking for myself. Thanks Mr. jeep066!
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -0/+8That tactic doesn't work anymore. Can't refute an argument? Discredit the source. Obfuscate.
    • objectcode, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7thinkprogress is certainly no foxnews when it comes to reporting the facts
      • jetsetter883, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1no they are not fox news. just the left equivalent of fox news.
    • Delphium226, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/05/bush.iran/i ...
      http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?t ...

      There you go! I know it's difficult to use the big complicated Google, we'll help you out.
    • Dgen_X, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1wow...it took until past the middle of the page before someone buried for it being a 'leftist' website...

      I guess this shows that the winds have changed...6+ months ago this comment would have been in the first 5!
  • paganmonkeyboy, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7I note this story is not on CNN's lead page...
  • flink405, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1High power politics dance going on against Iran....
    Now the name of the game is to get a Republican in the White House in 2008.
  • gatorgreenwell5, on 12/06/2007, -6/+1Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):
    Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
    This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

    The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials."
    http://www.odni.gov/testimonies/20070711_testimony ...
    • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5" I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."

      Outgoing White House adviser Dan Bartlett:
    • wheresjim, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6This (what you are citing without reference from a blog entry in the weekly standard site yesterday) doesn't contradict the NIE at all!

      Key points:
      "Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment" - The NIE does state that Iran does continue to enrich Uranium for it's civilian nuclear program.
      "[Iran] has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions" -The part about protracting negotiations goes both ways, Iran offered to discuss stopping it's program in 2003 and we chose not to talk to them, but Ahmenijad is definitley guilty of making it difficult to deal with Iran, the NIE does not dispute this.
      "We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons" - is the only part that even comes close, but it does not state that there is an active weapons program, having a desire or determination to do something and doing it are 2 different things

      As a matter of fact, it supports the assertions by Seymour Hersch because the language of that testimony does not contradict the NIE report, yet is crafted to beat the drum for a strike on Iran. This indicates that there are those in this administration who knew what was in this report well before last week or even August (the testimony was delivered in July)
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Totally pwned you cut and paste monkey
  • radink360, on 12/06/2007, -1/+23You know clinton got impeached for lying about getting a BJ. This guy is lying about things to help bring on WWIII. Time for him to go.
  • curtisag, on 12/06/2007, -5/+10The neo-cons in control of our Government and the Republican party have never been so weak. They hijacked the party, and are not really conservatives. Help deal the final blow that ends neo-con philosophy forever by voting for Ron Paul.

    GAME OVER NEO-CONS! GAME OVER!

    Donate on the 16th of Dec. and sign up at www.teaparty07.com. History is about to be made!
  • JMellissa, on 12/06/2007, -5/+5Can you say "Impeach"?
    • ukfoole, on 12/06/2007, -8/+0Can you say "overused buzzword vomited by the sheep on digg anytime there is a story that could even closely be tied to Bush whether it involves the tasering of a pregnant women in a London trolly or the plight of Chinese children making lead filled toys for US children"?
      • Acewrap, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Go fix your own ***** country. You guys lost this one a while ago.
    • BlackStrain, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0You can say it but you might be brutalized by the police.
  • lazyfisherman, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Remember when the President was someone you looked up to? A person of quality, elected by the people to lead the nation. The best Americans had to offer and a true leader who cared about the common man and who the people genuinely loved and adored.

    Ok, so maybe we haven't had a president like this for a while (if ever) but at least they weren't Bush.
    • ukfoole, on 12/06/2007, -3/+0What a very concienable statement, indeed! *cheers*

      You have grown to understand politicss and how even though Bush is being awful, not everything was peaches and roses before him being president, nor will any quick change make it like that.

      About the last "good" president you had was Harry S. Truman. There are statues of him around the world, you know. In odd places like Athens, Sicily and France even.
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Under Clinton the nation had the greatest economic expansion in history - all while blocking the GOP congress's dangerous economic tendencies.

      Clinton may not be the best, but Bush is certainly the worst and would bring shame to his supporters if they were smart enough to understand what they had done.
  • HumanRecall, on 12/06/2007, -8/+2why are you morons acting so surprised ?
  • Delphium226, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3C'mon neoturds, let's see you Bush apologists explain this away. Or are you all standing there with your fingers in your ears shouting 'nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah....'.
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3No, their fingers are in their ears and they're shouting "Kerry Clinton Kerry Clinton Kerry Clinton...."
    • green67, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1huh huh........he said turd......huh huh
    • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1This party ***** has got to go.
      BAN ALL POLITICAL PARTIES! They are nothing but finger pointing idiots that REFUSE to look at actual issues and instead just yell polar oposites at the oposing party.
      What would have happened if there was no longer a repub or demo party and bush tried to pull this *****? What would have happened in congress?
  • ktorbeck, on 12/06/2007, -11/+2Okay cool-aid drinkers. You can't have it both ways. You can't complain he takes action before intelligence is double checked and then complain because he waited until they did double check.

    Plus this proves that Bush plan for Iran is working. They stopped after we invaded Iraq, and put political pressure on them in the UN. Another key point is that they stopped, but they are still enriching uranium so it can be restarted at anytime.

    I don't care if you hate Bush, just for once start thinking about what will happen if they do restart. What will a country who is already supporting terrorism attacks do with a nuke?
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7So it takes 4 years, all of a sudden, to verify intelligence? Iran is zero threat to the US, and I don't give a rat's ass about Israel.
    • objectcode, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6I couldn't help but notice they have oil over there in Iran
    • cambob76, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7"What will a country who is already supporting terrorism attacks do with a nuke?" Take the example of the United States. The US supports terrorism under the guise of spreading democracy around the world. The US has nuclear arms... they stopped using them over 60 years ago. Now that we understand the significance of the bomb, nobody is foolish enough to use them. Iran would do nothing, else it would be wiped off the face of the Earth. The only benefit to Iran would be as a deterent against hostile nations.
      • throop77, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1That is exactly the point that everyone has unlearned. The whole mutual destruction thing used to be common knowledge.
    • snatchmstr, on 12/06/2007, -6/+1Good post. Just a reminder, you are on a very liberal biased site so you will be dugg down.
      • Acewrap, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5It's not bias, it's ***** reality.
      • BobOki, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2He will get dugg down for calling everyone cool-aid drinkers and being a general *****.
        Yes, the US attacking Iraq caused something to happen, it caused the UN to talk to Iran and make them stop their enrichment plans. US does not get credit for the UN's efforts, so go ***** yourself.
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Idiot. The point is - Bush is still lying to get us into unnecessary wars that kill our best and brightest. You may not care but most of us do.
      • ktorbeck, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1You can't get your point across with out calling me a name. I really don't understand that about people on the left.
    • throop77, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1What would they do with a nuke? Nuke the US? No, we would destroy the entire country. Nuke Israel? No, we would destroy the entire country. Give the nuke to terrorists to detonate somewhere? No, we would destroy the entire country. They wouldn't do *****.
  • donelson, on 12/06/2007, -4/+5.

    Bush probably just doesn't remember. I mean, come on, the guy's an IDIOT.

    .
  • JointVenture, on 12/06/2007, -10/+0Yawn.

    They told him in August that "Iran MAY have SUSPENDED their nuke program.

    Nice try freaks.
    • objectcode, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1the key is to live in your own reality. if you believe something is true, then it is
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2The report does not say "MAY".

      Idiot.
    • Delphium226, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3hmmmm... methnks you're obviously too stupid to get that waging a war is only acceptable if there is a clear and present danger. Seems to me there was a lot of doubt that there was. Sorry, you didn't get your little thrill as we marched into another war. Perhaps you can sign up for the current one and go and get your thrills there. Or are you chicken?
  • reugeneg, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties."
    Marquis de Lafayette

    Let's get this party started
  • sovietamerica, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4lol, remember how everyone was screaming how Russia was the evil one for helping Iran build nukes? Looks like the evil one here is the US for war mongering yet again. I hope this serves as further proof of Iraq's legitimacy.
  • chesscat, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Maybe Cheney will take Bush out for a hunting trip or maybe even for a boat ride-"Godfather" style.
  • gatorgreenwell5, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1Dr. Thomas Fingar, The Deputy Director for Analysis, serves concurrently as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and also manages the production of the President's Daily Brief. Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. He said this on July 11, 2007 before the House Armed Services Committee: " Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure." http://www.odni.gov/testimonies/20070711_testimony ...
    The Council on Foreign Relations Published this in August 2007:
    With help from Russia, Iran is building a nuclear power plant, but U.S. officials say that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy. In April 2006, President Ahmadinejad announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium. Experts say Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) to produce a bomb in three to ten years. The international community has called on Iran to stop its nuclear program. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/state_sponsors ...
    There it is, clear as day. Where did Bush lie? How do you explain away these 2 examples? The Council on Foreign Relations AND one of the authors of the NIE report saying just what Bush has been saying. Who is lying?
    • wheresjim, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Didn't you already post this stuff in this thread twice already?

      With regard to Dr. Fingar's testimony, it doesn't contradict the NIE at all:
      Key points:
      "Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment" - The NIE does state that Iran does continue to enrich Uranium for it's civilian nuclear program.
      "[Iran] has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions" -The part about protracting negotiations goes both ways, Iran offered to discuss stopping it's program in 2003 and we chose not to talk to them, but Ahmenijad is definitley guilty of making it difficult to deal with Iran, the NIE does not dispute this.
      "We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons" - is the only part that even comes close, but it does not state that there is an active weapons program, having a desire or determination to do something and doing it are 2 different things

      As a matter of fact, it supports the assertions by Seymour Hersch because the language of that testimony does not contradict the NIE report, yet is crafted to beat the drum for a strike on Iran. This indicates that there are those in this administration who knew what was in this report well before last week or even August (the testimony was delivered in July)

      With Regard to The CFR's report, which also does not contradict the NIE:
      "With help from Russia, Iran is building a nuclear power plant, but U.S. officials say that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy" - What US officials are these? The same ones that are beating a drum to go into Iran no matter what the truth is?
      "In April 2006, President Ahmadinejad announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium" - The NIE does stipulate to the fact that Iran has and is enriching uranium for their civilian nuclear program (enriched uranium for civilian use is much less enriched than that used in nuclear weapons

      If you bothered to read the article, you would have seen that the article refers to the President lying about when he heard about the suspended Iranian nu-ku-lar weapons program, stating that he had heard about it just last week, when his own press secretary stated he knew sometime in August. The article does not question the precise credibility of his statements concerning the Iranian weapons program, as a matter of fact, it states that his statements jibe with the NIE since August, supporting the statement made by Ms. Perino.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Dugg for righteous pwnage and use of "nu-ku-lar"
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/06/2007, -3/+8Even the conservative radio guys are bashing "The Federal Government". That's code for the Bush Administration. The spell of propaganda is wearing off and people are fuming.
  • snatchmstr, on 12/06/2007, -8/+3I can't wait until we have a democrat in the white house..... Until we start having dirty bombs blowing up in the cities and a third of the population has Anthrax. Then we can ask the president to ask the terrorists to please stop or we will have to ask some more.
    • defwheezer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5I'm sure you'll get your wish soon- the CIA has been in contingency planning for a Dem sweep since before even the last Neocon-assisted anthrax attack. The Republicriminals will stop at nothing, and will stoop to any low, to consolidate their power.
    • 01l0, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Dirty bombs have been proven to be fearmongering nonsense, more likely to cause death from heart attacks than from radiation. Anthrax attacks are more likely, considering that in the past they've been carried out by right-wing terrorists targeting liberal lawmakers and media outlets. And we all know how much the Right hates Clinton, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a resurgence of anthrax if Hillary gets elected.
      • snatchmstr, on 12/06/2007, -1/+0I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a resurgence of anthrax if Hillary gets elected.

        Yea only for real.
    • iiftmlis, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Ha ha ha - the old "dems are soft on terrorism" cliche! It's an oldie but still funny!

      Tell the one about how democrats what to turn our children gay! That one slays me every time!
      • snatchmstr, on 12/06/2007, -3/+0It's true.
        • green67, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2@ "snatchmstr".....you're an idiot.....and probably have repressed homosexual tendencies....
          Zed: Bring out the Gimp.
          Maynard: But the Gimp's sleeping.
          Zed: Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you?!
          • snatchmstr, on 12/06/2007, -2/+0Zeds dead baby. Zeds dead.
            Good job making the connection between snatch and homo.
    • forgottenhope, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2The left right thing is over, its been over. Wake up.
    • aman78, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Can someone ship this guy off to Iraq or Afghanistan. Please? Or maybe pour coffee over his head hoping he might wake up.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 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.