What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
353 Comments
- Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -16/+285This Spanish transcript reveals several damning things. The ones I picked up on are the following:
a. Bush intended to go into Baghdad even in the event that his second resolution was vetoed in the U.N. Security Council. In effect, he was prepared to break Constitutional law by violating the terms of an international treaty to which the U.S. was a signatory.
b. This transcript reveals that under no circumstance was Bush willing to let Saddam Hussein flee Iraq. Which means that his March 17, 2003, offer for Saddam to leave within 48hrs in order to prevent a war, was disingenuous. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq ...
c. The transcript reveals that Bush employed coercive tactics against potential dissident governments, in order to gain their support. He did not allow them to base their support or lack thereof based on the merits of the case alone.
d. Bush willfully ignores, or is ignorant of, United States complicity in some of the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein. Such as the United States being one of several governments who actively assisted his regime conduct an illegal war against Iran, by providing it with logistical support, military equipment and weapons, and material support for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#Iran-I ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_m ...
e. The transcript reveals that no amount of proof of disarmament could have satisfied Bush's demands for evidence of such. He viewed the diplomatic process as a cover for troop movements, and was not open to the possibility that it might bear fruit.
f. Bush views himself as some great protector of world freedom, rather than as a constitutional officer, whose primary duty it is to make sure the Constitution is obeyed.
g. Finally, this Spanish transcript reveals that Bush considered the capture of one single individual, Saddam Hussein, to be more important than the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, 4,000+ U.S. troops and coalition forces, and the wounding and displacement of millions of individuals. - stealth45, on 10/10/2007, -14/+169We need to let the rest of the world know that our government does not represent us.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+81we had a chance, but we gave him a second term.
- tinygibbles, on 10/10/2007, -8/+75There's going to be a lot of missing white girl news on Fox today, for sure.
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -7/+73Your ignoring that fact that we wouldn't have paid a dime. Saddam wanted to leave with a billion of his own money. So the math on this is actually wrong, it's wouldn't have cost a tenth of a 1%, it would have cost 0% of what we have currently paid.
- Jeveran, on 10/10/2007, -11/+72478 days until he can be charged with war crimes (no more diplomatic immunity).
- zyklon, on 10/10/2007, -11/+58Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About Everything
Title fixed. - hawkeye17, on 10/10/2007, -7/+51Bush wanted the War for 2 reasons. A) Keep the American public scared and voting Republican B) Funnel Billions of Dollars into the bank accounts of their Cronies at Blackwater, Halliburton, Exxon, etc. This whole war is being exposed as what it really is...a Pyramid Scheme set up to make Friends of Bush rich. In the end, Greed is what our kids are fighting and dying for in Iraq. Enjoy the Legacy Dumbya.
- Ultrace, on 10/10/2007, -17/+56Quite right. I think it's far more appropriate that he demand the lives of our soldiers and several hundred billion from us instead. Good thinking.
- mashlin, on 10/10/2007, -10/+43don't we have enough information to not only impeach but put bush in jail yet?
- kleric, on 10/10/2007, -6/+38This was the best summarization I've seen yet of the spanish transcript. Thanks.
- uraliar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30You don't "crack me up". You scare me. Why? Because you are so dumb. At what point did any of those who flew the planes come from Iraq? ooops, never. And what Islamic extremest lived in Iraq that threatened the USA? Ooops again, none. Try not to be so dumb your "hole" life.
- MoneyShot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Where was this info six years ago? No one expects the Spanish transcript!
- Jumile, on 10/10/2007, -7/+31So when are you, as a nation, going to do start doing this? I mean really do it, not smack talk on forums and sites like Digg?
"Load and proud" Americans are like a stuck record about how their nation was founded on dissent, revolution and not accepting the taxation and madness of King George. What about the mad King George running things out of the Whitehouse now? - akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24You have unfortunately forgotten that Bush pushed a bill through a little under a year ago that excluded his administration from being charged with any war crimes in the future.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -9/+31Look, I'm into recycling as much as anyone else- but this story has hit Digg's Top Ten three or four times!
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -2/+23There is no terrorist threat, you ***** coward.
- chan0429, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21By islamic extremists you mean right wing extremists in our government creating a flag event in order to justify holding onto the middle eastern territory to further their ideological goals.
- Jerky1312, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19We're too busy playing Halo 3, watching Dancing with the Star and wondering what Britney, Paris and Lindsey are up to next.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Nobody died when Clinton lied.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17nobody cares about your opinions. if you want to counter an argument, simply state your points, backed by facts if possible.
if that isn't possible, try "Lol Fags!". it is known to be an unquestionable and infallible counter to any valid point. - siszam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19My son is in Iraq risking his life every day for Bush's ***** and lies. I guess it's "crap" to you because everyone else's children are disposable huh? It's not your child or you blood. It's like playing a video game to you.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Bush is worse than saddam?? really?
- Kakou, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23Seriously though, didn't we kind of already know Bush was ***** us? I mean really, haven't we gotten to the point yet where we can just ignore everything he says, pick the worst possible reality and assume it's true?
I guess my point is this: is anyone really surprised? - TecHeavy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20The fact of the matter is this...Saddam could of said he would shoot himself in the head, that still wouldn't of kept us from going to war in that region. Bush/Cheney Co. would have just came up with another trumped up lie about going in to fight the war. What we are not seeing is that these pigs are making a ***** load of money from this war, it doesn't matter how much it costs because it's not their (Bush/Cheney Co.) money being spent...it's ours. We as citizen's of this once great country will be paying this back until the end of time.
Here's one of your biggest reason why this has happened.
Cheney Energy Task Force ( Created the second week the administration was in office)
Maps and Charts of Iraqi Oilfields:
Iraq Oil Map - http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf
Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors 2 - http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf
Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors 1 - http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pd ...
UAE Oil Map - http://www.judicialwatch.org/UAEOilMap.pdf
UAE Oil Project - http://www.judicialwatch.org/UAEOilProj.pdf
SA Oil Map - http://www.judicialwatch.org/SAOilMap.pdf
SA Oil Proj - http://www.judicialwatch.org/SAOilProj.pdf
The Washington Post reported on November 15, 2005 that it had obtained documents detailing how executives from major oil corporations, including Exxon-Mobil Corp., Conoco, Royal Dutch Shell Oil Corp., and the American subsidiary of British Petroleum met with Energy Task Force participants while they were developing national energy policy. Vice President Cheney was reported to have met personally with the Chief Executive Officer of BP (formerly British Petroleum) during the time of the Energy Task Force's activities. In the week prior to this article revealing oil executive involvement, the Chief Executives of Exxon-Mobil and ConocoPhillips told members of the US Senate that they had not participated as part of the Energy Task Force, while the CEO of British Petroleum stated that he did not know. Regardless of whether the executives were under oath, if these statements were knowingly false they may have been illegal, as per the The Fraud and False Statements statute (18 U.S.C. 1001) [2]. In response to questions regarding the article, Cheney spokesperson Lea Ann McBride was quoted as saying that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality." - Washington Post Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
They are killing us and them for their own benefit...their killing us to privatize Iraq.
Halliburton
KBR..etc
Blackwater and another long list of ***** that we don't know about. This war is not about us or the Iraqi people...it's about the destruction of our country, our people, their people ,and it's about them getting paid. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18He must have forgot, Blood in, Blood out.
- vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16So is $1 billion dollars worth 600,000 thousand lives and 4 trillion dollars of debt?
- cranium, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17The American people should offer Bush the same deal.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14We still would have went in to help them put together a new democracy (if you think we wouldn't have, then you obviously don't think the US has a vested interest in who governs iraq). At which time the insurgency would still have happened. Moot point. most of the losses we've (and iraq) has incurred has been from the inusurgency, not from the removal of Saddam. It wouldn't have cost that much less. We just wouldn't have spent so much money on the "shock and awe" portion of the fiasco. And after all that, we'd have two Osamas to deal with, not just one. This article ignores some pretty big points.
- nunchuks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11do you live in a part of the country that may actually be targeted actively? it seems that everyone who is soooo afraid of terrorist attacks live in bumble ***** arkanmissidakota where the possibilities of your grain silo being blown up is virtually nil. i live in a major metropolitan area which actually can be a good target for the terrorists and i'm not as paranoid as you are. it really makes me wonder why people who are more likely to be attacked have to be subjected to the opinions of people who probably won't be affected in any major way. same logic goes for our senators who are so bent on keeping this war going without having any of their kids in the military and our commander in chief who dodged the draft.
- lesosso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9but you sir are really dumb !!!!
- prunes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10If EVERY other head of state in the world asked for $1 billion, it would still cost less than this idiotic, bloody war and our economy would be in better shape. Countries don't make decisions on the basis of what makes their leaders happy, they're supposed to do what's best for their citizens.
- Karmashock, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10the most interesting thing about this is how little evidence is needed to convince people something is true in one case and how much is needed in another case.
It shows a powerful bias that many of you should be aware of or it will distort your view of reality and make you easy to control by anyone that knows how to press your buttons. Question everything. If you only question certain things then that's a blind spot that will be exploited. - lathicentropy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10He wanted to take $1 Billion WITH HIM, as in, from the Iraqi treasury, as in that thing he had been looting for decades and we had allowed. Hell, a large chunk was probably CIA money, so it's not as if we'd be handing over bars from Ft. Knox.
- prunes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9By "Bots" do you mean real Americans who won't tolerate this corrupt, power-hungry psycho neocon bullcrap anymore? You ought to be thankful that there are Americans who actually care about their country, and who will defend the innate rights for even an illiterate retard like yourself.
Oh, nice to wish terrorist attacks on your fellow countrymen, at least we know where you really stand. - kagreenie1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Using chemical weapons purchased from U.S, and helicopters the Republican guard were permitted to fly after the Desert Storm ceasefire. Meanwhile, we were encouraging the Iraqis to hopelessly rise up against Saddam. Side note: Bush gets away with killing over 1.2 million civilians.
- SwedishNinja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Enjoy your visit from the Secret Service :)
- Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11The U.S. negotiates with terrorists all the time. But even with that said, Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist, he was a head of state. And 1 Billion dollars is nothing. It would have meant nothing in his hands. There are current billionaires and ultra-millionaires in this world causing far more damage now than he could have. Plus, he had so many enemies, he would have been murdered, anyway.
- vjeko, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Everyone who is against negotiating with terrorist should go in war fighting.
- zanek, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Haha, so true !
- Ursapater, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14If this is indeed true then, as far as I'm concerned, Bush (and let's not forget the rest of his administration) is guilty of high treason. They should have all profits confiscated and serve time in jail (a real jail not a restricted access country club) at worst. Adding execution to the list doesn't seem unreasonable.
- whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Important information regarding the validity of this war warrants a few dupes.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Juan Cole: " I made two claims about the transcript published by El Pais of Bush's conversations with Spanish leader Jose Maria Aznar on 22 February, 2003, at Crawford, Texas.
The first is that the transcript shows that Bush intended to disregard a negative outcome in his quest for a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a war against Iraq. Bush wanted such a resolution. He expressed a willingness to use threats and economic coercion to secure it. But he makes it perfectly clear that he will not wait for the UNSC to act beyond mid-March. He also explicitly says that if any of the permanent members of the UNSC uses its veto, "we will go." That is, failure to secure the resolution would trigger the war.
Uh, that is the opposite of the way it is supposed to work. If you can't get a UNSC resolution, and you haven't been attacked by the state against whom you want to go to war, then you are supposed to stand down.
Both because he set a deadline beyond which his "patience" would not stretch (the poor thing had already waited four months; I mean, is he a toddler that he lacks elementary patience?), and because he specified a UNSC veto as a signal for his launching of the war, Bush made it very clear that he was willing to trash the charter of the United Nations and to take the world back to the 1930s,to an era of mass politics when powerful states launched wars of choice at will on the basis of fevered rhetoric and fits of pique.
The second claim that I made was that Bush was aware of, and rejected, an offer by Saddam Hussein to flee Iraq, probably for Saudi Arabia, presuming he could take out with him a billion dollars and some documents on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. Both provisions were intended by Saddam to protect him from later retaliation. The money would buy him protection from extradition, and the documents presumably showed that the Reagan and Bush senior administrations had secretly authorized his chemical and biological weapons programs. With these documents in his possession, it was unlikely that Bush would come after him, since he could ruin the reputation of the Bush family if he did. The destruction of these documents was presumably Bush's goal when he had Rumsfeld order US military personnel not to interfere with the looting and burning of government offices after the fall of Saddam. The looting, which set off the guerrilla war, also functioned as a vast shredding party, destroying incriminating evidence about the complicity of the Bushes and Rumsfeld in Iraq's war crimes.
The claims by some pundits that Saddam's reported desire to take documents on his WMD programs out of the country proves he had such programs in 2003 or that he wanted to somehow retain specialized knowledge involved in them, are silly. Saddam had destroyed his chemical, nuclear and biological programs and stockpiles, which we know from the most extensive postwar inspections in the history of mammal life. Almost certainly, he wanted to keep with him the documents that showed precisely that-- that he was in fact in compliance with UN resolutions (which he was) and so could not on those grounds be subject to extraordinary rendition and delivered to the Hague. Also, as I say, he may well have wanted to keep with him documents with which to blackmail the Bush family, which in the 1980s had been involved in winking at and enabling his WMD capabilities."
http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/bush-aznar-transcr ... (includes complete transcript) - joltjake, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Bush, Lie?
- Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6True and the United States will not extradite him to war crimes tribunal. There is no chance whatsoever of that.
- goffy59, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6weeeeeeetard..... Did you detect any sarcasm?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6He wasn't asking for a billion, he was asking to be allowed to take a billion he already had
- raskali, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15Why pay Sadam 1 billion for peace when you can pay your buddies 100's of billions to fight a war? Bush and his cronies are all a little richer now.
- Jeveran, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Pardoned? Not in an international war crimes trial.
- breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's allowed to happen in other places (Africa, Asia, S.America) all the time. The bad guy is sent into exile with his minions and opposing forces are allowed to install a new government and rebuild. There may still be much unpleasantness and reprisals against supporters of the former regime but ultimately the vast majority of bloodshed and decimation of the country's infrastructure could have been avoided. I'm not saying it would have been the perfect solution but there are easier ways and harder ways to go about these things and I don't think anyone could argue Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al were interested in taking the easier route.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 354 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is