digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

McCain Gets History Of The Surge Wrong, CBS edits out gaffe

huffingtonpost.com — Two stepping around BOs success, McCain can't quite keep with the facts....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ErikB, on 07/23/2008, -13/+117What's up CBS? Choosing sides?
    • topgigmedia, on 07/23/2008, -5/+19McCain has spent a career sucking up to the media - he is cashing in now. Besides - They want to keep this a horse race as long as possible - better for ratings. Look at the Democratic primary...
    • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -33/+9They Didnt.
      CBS is always on Obama's side.

      But this attempt to show a gaff is soooooo reaching that even CBS wont even attempt it.

      Arent we glad Huffington will !!
      • blackinthmiddle, on 07/23/2008, -1/+14jabberwolf, arguing whether or not a news organization is showing bias is debatable. What's not up for debate is the fact that McCain screwed up here. For whatever reason, too many in their zeal to support their candidate lose the ability to process facts.
      • caramba420, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0"But this attempt to show a gaff is soooooo reaching that even CBS wont even attempt it."

        Unfortunately, there may be a kernel of truth to this statement. We live in a day and age where factual accuracy is unimportant. Absurdities dreamed up in AEI's dark lairs are just as credible as empirical data. The line between opinion and news has been blurred beyond distinction. So in essence, it IS reaching. Not because it is untrue that McCain said something that is blatantly wrong, but because reporting it would reach beyond the convention of today's media standards in which facts are considered mundane trivialities.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Got anything to back that claim up?
        No, no, of course not.
        What a good rightard shill.
    • cawpin, on 07/23/2008, -11/+4FTA:

      McCain - "And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."

      Article - "the key signs of the Anbar Awakening occurred not only before that strategy was implemented, but before it was ever conceived."

      That seems to me what he said. It began with the Anbar Awakening. He didn't claim responsibility for it. buried for being another sensationalist ***** from the Huffington Post.
      • razor150, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5McCain said the surge started the Anbar awakening, which means he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

        Full Quote
        Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

        The surge had nothing to do with the Anbar awakening, unless you are re-writing history like McCain is trying to do.
      • shindrak, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2He said "It began the Anbar awakening". That is the exact opposite of what you said: "It began *with* the Anbar awakening."

        Buried for lack of reading comprehension skills.
      • oscenester, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Idiot. Can't even read or understand your own cut and paste...

        let me help you out a bit.

        McCain -"And [the surge] began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."
        So McCain said, very reassuringly and he and his people have been saying this the last couple days on NPR radio, that THE SURGE->ANBAR AWAKENING

        Article says ""the key signs of the Anbar Awakening occurred not only before [THE SURGE] was implemented, but before it was ever conceived."
        This is historical fact. it went AWAKENING -> SURGE, not the other way around.

        McCain and his people keep spreading lies to promote this SURGE strategy, that it was the only reason anything happened in IRAQ, hell if McCain could, i bet you he would even take credit for the entire war; MOREOVER, if he becomes president, I BET HE WILL TAKE ALL THE CREDIT.

        BECAUSE HE'S AN OLD, SENILE, LYING PIECE OF *****.

        END.
    • labber223, on 07/23/2008, -5/+0Yeah CBS is choosing sides for McCain sure. That must be why CBS, ABC and NBC sent their biggest anchors to Iraq with Obama (Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams). While when McCain went it was barely covered. Futhermore, The New York Times wouldn't print McCain's response to what Obama had run right before he left for Iraq. They did the same thing when he was running against Hillary. Maybe the liberal media should get off it's knees in front of Obama and report the news fair.
      • rotundo, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5The media is not liberal or conservative. They report what gets them the highest ratings based on researching their viewership. No matter what you believe, or what channel you are talking about, the media is not your friend.
      • catcher6250, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2keith olbermann is my friend, isnt he? :(
    • Wargalas, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1You guys don't seem to have a problem when media outlets side with Obama, so why the rise in attitude?
  • rondigg1, on 07/23/2008, -14/+127The idea that McCain could be wrong or clueless about any aspect of foreign policy "does not compute" for the mainstream media. Therefore, it must be removed and shoved down the memory hole.
    • faceless323, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I still believe the media is purposely ignoring his gaffes. They(MSM) want the race to look a lot closer than it actually is. Come September we are going to be overwhelmed with the non-stop coverage of both presumptive candidates daily ***** ups.
    • xartion, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3If you ever watch MSNBC, you'll think otherwise. They have a field day pointing out McCain's various mistakes (and to a lesser extent, Obama's - i.e. the whole flipflopping thing about the success of the surge)
  • AAK15, on 07/23/2008, -14/+119The fact that the media covers so much ***** up is disturbing
    • Yimyack, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1This guy's a mess & he wants to be President?
    • mochaman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1 I don't get where the charge of media bias come from, McCain should be exposed for all the gaffes he is making. Unfortunately the media is not doing its job, he is getting a free pass what gives?
    • abajaj2280, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2its incredibly annoying that they're hiding this from us when we're about to vote someone into office
  • ccbrownie04, on 07/23/2008, -16/+69Wait...I thought Obama was the one getting all the media love? ; )

    • LenBaird, on 07/23/2008, -15/+6They both get the treatment where they aren't asked any real questions, or called out when they lie or are inconsistent.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5What Obama lies are you referring to?
    • xGORDOx, on 07/23/2008, -13/+6This is the attempt at equal unbiased coverage.
      If they are editing all of Obama's gaffes (and there have been enough to make Dan Quayle roll his eyes) then they have to edit out McCain's, it's only fair.
      • JCizle, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8McCain built his entire campaign around a single subject. That is nat'l security. One would think he would know... oh I don't know... the names of all the countries in the world (as they are in 2008) and be fully briefed on all measures pertaining to the Iraq conflict as, again, he is building he entire campaign on the strength of his nat'l security "expertise."

        John McCain isn't here to inspire us with rousing speeches. He isn't here to rescue our struggling economy. He isn't here to restore the shattered "American Dream." He claims he's here to guide us through "the war." When's the last time you hired a blind tour guide?

        PS: I really don't think you should use the term 'unbiased' when it comes to the MSM. Covering up any gaffe either candidate would make harbors some innate bias. This is an attempt to keep low-information voters in their place.
      • malex, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Has anything Obama said been edited in this manner? Seriously, I'm asking.

        It sounds like the kind of thing that Freepers just make up because it _should_ be true.
      • xGORDOx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Wow, talk about uniformed and assuming, shall I even say stereotyping?
        I'm no McCain fan, but his campaign has not been "around a single subject. That is nat'l security."
        That's like saying Obama's whole campaign has been about "change". Is that all Obama talks about? Just "change", with no other ideas?
        I don't like either one of this fools, but neither one has pigeonholed themselves into a single narrative, that's absurd.
        What, because he is a (R) it's all about national security? Give me a break.
    • homercles337, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Surely you jest!-)
  • soot, on 07/23/2008, -10/+63Surely another example of the media's unfair treatment of Senator McCain...
  • daddaa, on 07/23/2008, -30/+13mccain taking credit for the reduction of violence in iraq is kinda like al gore taking credit for creating the internet. except mccain actually means what he's saying.
    • elhaf, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7That, and the fact that people like Vint Cerf, who really did create the internet, do give Al Gore credit for the growth of the internet, especially in schools. He coined the phrase "Information Superhighway".
    • Calcularius, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7Al Gore had to fight for funding for the internet in the Senate because of the douchebag republicans that think spending money on something where someone doesn't get killed is a bad idea.
      What has McCain done as a Senator, except be absent the most?
  • Qtip42, on 07/23/2008, -8/+80CBS has been editing ***** like this for a long time. Every news channel you watch on american tv is full of garbage propaganda. It's nothing new but at least they were caught this time.
  • SverigesKung, on 07/23/2008, -23/+34Doesn't matter, McCain will win in a close one provided by your friends at Diebold. Gotta have someone in there to destroy the evidence! Good luck America, you'll need it.
    • bjornski, on 07/23/2008, -10/+15That's my prediction too. McCain by 1%-2%.

      I WANT to be proven wrong.
    • topgigmedia, on 07/23/2008, -9/+8I bet he loses by > 5%
    • behlib99, on 07/23/2008, -8/+1What, no diggers in here complaining this comment is a conspiracy theory? Come one diggers, dig down!
      • SverigesKung, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Wait and see my friend, wait and see. Tell me a situation that would shake your faith in the system, or is it unshakeable?
    • Pittance, on 07/23/2008, -8/+4What will diebold do if obama wins be 5-10%? That would be too obvious.
    • brainscab, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3if McCain looks as pathetic as he does now, there is no way they will have the gall to steal this one.
    • odigity, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9Don't know why you're getting dugg down - you were just pointing out that electronic election fraud is a real and pervasive problem, which is true, and which most people here agree with.
    • Stereotype77, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2What a horrible attitude.

      This will be a landslide victory for Obama. Period.

      Diebold...er Premier will not be able to sway this election with the lead Obama will have state to state in the few remaining months...We know electronic election fraud is a problem, but to just give that scumbag the election because you think will happen again is ridiculous. This country simply can't afford NOT to choose Obama*.





      *Given the choices we have, calm down Ron Paul guys...

  • Hanoian, on 07/23/2008, -10/+46I just wrote to CNN asking why they don't have this on their website. It's a big story. Media manipulation/corruption and no one bats a f-ing eyelash. Please go to all major media websites and write them a letter requesting that they cover this story. We need more Diggs, too!
    • richmomz, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9They're not covering it because they do it too. All the major MSM sources do, because they are owned by for-profit private interests that tell them what to publish/air.
    • trevdogg100, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Keith Olbermann covered this in Countdown.
    • cdav4czar, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3We don't even know whether CBS intentionally tried to cover the incident up or not, though. Whoever cut the video may have substituted McCain's response with another simply because they had limited airtime and found the other response more desirable. It happens all the time. They may not have even realized that McCain's response did not make sense. After all, how many people could have told you before today that the Anbar Awakening took place before the surge? It's definitely noteworthy that McCain displayed such a misunderstanding about an important issue, but it isn't time to crucify the media.
    • frrs, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1It was on Anderson 360 last night under "Breaking News" but they mostly shrugged it off.
  • algaeturd, on 07/23/2008, -10/+30Maybe this will quiet down all the raging right wingers crying into their beer about the NY Times editorial? Everytime this man opens his mouth, he embarrasses himself. You really WANT this man to be heard???


    Why?
  • Nozarus, on 07/23/2008, -13/+14OH... Is the media in GOP hands? How reprehensible and shocking.
  • BarbArt, on 07/23/2008, -16/+33
    McCain is not fit to be elected!

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_di ...

    "Note to self: if I ever run for President and decide to stake everything on my understanding of one thing, I should familiarize myself with the basic facts about it. I should be especially careful to do this before I say something like this about someone who got it right: 'I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened.'"

  • KMye, on 07/23/2008, -25/+27Why don't we just replace the 2008 elections section with a direct link to Huffington Post? Maybe diggers-in-general should stop bitching about MSM bias and look at what we've created through our grand "democratization" of news: the most-biased major news site on the entire internet.
    • twomeyw23334, on 07/23/2008, -7/+10LOL, so if they get the Fairness Doctrine though will it effect these lefty websites? or only conservative talk radio?
    • altagracia80, on 07/23/2008, -11/+15Amen!! Amen!! Amen!! AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      And I used to be a liberal... now I am just disgusted with some of the antics from the liberal camp. No better than the rightists.
      • MacEnvy, on 07/23/2008, -9/+10Why do you feel the need to associate an entire segment of the population with the antics of a few? The average liberal has no more to do with the Huffington Post than the average conservative has to do with James Dobson.

        I guess the urge to categorize and demonize people is stronger than the urge to work together to solve our problems.
      • Haecceity, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Antics like revealing that McCain makes major errors on what is meant to be his area of special knowledge, and antics like revealing that a news network cut those errors out of their coverage and don't think them worthy of comment. Sheesh, how biased these liberals are.
    • Aitese, on 07/23/2008, -16/+8OK...

      Bias vs. Lies. Which do you choose. All news sources are biased, no woolly thinking ideology is going to change that. It's up to you to take what you will from a story and form your own opinion.

      What you don't want is LIES. You can't form a correct and true opinion if it's based on distorted facts.

      If this story (and most of what Huffington posts) are lies, then say so, point out the lie...don't bitch about the truth from a source you don't like.
      • elhaf, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1It's actually a story about CBS lies. They deliberately edited the response to be one that isn't so blatantly incorrect.
      • Aitese, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1@elhaf

        I know that...but it seems KMye, and apparantly others, don't want to accept that revelation if it's coming from certain sources. If it's a lie that CBS edited the the response, then point to the proof of the lie...if it's the truth, you can't then turn around and say "but I don't like who's telling me that truth"

        the 9 people who Dugg me down obviously don't agree. It's not if it's a lie or not...it's who'd telling you.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Why is Aitese getting dugg down? He's absolutely right. The question is simple. Is this article factually incorrect? If so, enlighten us. But it seems that many are shooting the messenger, even though the message itself is factual.
    • TheG2, on 07/23/2008, -6/+9Absolutely right, I'm a liberal-independent for the most part and equate HuffingtonPost to FoxNews.
    • ssn697, on 07/23/2008, -4/+16I thought Digg bought Huffington Post, and integrated it into the site...
    • brainscab, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2you are right, there is alot of Huffington latley, but look at whats going on: A man that is really close to being the next president misstates basic facts about a war that has cost us billlions of dollars and thousands of lives. Its the meida's duty to bring this to our attention, but then the media COVERS IT UP, leaves it on the cutting room floor. the media's dereliction of duty is sinful here.

      Wish we could link to other sources, but Keith O and the Huff Po are the only ones who cover it.
      • smittie, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Right. It's all a cover up. The only people getting it right are two liberal blogs. Everyone else is working for The Man, only saying what The Man tells them to.

      • brainscab, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4HE MISSTATED BASIC FACTS!

        CBS CUT THE FOOTAGE!
    • rotundo, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Just because you don't like what you see doesn't mean what you see is biased. That word gets thrown around like junk mail these days, seemingly in an effort to say that having an opinion and a voice is somehow wrong. If the majority of people here don't like McCain, maybe it's because they have valid reasons. Maybe a democratic news site should reflect that.
    • billbuckner, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Why doesn't Huffington Post EVER get critisized for being blatantly liberal, even though they call themselves an "internet newspaper". There is no mention of their liberal leanings.

      All CBS did was edit out a poorly worded soundbyte. Get off the backs of MSM, you conspiracy theorists. One day they're too liberal, one day they're too conservative: They're just trying to do their jobs. And you get pissed when they do something you disagree with.
      • caramba420, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1"All CBS did was edit out a poorly worded soundbyte"

        This isn't "poorly worded." It was a statement that reflected a profound lack of knowledge on the one topic that he claims to be knowledgeable about. What's telling is your reference to it as a "soundbite." What's implicit here is whether what a candidate says is factually accurate is really irrelevant. All that's important is that they parrot the talking points of their ideology. What a sad state of affairs.

        "Get off the backs of MSM, you conspiracy theorists. "

        In order for there to be a conspiracy theory, it would have to be a theory at all. A theory makes predictions based on evidence. This is not a theory, it is mere statement of the reality that CBS cut the footage. Regardless of their intentions, one must acknowledge that this goes against the tenets of responsible journalism.
    • booksnmore4you, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1It's called balance to Rush's "I AM equal time."
  • DiscussObamaCOM, on 07/23/2008, -12/+19lol at John McCain making his daily error while bashing Senator Obama. I'm sure some of you remember him forgetting who the president of Russia is, not know simple vocabular words asked by reporters and him confusing Sunnis and Shiites.

    I can't believe people are supporting this idiot.
    • rockybullwinkle, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I can believe that people are supporting that idiot (McCain). After seeing how many people supported the other idiot (Bush), anything is possible.

      It's like Dumb and Dumber. Or maybe Dumber and Dumb depending on which order you place Bush and McCain on terms of stupidity.

      At least with McCain, we can attribute some of his slips and "misrememberings" to plain old age. Bush has been a dimwitted buffoon since long ago, when he first appeared on the radar as a pol.
  • jayfarer, on 07/23/2008, -13/+28LIBERALMEDIALIBERALMEDIALIBERALMEDIA

    oh wait
    • DiscussObamaCOM, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2Ha ha - so true.
      • bluesman3535, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3Major media is set up like pro wrestling--- two supposed sides CNN vs FOX, one boss.
    • Zerophnx, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2Ummm......McCain is a conservative. Or so he says.
  • macinit1138, on 07/23/2008, -19/+8CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, the term: "idiot box" applies perfectly here. Do yourself a favor gents, avoid state sponsored tv, stop being a programmed zombie. The elections are so meaningless anyways. So what we get a different puppet, it's still the same puppet master pulling their strings.
    • zip000, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5I'd hardly call it "State sponsored TV."

      It would be much more apt to call it "Corporate sponsored State."
    • elhaf, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Hear hear! Let's all start reading digg instead. Oh wait, we already do.
    • caseycoold, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1"The elections are so meaningless anyways."
      Ok, then don't vote (if your contry allows it)
      But I'm not letting another ***** into office! 9I voted against him last time, but I think the liberals are waking up now, and people like YOU are learning why voting is important).
      • macinit1138, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Go ahead and vote, faith is a powerful thing. I remember I read somewhere that trust has to be earned. Now think for a moment, how has your government been earning your trust lately? In any capacity? Please enlighten us.

  • ShadowMerchant, on 07/23/2008, -28/+10Obama doesn't know how many US states there are, and thinks he can be President for ten years. If Dan Quayle said anything comparable, it would have been front page news for days. Don't give me this ***** about the mainstream media covering up for McCain; they are totally in the tank for Obama and obscure anything that makes him look bad.
    • dygel, on 07/23/2008, -7/+6You CAN be president for ten years. If a vice president becomes the president two years into his term, he is eligible to run for reelection twice, serving for up to ten years.
      • 355CJ, on 07/23/2008, -5/+7So THAT's why Obama is running so hard for Vice President.

        Clever idea he has there! Maybe that's the Change We Can Believe In!
    • elipabst, on 07/23/2008, -6/+12If they're "in the tank" for Obama, how come they didn't edit his gaffe? Second, if you really believe a guy who graduated from Harvard law doesn't know how many states there are, then you're dumber than you sound.
    • amightywind, on 07/23/2008, -12/+8But Obama is diverse, so he is allowed to be ignorant.
    • caramba420, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Clicking on the links with this many buries is kinda look driving past a car accident. I know what I'm going to see is disgusting, but I can't really stop myself from looking.
  • RamsesII, on 07/23/2008, -10/+31Times like this you really gotta say, thank god for Keith Olbermann. Good on him and his people for picking up on this stuff and putting out there.
  • thatguy331, on 07/23/2008, -27/+18Digg.com - Your Trusted HuffingtonPost news repeater...

    Seriously, all these HuffingtonPost links must be getting bot dugg to get to the front page, some of these anti-McCain links are just plain silly... "BREAKING: McCain got a speeding ticket in 1982, how can this man be president????" -HuffingtonPost.com
    • malex, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4And this lack of understanding of the Iraq situation... you consider it to be "plain silly" and as irrelevant as "a speeding ticket?"

      Really?
    • blackinthmiddle, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4thatguy331, you posted the "exact" same response in another article. Why not actually comment on the content of the article? Do you agree? Disagree? If you disagree, do you believe the facts are wrong? If so, show proof.

      Rather than post intelligent discourse, many McCain supporters have resorted to copy and paste!
  • Monkeyspanky, on 07/23/2008, -11/+14Dear MSM,
    ***** you running sideways.
    Sincerely,
    Monkeyspanky
  • duckley, on 07/23/2008, -11/+41And McCain WHINES about unfair press coverage.

    By my count, he's bailed out 10 - 15 times PER WEEK.

    WHAT'S HAPPENING: Media BIAS to Keep the Race CLOSE, to boost advertising revenue.

    Scummy.
  • VelveetaJones, on 07/23/2008, -9/+10CBS gets a news story landed in their lap (McCain doesn't know dip from *****) and they don't run with it?

    Okay, now I'm gonna start whining about the media!!!
  • Treoinmypocket, on 07/23/2008, -10/+15This is all fun...pointing out which candidate made which mistake but what's more important is what is actually going on in Iraq, WHY what is happening is happening and what does it mean for the US and Iraq long-term.

    The reality of the Anbar Awakening is that it was built upon the Coalition's and Iraqi government's efforts to take back the western sections of that province from al-queda in early 2006. The success of that mission led to the building up of Iraqi army and police forces and and a resurgence of a normal life for the residents there. When al-queda tried to reassert itself around late May of 2006 - and the violence skyrocketed - Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi and his allies among the tribes contacted the Coalition commanders for assistance with their anti-al queda efforts. That led to the involvement of the Iraqi government.

    The Awakening is a success and is being replicated throughout Iraq in growing numbers. It represents exactly what the US has hoped for all along - that Iraq would ultimately stand up for itself and relieve us of the responsibility so we could retreat without fear of Iraq's collapse. The Awakening is classic counter-insurgency ... that wouldn't have been possible if the Coalition forces were not there and that is the real point here.

    We have GOT to hasten the spread of what Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi and his allies called the "The Sahawah Al Anbar" (Awakening of Anbar) and now called the Sahawah Al Iraq (Awakening of Iraq). Rishawi is working hard to do that and is doing so with the aid of the Coalition. It simply cannot be done without US forces and that is the flaw in Obama;s planned withdrawal in 16 months. Sahawah Al Iraq is a cooperative effort between the Coalition and the Iraqi tribes to rid Iraq of Al-queda. It is working and it is spreading. It also won't succeed...won't achieve the Tipping Point in 16 months but can get their soon -IF we stay long enough to help make it happen.

    Was the Surge responsible for the Anbar Awakening? No. The opposite is true. The Anbar Awakening showed that The Surge was necessary. If we see it through then Iraq WILL be free and self governing and we can begin to leave in earnest.

    One last thing - much has been made of Malaki's support of Obama's plan. The problem is that Malaki has always overestimated his - and his government's - ability to achieve goals in the timeframe he sets out or agrees to. All you have to do is look at his record to see that glaring truth. So why does he support Obama? Because he wants a weak US presence in Iraq going forward not a strong one. Plain and simple. There isn't anything wrong with that and while it would be nice -strategically for the US to have a strong presence in the middle east, that is, rightly, up to the Iraqi's. It is also true that if we pull out within 16 months, not only will there not be a strong US presence in Iraq, there won't be a strong Malaki presence either. That is bad for the US AND Iraq.
    • cruzecon, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3A thorough analysis.
      However, WE are funding the construction of PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES ALL OVER IRAQ. The problem is that will be MERCENARY TROOPS (often former US troops who somehow got out of the Red tape of involuntary extensions) who occupy them and protect the oil interests recently given "legal cover" to take the Iraqi people's oil. WE pay those Mercenaries about 2-4 times what that same Individual Soldier would make as a member of the Military subject to rules of conduct.)
      Secondly, lets talk about INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS. "Troops" is an impersonal way of keeping our distance away from a reality - MOST of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been rotated through those areas for the last 7.5 years. What your say? The build up of logistical support for the Invasion of Iraq started the day W was given the Presidency by the Supreme Court.
      Every time I hear someone say "We have to support our troops by staying until we win".... It makes me sick. Why? Because that person and 90% of Americans who don't have a family member in the Military are not giving up one damn thing to actually support the troops! What, raise taxes so we can actually pay for a war? No way!
      What, pay taxes to fund adequate armor or protective gear for our "troops"? No way!
      What, declare that personally paid for armor was not allowed to be used by INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS WHOSE LIVES ARE AT RISK? Well, lets just move that to page 88.
      My point being that Surge or No Surge, this is a mess WE handed the Iraqi's and WE DO NOT HAVE AN ENDLESS SUPPLY OF INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTEERS to man a three front war, remember National Guard USED TO BE FOR STATES. "W" took control of the National Guard units AWAY FROM THE STATES and put them all under Federal control. Maybe that only gets my attention, since I am in the South where we were once "occupied" just like Iraq is now.

      So, even taking your point that we MUST achieve some kind of victory -STILL NOT DEFINED even by McCain, just WHO do you plan on calling to live or die in that effort?
      • smittie, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5John McCain's definition of success is "a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists." He's been saying it for months. It's been on his web site for months.

        I've already volunteered for "that effort". I leave for my next tour in a month. It's the job I signed up for. When I'm not willing to do it anymore, I will not re-enlist.
    • elhaf, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3Your insightful analysis shows that you know more about foreign policy than McCain does. Good for you. However the real story is the coverup by CBS, not what McCain said or didn't say. Also, al-Rishawi, whom McCain suggested that we protected with the surge, was dead before the surge even started.
    • swrostmore, on 07/23/2008, -6/+2I don't buy any of that, Treo. I don't have time to do a point-by-point analysis, but it stinks of revisionism. For example, a quick check of Wikipedia shows that the Awakening started in 2005 (Treo says 2006), when al-Rashawi's territory was threatened by AQI and he came to the US proposing an alliance. In other words, it was based on the US' FAILURE to combat AQI in that province (Treo claims it was based on US success), forcing locals to stand up for themselves (with US weapons and financing of course).
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2The idea that the awakening took root before the Coalition cleared the western provinces of Anbar is what is revisionist. It may have been an idea. Rashawi may have sought to accomplish it but it didn't exist in any meaningful way nor was it remotely successful until the Coalition cleared those western provinces. That was when Al Rashwani came to the Coalition commander's and thankfully they were bright enough to recognize the value in his proposition and strategy. That is when things turned. That cooperation is our only way out.

        But I think you intimate a larger point that is completely valid. The Iraqi's shouldn't have to be bearing the brunt of the chaos. Putting aside whether we should have gone or not and dealing only with the fact that we did, we didn't go in with nearly enough troops. It probably would have taken something in the neighborhood of 1 million to secure the big areas properly and that was a gigantic mistake. To be sure the Iraqi would still be fighting and dying but the cost would have been 10x lower and they would probably have had us out of there by now had we done so.
    • the2989, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1tl;dr
    • arvvvs, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Basically the Awakening started before the surge. So he was wrong.
      But cruzecon knows more than Mccain.
  • amightywind, on 07/23/2008, -20/+10Obama's success? The only thing of substance he has done was sink a 3 pointer in front of the troops. He only gets to fantasize about a troop withdrawl because of the efforts of President Bush and General Petraeus.
    • elhaf, on 07/23/2008, -5/+7Correct. In particular the efforts of President Bush to hoodwink the congress and the American people into an unnecessary war. If not for those efforts, Obama would be unable to fantasize about troop withdraw.
  • my2greatgirls, on 07/23/2008, -8/+8Sad stuff CBS... very sad. What a dis-service to the American people.

    As for you Katie Couric, I was actually rooting for you when you took over the broadcast. Now I feel you were much better suited for the fluff that is the today show. You should be ashamed of yourself but like the rest of the bobble heads on TV I am sure you have much too big an ego to be ashamed.
  • jasgeo, on 07/23/2008, -9/+4McCain is a tired old man who need to throw in the towl, settle back with a tall glass of lemonade and maybe take a spirited drive around town in his horseless carriage while eating Werthers Originals.
  • thirdcoastborn, on 07/23/2008, -9/+5Sooner or Later they will learn that the citizens will find out this ***** when they do it and we'll boycott their asses until they get it together. We'll have to wait and see.
  • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -18/+14DID YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT THE GAFF IS???

    Even CBS who always supports Obama cant make anything of this gaff because there isnt one! Only Hugffington is trying to allude to an inference about what Mccain might be talking about.

    Its called a far reach guys. But glad liberals are reaching for something... ANYTHING.. against Mccain.
    • CongoJoe, on 07/23/2008, -8/+10Yeah, the gaffe is that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about. He's made another, in a long line, of misstatements about the Middle East. Not only was he wrong but he framed his answer as an attack on Obama.

      Only this time, instead of letting him make a fool of himself he got some help from CBS who edited out his wrong answer and presented it as a live interview.

      Reputations and careers have been ruined for less. CBS should be ashamed of itself.
    • kaynee, on 07/23/2008, -7/+8You're right jabberwolf. This isn't a "gaffe" This is a MAJOR misunderstanding of what has been happening in Iraq the last two years.

      Spencer Ackerman says that McCain's statement is "either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment." Ilan Goldenberg is even harsher:
      "This is not controversial history. It is history that anyone trying out for Commander in Chief must understand when there are 150,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential element to the story of the past two years. YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG. Moreover, what is most disturbing is that according to McCain's inaccurate version of history, military force came first and solved all of our problems. If that is the lesson he takes from the Anbar Awakening, I am afraid it is the lesson he will apply to every other crisis he faces including, for example, Iran.

      This is just incredibly disturbing. I have no choice but to conclude that John McCain has simply no idea what is actually happened and happening in Iraq."
  • forgottenhope, on 07/23/2008, -9/+4the game is fixed. its been fixed. where the hell is the majority of intelligent people at?
  • drqshadow, on 07/23/2008, -2/+12Why does digg have a duplicate submission detector again?
    • homeagain1, on 07/23/2008, -10/+4They are not the same article...
  • bluesman3535, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3Major networks have less and less credibility because of editing like this. The mistakes of both candidates should be equally exposed.
  • waggdogg, on 07/23/2008, -5/+14Don't you just love the photos of John McCain that the Arianna Huffington far left internet Post use? Now look at the photos of Obama that they use. Bias? You bet. This should be the Obama Post.
    • caramba420, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0You mean like this one?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/m ...

    • waggdogg, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2That is not just a picture of John McCain. It is a picture to make Arianna Huffington look good. Please send me one of just John McCain in it. Thanks.
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Once again you miss the point. The picture, and indeed the content of the article itself, invalidate your point.

      Quoth waggdogg:
      "Don't you just love the photos of John McCain that the Arianna Huffington far left internet Post use? PSSSH Yeah, TOTAL BIAS...I mean, except those pictures that show Ariana Huffington and McCain together on the same stage, attached to an op-ed piece where she explains how she, until recently, idolized McCain. We won't talk about those pictures, we will only talk about the pictures that back up my argument. And they have to be pictures published on a Tuesday afternoon. When it was raining. On a leap year."

    • waggdogg, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Please show me an article on Huffington Post with a good picture of John McCain. Don't just give me words. If she loves him, I hate to see who she hates.
  • ramiro, on 07/23/2008, -19/+11BURIED: Leftist brainwashing propaganda.
    • malex, on 07/23/2008, -9/+8Please explain the flaws or inaccuracies in this article.

      ... Or are you the kind of guy who dismisses anything you don't like without reading it (ie a moron)?
      • Zerophnx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Or a 'devoted religious'?

        Honestly, get things in order before making a statement like that. That's like claiming we attacked Japan before Pearl Harbor.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/23/2008, -13/+14Good Lord, does HuffPoo have a Barack O'Boner or what?

    http://digg.com/television/Ed_Helms_Returns_to_The ...
  • helenkupo, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5DOH!
  • Marlon, on 07/23/2008, -8/+4nice facepalm
  • shasty55, on 07/23/2008, -9/+14please ban huffington post from digg
    and people complain about fox news being biased....
    • metaliq, on 07/23/2008, -10/+6Fox News presents themselves as completely unbiased.. "We Present, You Decide" or something like that.

      Huffington Post acknowledges their bias, and focus around it.

      HUGE difference.
      • geekee, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4So you read an openly biased source? That really calls your interest in the truth in question. You're just another lemming that goes and finds someone who will tell you what you want to hear. Go stand in line with the other lemmings that watch Fox and read the Huffinton Post
      • metaliq, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Did I say I read it?

        No. I was just pointing out how wrong he is.

        Get this! ALL NEWS SOURCES ARE BIASED!!!!!!
        All of them. Forever and ever. Amen.
  • DFutureIsNow, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2How much did the McCain campaign paid Katie Couric and CBS to have his brain fart airbrushed?
  • amightywind, on 07/23/2008, -6/+9Such a short memory. The democrats were just as bloodthirsty for Saddam as the rest of us were in 2003. It is just that their tolerance for struggle is an order of magnitude lower. I remember the press reports about the marines being 'bogged down' a week into the war and Time speculating that we would lose. Saddam's statue fell a day later. Obama is a clown.
    • xEn1gma, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Bloodthirsty?

      I sure as hell wasn't, get out of here.
      • Zerophnx, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Tell people somebody is going after you with nukes and they will take up arms.

        When they find nothing, they understandably wish to return.
      • xEn1gma, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I never, EVER, thought he had the capability of having a nuclear cache.

        I still stand by my judgment.
    • Americanwhiner, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Obama voted against the war, remember? Kucinich voted against the war. Oh, that's right...neo-cons are busy rewriting history, so in YOUR world the facts have been changed to protect....the guilty.
      • amightywind, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Obama was a state senator at the start of the war. Or was he a 'community organizer'. In either case he is a lightweight. Kucinich is a nitwit.
    • caseycoold, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I'm from Ithaca, NY, one of the few cities in one of the only counties to NEVER support dubya.
      Tompkins county was the only county in which dubya's 2004 approval was lower than his 2000.
      • amightywind, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2I went to school in Ithaca, NY. Cornell '86! I suggested the the senior class gift should be a water cannon to help disburse protesters. It didn't go over big then. Heck, they even hated Reagan! That town is a hive of liberals.
      • xEn1gma, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2MightyWind probably got his ass kicked by 'dem "libs" back in ye' day.
  • ogbar, on 07/23/2008, -11/+2wow. blaming CBS for conservative bias. Now I've seen everything. Have you people forgotten Mary Mapes and Dan Rather? You people are either sadly misguided or are just trying to drum up support with fake information for your candidate. My god people. just look at who these 'reporters' are that are feeding you this stuff.
  • qXdc, on 07/23/2008, -12/+16Buried due to source being Huffinton Post.
  • baldboy7, on 07/23/2008, -9/+8im surprised McCain can even remember his own name
    • Americanwhiner, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Poor McCain clearly gets confused easily and has trouble with his memory. I seriously question if he wouldn't be our second acting president with dementia if elected. That CBS and Katie Couric got caught red-handed just shows America where the media stands....and it isn't on the left. God help us.
  • alphonseragusa, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2When the media itself has comentators talking about the media is bias why don't people immediately change the channel?
  • dpantages, on 07/23/2008, -8/+8adverse effects of Alzheimer's on the body.....
  • freaky2k, on 07/23/2008, -6/+6How many times did McCain say we SUCCEEDED in that 2nd video posted in the article? I swear, how can he possibly think we've succeeded or are succeeding. He's freaking delusional.
  • nickels, on 07/23/2008, -10/+8I see so much complaining when the source is the Huffington post, comparing it to Fox News. However, none of these "Huffington post spam, burried" posters ever counter the claims or prove them to be false. Most of the Fox News stories are easily dunked with facts.

    How about instead of saying its trash or buried due to liberal bias, point out why it is wrong or false. Although you may not like the source, the story appears to be factual.
    • CharliesRevenge, on 07/23/2008, -7/+5Why is nickels being dugg down? He just clearly asked for some facts as to why Huffington is buried even though the stories are factual.

      Why not give facts as to why you are burying the story rather than just saying: "SPAM!"
      • rationalbeats, on 07/23/2008, -7/+3Because the McCain campaign have hired a team of people to come on here and digg down any anti-McCain comment and article.

  • geekee, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9Obama's whole Iraq policy is a big gaffe. He wants to make the same mistake in Iraq that the US made in Afghanistan in the 80's. Ironically, he's interested in fixing the problems in Afghanistan now? Who will fix the mess in Iraq that he creates? Why is everyone pointing out the mistakes McCain makes in the details while letting pass that Obama's whole surge attitude was a big mistake that's been proven wrong. This site is a joke controlled by partisan hacks.
  • AvangionQ, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3I'm much more angry with CBS, that they would intentionally attempt to conceal a blatant lie made by a politician and further lose their integrity as non-partisan journalists, than I am with a politician who has already lost all semblance of credibility through repeatedly caught lies ...
  • AmericanGunner, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5............................................________........................
    ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
    .............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
    .........................,/...............................................”:,........
    .....................,?......................................................,.....
    .................../...........................................................,}....
    ................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
    .............../...................................................,:”........./.....
    ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
    ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
    .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
    ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
    ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
    ...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
    ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
    ............/.`~,......`-...................................../...................
    .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__...........
    ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,....
    .....`=~-,__......`,.........................................................
    ...................`=~-,,.,......................................................
    ................................`:,,...........................`..............__..
    .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
    ........................................_..........._,-%.......`...............
    ...................................,
  • Spoomeister, on 07/23/2008, -6/+4The media is keeping the race close, to boost ad revenue.
    Same artificial horse race that was created during the Democratic primary, when it was obvious Hillary was done in February.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 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.