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.268 Comments
- drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -32/+286Just makes me sick to stomach...
Can someone please explain to me why lying about receiving a blow job from an Intern in the Oval Office is an impeachable offense but fabricating explosive lies to justify an illegal war is not?
Or should I just take the Press Secretary's word for it like most of the ***** who continue buying into this Administration will and say "Nothing new..."
Congrats America... - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -8/+109"a man found guilty of lying in a sexual harrasment should have been totally removed from office.."
Yeah that's great, but no one was found guilty of sexual harassment. - NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -9/+103There has to be proof in order to go to war over it.
- TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+65This adminstration has learned from Clinton's mistake. Never, ever lie. Obfuscate, leave enough wiggle room to leave past statements open to interpretation, but never actually say anything 100% provablely false.
It's stunning that an administration that so strongly believes in dichotomies (You're with us, or you're with the terrorists), so rarely makes official statements that are definite and precise. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+64Note CNN is also saying that the Republicans are stonewalling the release of more information about what the CIA was stating to the administration and the administration's responses.
- drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -26/+82That wasn't my point Mr. Obvious. But thanks for clearing that up.
- rokinroj, on 10/12/2007, -6/+59Bush isn't impeached because every time he commits an crime, he passes a law that says it isn't a crime, and never was.
"Oceania Has Always Been At War with Eastasia" - drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56Necro'd a prior comment of mine for you BullyJack:
When one strives to hold onto a belief, no matter how absurd, they make many excuses to further justify that belief. Such excuses are a comfort to them. It provides a sense of security in their ability to assess fact from fiction. - adampesa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+53From 2004:
Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html
I guess Tony Snow is right when he says its 'nothing new.' I've always known the VP has been full of it. - geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50Serious props to both of you for having an actual productive discussion on Digg. I can count the number of times I've seen that on my unmentionables. ;)
- BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -7/+54The reality is that I'm very conflicted over this Mideast crisis. It makes my head hurt.
Your points are well taken. - drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -9/+55It's not the fanatics we need to be negotiating with, it is the people, the governments, the region as a whole.
In order to gain power one must exploit the weak. Why do you think the Islamic Fanatics are becoming stronger and stronger in that region? The people and the Governments are weak. US policy over the course of 30 some odd years has consistently stifled that region in the name of facilitating Western dependence on oil.
Give those people hope, support moderate Governments and engage conservative Governments. Isolating, sanctioning and bombing will only continue making the region weak and furthering the power held by Islamic fanatics. - drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -8/+54There will always be fanatics BillyJack. There are fanatics in the West, there are religious fanatics in every creed....
The difference is that their voices are not heard as loudly in the West as they are in the Middle East. If we would negotiate with the conservative and moderate aspects of that region I am positive the fanatical cries can be muffled.
People will go where there is hope. Right now the islamic fanatics are providing most people the hope they need. They are giving people a purpose through martydom. Take that away from the fanatics and they lose power.
Waging a war against these people through bombs and high tech weapons does nothing but further the very words of hate and intolerance they preach. - monkeycat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48What we lost is our credibility with the rest of the world.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46"What did America lose that it hasn't lost already?"
The lives of 2000+ soldiers. - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46“The broad mass of the nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” — Adolf Hitler, in his 1925 book Mein Kampf.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47"Can someone please explain to me why lying about receiving a blow job from an Intern in the Oval Office is an impeachable offense but fabricating explosive lies to justify an illegal war is not?"
Because the Republicans hold the House of Representatives...and that's where impeachment proceedings start. - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46Too bad we didn't have any federal agents asking Bush questions. That was Clinton's big mistake and nobody will ever make it again.
- gpd209, on 10/12/2007, -7/+47Kingfoot said: "didn't Saddam need to be removed anyway? ignoring all the wrong reasons and lies, wasnt he ruining the country anyway?"
If that logic were sufficient, Canada could rightfully invade the U.S. in order to depose Bush. - aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42fantasticFlan - +2000 soldiers, +30000 innocent Iraqis, billions of dollars, any resemblance of moral high ground. Does that sum it up?
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41All I can say is wow, news of the ***** century! (sarcasm!!!!)
TRUTH:
The only link between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda is the Bush family.
1) Snr Bush sold a *****-load of weapons to Sadaam (true, look it up)
2) The Bush family was great friends with the Bin Laden family (true, look it up)
GO FIGURE. - happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40Perjury is a real crime, and a serious offense, but let's put this in perspective.
Clinton's lies impeded a sexual harassment lawsuit involving one woman.
Bush's lies caused real human suffering on a vast scale, involving the destruction (by death, injury, or economic devestation) of hundreds of thousands of lives.
There is no amount of legalese that can make Clinton's perjurious lies about oral sex come anywhere near the level of Bush's injurious lies about matters of life and death. - Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40Well, seems to me that if that was the reasoning behind the war, someone up top should have said something along those lines..
Instead we've got NO 9/11 ties, NO WMDs, LESS crude production, and MORE terrorists. All in a day's work, I guess.
Ok, ok, I realize that hindsight is always 20/20, but I really think enough people cried out, loudly at that, against this invasion and were ignored. And they were right. - slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42Don't blame America. Blame Bush supporters.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39Yeah, I think they'll probably end the war once the ratings start to dip. It's in it's what, 5th season?
- Enendar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+42Didn't he lie under oath? Wasn't that the real reason why he got impeached and not because of a blow job? Obviously he lied under oath about the blow job, but yeah
- Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35geekee, Iraq was a secular republic in the middle east. Before the first gulf war it had one of the highest standards of living in the arab world, and this was despite their war with Iran.
Let me ask you this...
If America were bombed, its government destroyed, and its resource zones occupied by foreign troops, do you honestly not believe there would be religious groups leading the resistance and seeking dominance? - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Get a Clue! It's Official: No Link Between the Republicans and Competent Leadership!
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35@kingfoot
yeah and the US+provisional gov't are doing such a cracking good job at it too. - Dipsomaniac, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Just because I can't prove that you're a shoplifter doesn't make it untrue. But I bet you'd want to see some facts if I made such an accusation, right? And that's not even particularly important.
When invading another country as an excercise in 'liberation', I think that expecting that the invading party will have facts on their side isn't too much to ask. Bush didn't have facts, but he DID have some nice fabricated stories. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Kamikaze, the truth is that it's illegal for individual countries to enforce UN resolutions. And the reason that you're scared by all this is that it contradicts your previous beliefs that the administration was being truthful.
- BlackAle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29This isn't breaking news! the rest of the world has always known this!
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26The 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. (before 9/11)
Bush KNEW that they were in the U.S.
Other countries KNEW that they were in the U.S.
Other countries told us to "look out".
We even arrested an alleged hijacker-to-be.
And yet you'd be insane to suggest there was an "official" link between Bush and Al Qaeda in the same way you're suggesting there was a link between Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Logic should apply to everything equally. - silenceHR, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25those damned liberals in Senate attacking Bush, they are all america hating treehugging islamofasictstic bastards.... ohh wait!!!!!!.... who controls the Senate?
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24"Bush never said that. Never."
Bush: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." -- Jun. 17, 2004 - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Looks like someone didn't read the article. Well, at least you have "truthiness" on your side.
* * *
It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".
It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.
The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings. - GeorgeZimmer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20inaccurate? since when does news from the bbc count as inaccurate? i think there are too many right wingers on digg who see fox news as the sole voice of truth when it comes to reporting news, and that is sad.
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21We have lots of those. Wanna buy some?
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” — Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22MrKamikaze wrote: "Doesn't excuse the fact that he did nothing to comply with 17 UN resolutions regarding disarmament after the first gulf war, Shot at Coalition aircraft enforcing the no fly zones and funded suicide Palestinian suicide bombers among many other disgusting things."
I have to agree with Rikkochet. If these were the reasons given to the public, I think many of us would be less inclined to cry foul. Unfortunately, that's not the case. The Bush administration went for the emotional angle to rally the people. Not only did they go for the emotional angle, but they just pulled it out of their ass.
They spiced up the "failure to disarm" violations by tossing WMDs into the mix; another emotional angle ("WMDs are scary!").
Bush is an embarrassment to this country. - drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Nice to meet you, aptly named, Mrkamikaze
- TheBowerbird, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I am astonished to see this story being marked as innacurate. I suppose the rule for the right is breathtaking amounts of self deception? Wake up people!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I am utterly disgusted at the right-wing refusal to accept the truth.
Innacurate? Are you ***** kidding me?
This couldn't BE more factual, yet again---they mark something innacurate because *OH MY GOD CALL THE WAHHH-MBULANCE!!!* it doesnt fit their vision of reality.
We need to spread the word about this article and get more people to digg it and move it BACK to the front page where it belongs. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Well when I submitted it, it was listed as Breaking News on the BBC site... but I thought the same as you, which is why I added (!) in the title. It was a bit tongue in cheek.
- gpd209, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It's ironic to me that Mrkamikazi bothered to post 7 comments about one article in a place that is merely "a scary microcosm of world opinion." IMHO, that characterization better fits his side of this debate...
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16No kidding. You must be new around here.
There's a cabal of Bush apologists in the politics section here on Digg that marks every story critical of the GOP as "inaccurate." They think it will get the story off the front page that way. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"fantasticFlan - +2000 soldiers, +30000 innocent Iraqis, billions of dollars,"
$1 *TRILLION* by 2008.
That number is so ridiculous many people can't really comprehend what it means. Just think what could have been accomplished with that money. We could have built enough clean energy plants (including nuke plants) to power the entire country. Or we could have completely ended our dependence on gasoline.
The oil lobby and their shill in the White House should be tried for treason, because they knowlingly misled us into going to war over oil and the same old Cold War geopolitical games that we were supposed to have been working to end. Instead, they dragged us back in, and set us back socially as far as the Dark Ages. Just look at all the fundamentalist talk today.
But what do you expect from people who blindly worship fairy tales? No Star Wars jokes please. :p - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Hi. I'm not American.
But I did like how you told me that if I didn't like the fact Bush's war had killed thousands of innocent people I should just go to Canada, when in the post of yours I quoted you were celebrating the removal of a leader who had done virtually the same thing.
*sniff sniff* mmm hypocrisy.
P.S: There's a vast difference between being proud of your country, and blindly supporting the actions of your leader. I'm proud of my country too, but Tony Blair is still a warmongering tosspot Bush-poodle. - Demono, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18The smart ones knew there was no link from day one.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16What you said seems to support just as strongly a US-Zarqawi link.
Now what was the name of that nice young Lieutenant that Nixon pardoned shortly after My Lai?
A much stronger ***** link to terrorism, if you ask me. -
Show 51 - 100 of 268 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is