digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

McCain Strongly Rejected Idea Of Long-Term Iraq Presence

huffingtonpost.com — "I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • NoDrama, on 04/29/2008, -25/+83He also said it was OK with him if we were there 100 years. Mission Accomplished my ass.
    • Kangalanatolian, on 04/29/2008, -26/+12To be completely fair, when he said that he also said "if American troops weren't being killed". I think his point was that he supports empire as long as everybody is getting along (which kind of ignores Jihad and such).
      I think we should cut a deal. We get out of Iraq, and Muslims get out of the US - this is our free holy land, and we don't want their offspring deciding our offspring need Sharia law - ever.
      • swrostmore, on 04/29/2008, -4/+10FTA: McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. "I not only think we could get along without[a permanent presence], but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."
        • Antwan718, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3"reduce our visibility" That quote, leaves a lot to the imagination, visibility and presence are not synonymous, that could just clearly mean remove the media from there, less publicity does result in less visibility.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/29/2008, -6/+2And in other news, Barack Obama throws Rev Wright under the bus, denouncing him after saying just a few weeks ago that he "could no more disown him than he could disown his own grandmother..."

            http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_outraged_b ...
          • chaosium, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3"And in other news, Barack Obama throws Rev Wright under the bus, denouncing him after saying just a few weeks ago that he "could no more disown him than he could disown his own grandmother..."

            For certain statements, yes. For Wright to use Obama to ride the wave to other less agreeable ends is less conscionable.
          • swrostmore, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Yes, I'm sure McCain meant we should use top-secret cloaking devices to obscure the Green Zone from prying eyes.
    • thebaron2, on 04/29/2008, -10/+41The 100 years comment was stipulated on the whether or not the U.S. was taking casualties. He clearly meant this in the context of a future Iraq that is a peaceful ally of the US. Right after the comment he even put it more into context, noting that we've had troops in Japan for 60 years now and South Korea for 50.

      Where's the indignation regarding these two countries? For a group of people screaming about how unfair it is to take Rev. Wright's comments out of context, clinging to that 100 years remark is very intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, especially when it's so clearly taken out of context. At least Wright's sermons are debatable.
      • crowbar77, on 04/29/2008, -10/+6Sure it may have worked out there, but that's an entirely different region of the world. Look at what happened after they stayed in Saudi Arabia, the CIA's best buddy caused 911. Besides what right does the US have to keep troops on another countries soil? You sure hell wouldn't let china do the same.
        • crowbar77, on 04/29/2008, -6/+3Wow i guess the neocons have invaded digg today? At least reply to why you disagree with me.
          • Zlorp, on 04/29/2008, -2/+5your're talking about things that are a lot bigger than mccain himself or this topic.
          • crowbar77, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3How is this bigger than McCain? His "plan" is essentially what Bill Clinton did with an allied country, saudi arabia and look what Osama bin Ladin did. Staying in Iraq your going to get the same blow back effect, its already happening. Al Quaeda recruitment numbers have skyrocketed, the US are seen as the aggressors and the terrorists martyr's. The last poll i think was around 75% of iraqi's wanted the US out of Iraq.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/29/2008, -3/+5Yeah but there is no extenuating context for Wright.
        • swrostmore, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4Wright doesn't need "extenuating context," he's not running for office. He said some things that were not politically correct, get over it.
          • masterm1nd, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Yes, you are correct. Wright is free to say that and is nor running for office. However, since Obama was his friend and spiritual mentor for 20 years, it does effect Obama whether you rightfully think it should or not.
          • jforjools, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Even Wright says that he was 'NOT" Obama's "spiritual mentor". He's the dude at his church that did all the ceremonies. I wouldn't want to be held responsible for any pedophelia that occurred from priests that were associated with my church. ...especially if 'said offense' did not come out into the full light of day while he was my priest.

            And what the hell? Do you really care about this more than you care about true policy issues? No, of course not. Unless you're already really rich, you can't *afford* to dwell on this subject over the other more relevant issues.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3In a speech a few months ago, Obama said, "And then I’ve got to give a special shout out to my Pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader not just in Chicago but all across the country"

            "You know, I’ve been on a journey trying to get at the truth that question for a long time. I mention Rev. Wright… I first met Rev. Wright when I moved to Chicago after college. And that’s where I met Rev. Wright and started going to Trinity United Church of Christ and he helped me on another journey and introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ."

            Gee, Wright sure sounds like a spiritual advisor and mentor to me...
      • Zlorp, on 04/29/2008, -4/+15how dare you put things into an unbiased perspective. buried for being too accurate for digg.
      • luvs2spooge, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5But how many soldiers are dying in South Korea and Japan?
        I don't think, as long as we're there, that these "terrorists" will stop attacking us and the populace.
        • thebaron2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Exactly the point. Soldiers aren't dying there, so no one has a problem with our presence there. If they were dying, we wouldn't be there.

          Same with Iraq - IF it pans out to be similar to SK or Japan, in that our soldiers aren't dying and we're there for more training/logistical/advising purposes then no one should have a problem with it. If it doesn't pan out that way, then no one, including McCain, would support keeping troops there for that long.
          • hypertension, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0Nobody except those of us sick of the US throwing billions of dollars a year to maintaining a foreign military empire that's bankrupting the nation...
          • thebaron2, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1If that's the case, hyper, where's the outrage for the rest of the troops across the world that aren't taking causalities but are remaining in foreign countries?

            Are you upset that soldiers are being killed and wounded, or just that they're present on foreign soil?
        • gormine, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0Our country is falling apart while we try to help other countries. Half the time our help just plants bad seeds. Other cultures are different than ours. So different that there is no way we can do more good than bad by "helping" other countries. Not only that but this whole trying to be every country's mommy and daddy is ruining our own country. We shouldn't be invading ANY country for ANY reason.
      • Sogui, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Damn Damn your logic!
      • hypertension, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0"Where's the indignation regarding these two countries?"

        There's plenty -- in those countries AND in the US! I, for one, am completely sick of still sending them millions of dollars after 50 and 60 years, when we could be spending that money domestically. Not to mention that Japan and South Korea are capable of maintaining their own defense forces.

        The US is bankrupting itself with its insane global military empire -- with 712 bases worldwide.

        Unlike McCain, my candidate supports a non-interventionist foreign policy which would bring our troops home and save the US from financial collapse.
      • muckemuck, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"a future Iraq that is a peaceful ally of the US" ... ahhhahaha.. you're on some fine crack there.
    • NikoKun, on 04/29/2008, -12/+14Yeah... Don't believe this liar... McCain will do exactly what Bush did... Run on a platform against war... Then once elected, turn right around and start more wars... -_-
      • agentVivid, on 04/29/2008, -8/+5agreed... and if he DOES win, he will die before we are out of Iraq...
      • Brownds, on 04/29/2008, -5/+7Bush did not run on a platform againts war...
        • gandhii, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5yes he did. in 2000 anyway., Not in 2004.
          btw.. I don't see McCain running on a platform "against war". Definitely for it though.
        • Terr01, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7He ran on a platform of a "humble" foreign policy that was very cautious about foreign intervention, with an emphasis (while bashing Bill Clinton) on having an "exit strategy".

          And of course he went on to do a 180°.
      • behlib99, on 04/29/2008, -2/+8The democrats ran on anti war platform, look at how many anti-war bills they passed...
        • swrostmore, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4you mean the ones Bush vetoed?
        • Elude107, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Bush has only vetoed 8 bills, none of which involved war. He vetoed stem cell research twice, a cigarette tax to pay for health insurance for sick children, improved health insurance for sick children, an appropriations bill for veteran's care and Katrina relief, appropriations for health and human services, water resources, and funding for the intelligence agencies. I'm not sure if that makes me feel any better though...
    • supras, on 04/29/2008, -7/+11McCain is just saying things that will get him into office. Damn chipmunk. Stuffing all those lies into those puffy cheeks of his.
      • pyronik, on 04/29/2008, -2/+7yeah and Obama is a "new kind of politician"...
        • hittnrun, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Well except that "pastor for 20 years" of his is really becoming a drag and bringin' down the o-man's cool.

          I never knew a pastor who was vendictive. Is that in the Bible? Maybe the Ghetto Bible.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4All politicians say what will get them into power. Even Obama. That's how it's always been and that's how it always will be. If you disagree you're fooling yourself.
    • rpgmaker, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Too little too late to say the least. If this guy is lying to us as a presidential candidate I sure don't want him in the Oval Office.
    • foxfire1311, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2how about you read the article first buddy.
    • jabberwolf, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1The real quote, there is no comment about a WAR for 100 years, just a presence. We have a presence in a number of countries that we are not fighting a war in.

      QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years…

      McCAIN: Maybe 100. We’ve been in South Korea… We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me, as long as Americans… as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
    • samoan27, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0I hate it when dumbass people insist on taking a quote out of context and pretend that that's the candidate's whole mentality. I'm not pro-McCain but when he has kids over in Iraq I have a hard time believing any other candidate cares more for the troops (even if his approach to helping them is flawed).
  • Janizzary, on 04/29/2008, -26/+74Typical doublespeaking contradictory neocon *****. What the hell is happening to our beautiful country? If this jackass or that moron, Hillary win, I may as well leave the country...
    • GoodKharma, on 04/29/2008, -3/+4Scarily, I've pondered this possibility myself...damn shame
    • slvrbullet87, on 04/29/2008, -12/+34Because obama has never doublespoke
      • Jexie, on 04/29/2008, -10/+5I'd love to see some examples (cited quotes) of it.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/29/2008, -7/+23"I will not seek the office of the President in 4 years" - Obama siad that the day after he won his Senate seat. The next year he began his campain for president.
          • br0ck, on 04/29/2008, -5/+5Remember in 2004 when Wesley Clark didn't intend to run, but a large group of citizens got together and started collecting money for him and used ads and petitions to talk him into running? Well, the same thing happened with Obama.. he didn't intend to run, but sites like http://www.draftobama.org/ and runobama.com began actively recruiting him to run long before he decided to go for it. I remember when he was on Leno about two years ago and Leno said "a lot of people are trying to get you to run for president, so??" and Obama replied that he wanted to do whatever he could to serve the country, but he would have to strongly consider the impact on his family and let them decide whether they were willing to go through it.
        • kaelyiesta, on 04/29/2008, -4/+8Here ya go:

          http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20 ...
          And here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hzFUPcvEiw

          As for the speech itself, you can grab it on google or youtube. Its repeated often(in slightly different arrangements each time) in the midwest states particularly. Search for words obama midwest primary and speech.

          Theres plenty more, but this I think should be sufficient to show that Obama will say what people want to hear, despite not intending on following through on those statements.
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/29/2008, -3/+7Can you name a single example of a politician who didn't say something once, and then do the opposite months, even years later?

          Not to excuse lying... but just pointing out that every politician has done so. It's just that when a Democrat does it, it's called "flipflopping". I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like for my politicians to be able to change their minds based on new info and new circumstances.
          • Antwan718, on 04/29/2008, -3/+5That is one of the reasons that America would benefit from not having political parties, soley people running that stand for items A B and C and are against D E and H, though are up to discuss topic F.
          • WasabiBomb, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I'm right there with you, Antwan. The two-party system just reinforces bad political behavior. That was why I voted for the Green party, many years ago- not because I wanted them to win, but because I wanted a third option to be available in the future.
    • oldhick, on 04/29/2008, -7/+4I think you may need to start making plans. At best it'll be an extremely close race, at worst, the neocons will run away with it.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 04/29/2008, -7/+5McCain isn't even a neo-con. You idiots just think every Republican is a neo-con when in actuality McCain is not popular amongst Republicans because he is very liberal. Stop using popular digg terms you don't understand.
        • AustinMandi, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4According to wiki: The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right". I would say this describes McCain fairly accurately.

          FAIL.
        • oldhick, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Thatsmyaibo - please define Neocon for us uneducated idiots. I was a life long Republican (not neocon, republican). I left the party when the Neocons took over. I came back for a little stint to help out Ron Paul. I'm gone again. You know why? Because Neocons aren't Republicans. Republicans were about reducing the size of the Federal government, controlling spending, being fiscally conservative, and minding your own ***** business.
          Do you know what fiscally conservative means? I'll give you a clue, it has nothing to do with Tax cuts.
          McCain is a neocon. He believes in the continued usage of armed force to ensure compliance with US interests. He believes in continuing the Bush tax cuts without a reduction in spending (sending us further into debt). His most recent speech placed him firmly in the socialized health-care camp arguing for MORE government regulation of the health industry.

          Give me an example of how McCain is NOT a neocon and is actually a conservative. Please.
    • Goodbyeworld, on 04/29/2008, -1/+14People said that last election too.

      Sadly, you won't leave this country. Trying to use your money elsewhere would make you weep and beg for mercy.
    • onetimer, on 04/29/2008, -5/+12To be fair, I can link to examples showing all three remaining (four if you're unrealistic) candidates engaging in "double speak"
      • j0ew00ds, on 04/29/2008, -6/+4show me the double speak by that fourth, unrealistic candidate.
        • onetimer, on 04/29/2008, -3/+7"And ah, I, ah, I think it is a theory. The theory of evolution and I, I don’t accept it. You know, as a theory."

          So, what does he accept it AS? If this wasn't doublespeak, why didn't he raise his hand along with mike huckabee when the candidates were asked who does NOT accept evolution?
        • Sogui, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3but but but! There's context for those statements, you need to look at the big picture of what he was saying!

          After all McCain wants to spend 100 years fighting in Iraq, he's going to bomb Iran, and he supports Hagee's religious views, in fact according to Digg, Hagee is his pastor!
        • JoeVet, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2How about flat out lying. Paul claims to be a strict constitutionalist but then submits bills to gut the bill of rights. H.R. 300 would deny individuals the freedom of religion, freedom of privacy and equal protection under the law.
          • AustinMandi, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Wrong. The legislation would take the jurisdictional powers away from the federal courts and place it back with the states where the Constitution says it belongs. Flat-out lying indeed!
          • hypertension, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2STILL posting this crap after I rebuffed you the first time weeks ago!? Glad to see you getting dugg down again.

            HR 300 does exactly what AustinMandi said.
    • EtanHodge, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1there are plenty of other pressing issues that should make you wonder what is happening to this "beautiful country." namely the left and its PC agenda that has destroyed the image of the "melting pot," and left in its wake a country overrun by immigrants who choose not to accept, but to reject the American identity.
      • JoeVet, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2It is the immigrants who define American identity, idiot. It is you and neo-cons like you who want to believe that only you are the true Americans when in fact every white man here is no less an immigrant then our Spanish speaking neighbors. The only true American identity died with the indigenous peoples of North America.
        • hypertension, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Wrong, MORON! It's immigrants who want to be American that define the American identity -- not immigrants who refuse to speak English, fly a big Mexican flag above their home, and drive a car with "brown pride" stickers.

          ... and there's LOTS more of them now than there was 100+ years ago!
    • ajhunte, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0see ya
    • jabberwolf, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Just because you dont take the listen to the ENTIRE question and answer of the 100 year answer, doesnt meant its doublespeaking or contradictory.

      It simply means you're too stupid to listen all the way through, or read anything past a headline.
    • MrObjectional, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1I don't like McCain, but I'm not sure that his comments are actually contradictory.

      He has said he wants to keep troops in Iraq to complete the "current mission." God knows what that is, but I can only assume that when the Iraqi government is stable and able to provide security, we will start to draw down or forces.

      However, this statement merely is stating that we will not keep permanent bases there a la Japan or Germany. He says that he realizes that our presence breeds resentment, and he doesn't want to keep our troops there longer than they have to be there. I see no contradiction.
  • JoeLosFeliz, on 04/29/2008, -29/+46The guy is a right wing nut and it's about time the American people wake up to the fact.
    • thebaron2, on 04/29/2008, -5/+29Right wing nut? This is the same guy who used to be called the Democrat's Republican, almost went to the Democrat party, and has been consistently criticized by "right wing nuts" for not being conservative enough, and pandering too much to independents and centrists.

      Right of center? Yes. But a right wing nut he is not. The right wing nuts are pissed off he's the candidate, and are threatening to abandon him if his VP isn't more conservative.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/29/2008, -6/+13From the perspective of a left wing nut, McCain is a right wing nut...
      • tonaros, on 04/29/2008, -3/+6"The right wing nuts are pissed off he's the candidate, and are threatening to abandon him if his VP isn't more conservative."

        Which is why he's acting like more of a right wing nut, to please his GOP.
        • masterm1nd, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3"Which is why he's *ACTING* like more of a right wing nut, to please his GOP"
      • jforjools, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3"A right wing nut he is not."

        I'm an independent--and although I voted in my states primary, I was initially thrilled for McCain's prospects. (It was clear he was going to take my state, MN, and he did.) If HRC won the dem-nom, my initial plan was to go for McCain in the fall. ...That was my *initial* plan.

        But unfortunately, the straight-talk express is completely broken down.
        True, McCain WASn't a right wing nut....but now he IS.

        from taxes to war to subprime crises...He's gone way conservative...he's officially now a right wing nut.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8I'm missing the right wingnut on my desk, now it feels rickety.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 04/29/2008, -3/+3Wake up America!...everyone else is doing it...
    • LukasSmith, on 04/29/2008, -3/+4Neither Obama or Clinton will get us out of Iraq. American people need to wake up to the fact.
    • brad3378, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Remove the words "Right wing" from your comment and you've got it nailed.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 04/29/2008, -19/+29After the statement, the nice pill lady wiped the strained nanners off Johnnie's bib. "Great job!" she said.
    • LukasSmith, on 04/29/2008, -6/+3Better save some of those pills for yourselves when a President Obama or Clinton won't actually get us out of Iraq. If you believe that this war will end in the next four years you have been brain dead for the last 100 years.
      • jforjools, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1nice spam. very relevant to yellowcake's nanners.
      • LukasSmith, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1yes very revelant indeed. The American people must realize they are the ones on drugs.
    • parkhead, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0lol all this ***** is swirling around obama and it been awfully quiet on digg
      coinsidence?
      ***** need to stop diggin obama biased ***** *****
  • bebo666, on 04/29/2008, -19/+30Yet another in the growing list of McSame's flip-flops (Iraq, campaign finance, Bush's tax cuts, torture, etc.)
    • tomasII, on 04/29/2008, -7/+8Obama has just begun to flop, Wright, weatherman underground, taxes, etc.
      • thebaron2, on 04/29/2008, -4/+1There's something to be said for that old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right."
    • homercles337, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1No, that is a tool successfully used by only the right. The dems cant seem to mount any kind of "discredit" campaign, even though plenty of fodder is repeatedly offered up on a platter.
    • Sogui, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2He never flip-flopped on Torture, but you wouldn't know that going to Digg.

      McCain issued a very clear and definite statement for voting against the bill, and ironically the because the best legal leverage that we have against waterboarding right now is the outlawing of acts that "shock the conscience" thanks to McCain's last torture bill.
    • jabberwolf, on 04/30/2008, -1/+11- Not flipped flopped on IRAQ - many here have already pointed out the different in questions.
      2- Not flip flopped on campaign funds, HE NEVER TOOK PUBLIC ONES
      3- He never flip floped on tax cuts, he wants them!
      4- Never flipped flopped on torture, there was a bill re-iterating 1 already on the books, that demicrats wanted to pass to make it look like THEY WERE passing legislation already passed!

      Yet another in the growing list of Obamatards who cant read entire articles. Maybe not even sentences!
  • gsxrjason, on 04/29/2008, -9/+10The problem with McCain is that he moves around on issues so much, when people hear him saying one position on an issue they don't agree with, they think he's lying and think he really believes what they do.
    • lazyfisherman, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1You know... that's so true.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Yeah, that is so unlike every other politician...
    • homercles337, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2No, not a problem. The people on the right who dont think for themselves will get caught up in wedge issues again. Dont ya take ma guns! Do you be killin no babies! The right has been TOO successful with these techniques in the past to avoid their usage.
    • MrObjectional, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Damn, meant to bury you.
  • toddcat, on 04/29/2008, -11/+47He changes his opinion like he changes his underwear. But the media is in his pocket so it makes no difference. If we had ANY KIND of a skeptical, thoughtful media, McCain wouldn't have been a candidate (heck, few of the Repubs would have been viable) and Dennis Kucinich would be a leading presidential candidate.
    • jforjools, on 04/29/2008, -4/+7like he changes his Depends?

      /low blow--couldn't help it.
      • toddcat, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Nah nah...I was thinkin' the same thing even while I was typin' all that =) So obvious a joke it HAD to be made :)
    • oldgal, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Maybe he just can't remember what his previous opinions were.
    • maikai, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1he's the candidate because Mitt Romney can't manage money.
    • Karna101, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1ron paul, not soicalist kucinich
  • InsideJob11Sep, on 04/29/2008, -25/+17Just wait until everyone learns the NeoCons' role in letting 9/11 happen on purpose!
    • oldhick, on 04/29/2008, -7/+10Welcome back. It seems like its been a few days since I've you guys ranting. So now you know it was the "neocons" specifically that allowed this to happen. But more importantly, are you positive they just "allowed" it to happen? I thought they made the whole thing up or blew up the buildings themselves with thermite.
      So now you're saying terrorist actually flew the planes in and we let them do it? Or were the pilots on the "neocon" pay roll directly. I'm just trying to keep the 9/11 Was an Inside Job facts straight! and don't forget, play Digg like a Ponzi scheme!!!
      • baglady215, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0Stay blind, sheeple.
        • oldhick, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Ha! Excellent response. We be blind bitches! So if I believe your propaganda I have the gift of site. If I remain skeptical of ALL claims about 9/11 I'm blind.
    • GhostyBoy, on 04/29/2008, -15/+5Honestly I thought it was absolutely ludicrous when I first heard it, and then I spent a couple of days researching it. Here's just a little bit of the evidence for controlled demolition:(click reply)
      • GhostyBoy, on 04/29/2008, -14/+6Controlled demolition so far is the strongest hypothesis for why 3 buildings fell that day. For your consideration:

        a) The buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. With tons of steel supporting the building it is unlikely that they would have offered virtually no slow down or resistance to collapse.
        http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/n ...

        b) Never before in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire, yet on 9/11 it happened 3 times in one day.
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ...


        c) Building 7 (Seriously, come on!) was not hit by a plane, yet still imploded at free-fall speed, straight down later on that day.
        http://www.betterbadnews.com/2006/04/11/popularity ...

        d) Up to six weeks after the collapse, pools of molten metal were found in the rubble of all three buildings, suggesting the possibility of the use of the compound thermate or thermite, commonly used in controlled demolition.
        http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Thermite- ...

        e) The name of the company that did the clean-up after 9/11 was called Controlled Demolition Inc. They were one of the very few companies liscenced to perform a controlled demolition, and they were key players in getting rid of the rubble (evidence) at ground zero. http://911review.com/coverup/groundzero.html

        Again, I don't assume anything. But the case for controlled demolition remains both strong and plausible.
        • Nidy1, on 04/29/2008, -2/+41/5 of your links work. How long have you been copy and pasting this *****?
        • Acewrap, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2So, why did they start to collapse at the same ***** point THOUSANDS of people eye-*****-witnessed the planes hit them?
          • GhostyBoy, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2They collapsed almost an hour later.
          • Acewrap, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Oh ffs, the same point in the structure. How are you going to plan that?
  • onyxcoltrane, on 04/29/2008, -13/+30And as usual the main stream media will ignore this....McCain's free ride continues.
    • tomasII, on 04/29/2008, -5/+8The main stream media would marry Obama if it were legal.
    • homercles337, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Yep the conservative run MSM will give a free ride to any candidate the right puts up. This is not news, its obvious.
    • Sogui, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Iraq certainly hasn't changed in the last 3 years (/sarcasm) so why should McCain's position?
  • smacksaw, on 04/29/2008, -20/+15Well well well my Republican friends, look whose chickens have come home to roost. Yours.

    As an informed and objective person I know that McCain's "100 years" was taken out of context, and while he believes it's a possibility, it's not his plan. And now we have this article, from the Huffington Post no less, clarifying his position. Oh, isn't it just dripping with sweet, sticky irony that after so many months, the article to explain McCain's position comes from the object of your scorn, the Huffington Post?

    Maybe it's all a lie, because as you trolls point out every day, the Huffington Post is of course, full of *****. Left-wing *****. They could never simply be reporting facts, citing sources and then writing editorials on them. No, they're wrong.

    I wonder...you who keep posting lies about Obama, you who have not listened to or understood (by giving it an objective ear) Obama's explanations, do you see the hypocrisy? Will it stick in your craw if we keep repeating the "100 years in Iraq" lie about McCain over and over the way you say NOTHING of substance about Obama but deceitful rhetoric? Is it a calculated risk to accept one misrepresentation about your guy McCain so that you can make dozens of misrepresentations about Obama?

    You either know the stuff about Obama is wrong and you're being asses or you now see that the pendulum swings both ways. Sadly, I think most Obama supporters are like me and won't harp on the "100 years" thing once we've seen a better explanation like this. But if we did, you'd deserve it. Though I suspect the lesson would be lost on you since the game you're playing is based upon spreading ignorance while sustaining your own. What a shame you can't learn about Obama from Obama himself, but rely on right-wing blogs to cite each other's made-up stories.
    • dinsy, on 04/29/2008, -7/+7Obama is CFR and therefore cannot be trusted.
      • smacksaw, on 04/29/2008, -5/+3Talking about the CFR is always a non-point for two reasons. One, anyone of any political persuasion can join. Including people who are not for a one-world gov't. But secondly, I have to wonder if you've ever read Foreign Affairs. You see, I have. And there's nothing strange going on there.

        Here, let me give you a sampling of the radical ideas the CFR is spouting from their official publication:
        http://www.cfr.org/publication/by_type/foreign_aff ...

        Criticism of banks. Hugo Chavez' policy on the poor. How Denmark is confronting globalisation.

        I think it's a shame that all of you CFR people get your information from each other's rhetoric instead of from the CFR themselves. Why not join and make your voice heard? If you want to shape US foreign policy, quit calling people a CFR shill and actually get involved.
        • Marc39, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Anyone can NOT join. From cfr.org;
          "Candidates are formally proposed in writing by one member and seconded by a minimum of three other individuals."
    • Dragular, on 04/29/2008, -4/+10Obama's explainations? "Eh, I didn't hear it" isn't an explaination.

      January 2005 was before the surge, the apparently successful surge might I add. Back then it wasn't a matter of, "which candidate is going to get us home?" but "Man, those Democrats are going to get in office in '06 and get us out of Iraq." Now what?

      You're out of your mind if you think Obama supporters aren't harping on the 100 years thing. The only reason we don't see it more is because you guys haven't managed to beat Hillary.

      Most of the "misrepresentations" haven't even been from the McCain supporters. I believe you should be throwing your feces at the other Democrat.

      And to be told I can't learn about someone from themselves instead of a right-wing blog, in a comment about an article from the Huffington Post, that wonderful bastion of intellect, is downright lunacy.
      • smacksaw, on 04/29/2008, -7/+3First, you can only say the surge is a success if you are basing it on metrics that suit your view that supports us being in Iraq. Objectively speaking, even looking at the surge over the short-term all it has done is given us a briefly immediate result at the cost of long-term results. Our continued presence only empowers Iran while the surge exacerbated it and fanned the flames.

        To further explain the "100 years thing", what I am saying is that it's a taste of one's own medicine. But the majority of Obama supporters are for him because they value intelligent debate over rhetoric. If the dynamic is based upon facts, it will be about McCain and what he says in full context. Of course if he flip-flops and contradicts himself, it's not his policy du jour that matters as much as his inconsistency. You can't debate someone who keeps changing their mind. What I am saying is most Obama supporters such as myself would rather speak about ideas for Iraq's future and our involvement instead of having to break down to soundbite *****.

        Finally, in case you haven't noticed there's a huge trend in right-wing blogs these days. I don't know how to term it, but I'd call it "circular citation" where instead of citing sources directly, in full and without editing they cite each other. So Blog A cites Blog B, Blog B cites Blog C, Blog D cites Blog A and Blog E cites Blog D's citing of Blog A.

        The Huffington Post and Kos do a much better job. They link to actual YouTube videos or original news articles more often than not. That's what is disturbing to me. That's what's wrong to me. Look at people who post here, Yahoo Answers, whatever. Something where people provide links and cite sources. They don't cite NEWS sources, they cite each other's opinions until it gets the Goebbels effect of being repeated as the truth since no one can even navigate the "circular citation" to even find where this information originates.

        Don't believe me? I want to check something on the Huffington Post and if the links are not there, I'm 1-2 levels from finding the original story. If I want to check something people claim on say...Yahoo Answers which has a specific section to CITE SOURCES I have to go on a Google hunt to find out where it even comes from.
        • Dragular, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5I use the same reasoning to defend McCain's changes of stance that I used to defend Kerry's in '04: It's nice when people can admit they were wrong.

          You're on your own about the "intelligent debate over rhetoric" thing. Most of what I've seen from Obama has consisted of the words "divisive," "change," and "hope." This isn't just bitching, I supported Kerry in '04 and have been Democrat since I first managed to watch the news without waiting for cartoons to come back on. I don't know if I've drifted into the role of conservative or if I've been pushed there, but regardless, Obama should be able to easily win me back and he hasn't managed to do it.

          I think when you say "right-wing blogs" what you mean is "most blogs," regardless of political stances. Hell, a ton of tech blogs do the same... pointing at you Kotaku and Engadget. The Post might have links to what they're talking about, but they throw their own drivel into it as much as Rush Limbaugh does. Limbaugh cites his sources. Doesn't increase his credibility with anyone though does it?
        • ralphthemagi, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0Sites like The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, The Raw Story, and WorldNetDaily are not news. They are the opposite of news. It's manufactured content designed to get eyeballs from social news sites like Digg, Reddit and elsewhere; and then they rake in the ad dollars.
    • slvrbullet87, on 04/29/2008, -3/+4On the Rev. Wright issue Obama has given all sorts of duck and dodge answers. First he said that the remarks are misinterpreted, then he said that even though the remarks were wrong he couldn't disavow his pastor. He then changed his answer to he would have left the church.
      Politicians duck and dodge issues, it is how the politics work. Obama is no different, Clinton is no different, and McCain is no different.
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1To be fair, there was not a single thing he could've said that his opponents would've accepted. No matter how he tried to explain it, disavow it, deny it, accept it... nothing would've made a lick of a difference. There was never a real story there- it was all drummed up to make Obama look bad.
        • EtanHodge, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0or could it be that obama is a left wing nut who is now trying to hide his past? obviously there is a story here that wasn't "drummed up" to make obama look bad... in this day and age, would the american public elect a president that was a former memeber of the NAZI party? this is a relevant issue and needs to be addressed. I do not think the speech on race was a hit. it was complete garbage. obama side skirted the issues and didn't give any explanations. typical obama.
          • WasabiBomb, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Or it could be exactly what I said.

            For the record, Bush's grandfather had Nazi ties and *tried to overthrow the US government*. That didn't keep Bush I and Bush II from being elected.
          • EtanHodge, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0he did not have direct ties to the nazis... prescott bush's partner (the middle man) was actually jailed by the nazis for denouncing the persecution of jews and catholics.

            this was obamas pastor for 20 years. i wonder how much his sermons have changed.
  • flintmecha, on 04/29/2008, -18/+4Buried for misleading picture.

    Also lies.
  • Judasmac, on 04/29/2008, -7/+11It is shocking when a politician changes his mind. Cudos to Stein for getting right the McCain statement about 100 years "in the absence of violence." Compare the new Democratic ad, also featured at HuffPo yesterday:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/27/dnc-ad-ha ...
    • Sogui, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Stein is the biggest Digg panderer at that pathetic excuse for a "news" blog site. He's posted so many uncited, unverified rumors about McCain.

      He'd write a blog entry tomorrow that "McCain enjoys fellating zoo animals", if I sent him an "anonymous" tip about it tonight.
  • rpfinley, on 04/29/2008, -12/+26The real quote, there is no comment about a WAR for 100 years, just a presence. We have a presence in a number of countries that we are not fighting a war in.

    QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years…

    McCAIN: Maybe 100. We’ve been in South Korea… We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me, as long as Americans… as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
    • jforjools, on 04/29/2008, -11/+8"… as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

      ...which is HOW likely to happen? No, the war can last OVER 100 years and we still won't be at the point of having a "peacekeeping presence" in Iraq. Pre-presidential-nom-McCain recognized this. Pre-nom McCain was a bit of a maverick--but now that he's got 'president' in his sights, he's abandoned any good qualities he had.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 04/29/2008, -4/+5Would wouldn't have thought that in Germany either but we have full bases there. Way to throw your biased into a conversation to support your views.
        • jforjools, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Ah, Germany: N
          ow there's a particular situation where many other countries united with the US in this conflict. And that's the complete opposite of what's happened in Iraq, where the US acted in a unilateral fashion and continues to NOT have support among other countries--even many of its allies.

          Additionally, while Germany has had plenty of conflict over the years, the history (cultural, political, religious) of that region is *extremely* different than that of Iraq.

          Iraq like Germany? --Very crappy comparison.

          Almost didn't respond due to your disjointed assertion: "way to throw your based into a conversation to support your views." ....say what?
          • thatsmyaibo, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I'm not comparing the wars I am comparing the fact that we have a base in Germany following a war in which we were sided against them. Having a long term presence in Iraq for peace keeping reasons is not impossible.
    • swrostmore, on 04/29/2008, -10/+4And the real quote from 2005 is that McCain specifically rejected the S. Korea analogy and stated "I would hope that we could bring [the troops] all home."
    • crowbar77, on 04/29/2008, -4/+7Sure it may have worked in some, but their in a entirely different region of the world, with different cultures and values. Look at what happened after they stayed in Saudi Arabia, the CIA's best buddy caused 911. Besides what right does the US have to keep troops on another countries soil? You sure hell wouldn't let china do the same.
    • oldgal, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5We are not fighting a war there, we won the war years ago. We are occupying the country.
      • jforjools, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Exactly. And it seem unforeseeable that we will ever reach this 'goal' by the US being in Iraq. McCain knows this--he's just stopped talking about it long enough to get elected.
    • defwheezer, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2"… as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
      So what about the Iraqis being slaughtered- is that OK? What about the newly minted Hajiis being created every time a "smart bomb" kills a family doing nothing more onerous than eating a meal? McCain and the "as long as no Americans are hurt" line is complete BS. For every innocent murdered, one or more "chickens" are born- eventually some of those chickens WILL come to OUR home to 'roost'. What made Iraqis civilians so deserving of being caste into an endless war zone where the US fights "Al Qaida", "insurgents" and "criminals" in the streets of Baghdad??
    • jabberwolf, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Thank you for posting the FULL question and answer. Most of these liberal tards dont want to hear it because it somehow defeats their entire rhetoric of lies they try so hard to believe in. They will have to say it's a lie, avoid the truth, and eventually move on to another lie to make themselves feel better.

      Thank you and the rest of us with brains and can read through an entire answer (not snippets) - will be voting Mccain.
  • jaydbell, on 04/29/2008, -8/+22flip-flopper extraordinaire
    • hittnrun, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Oh, I see, if you make a statement and later you realize it was a mistake, you should just follow through with the wrong decision so little diggbots don't call you a flip flopper?

      Grow up my little b!tches.
  • thirdcoastborn, on 04/29/2008, -8/+26hillary and mccain are the same. if they both run against each other it will be a joke.
    • jforjools, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4I've seriously been wondering if McCain is going to name HRC as his VP.

      Wacko--yet it makes so much sense.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/29/2008, -2/+14So tell me, what is the diffence in policly between Hillary and Obama?
      • sodade, on 04/29/2008, -6/+5Well, the biggest difference is transparency of govt. Obama is also not taking money from special interest groups. Those two reasons are enough to win my vote.
      • knumbknuts, on 04/29/2008, -6/+4Trick question: Obama doesn't have enough policy experience to compare.
      • brad3378, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1I asked the same question a while ago and actually got a response. I'll share it with you.
        Hillary supports Capital Punishment. Obama would pay to keep felons in prison.
        Obama wants to give old people earning over $50,000 relief on income taxes but will raise everybody elses to make up for it.
        Hillary will raise everybody's taxes. Both will increase spending

        I think there was one more difference, but I can't remember it at the moment.
    • thebaron2, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8Are you kidding me?

      On policy HRC is *much* closer to Barack. Which issues, specifically, do HRC and McCain agree on?
      • oldgal, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4Many foreign policy experts believe Hillary's foreign policy will be very much like Bush's, which I think puts it close to McCain's (hard to tell where his is on any given day). Check out these series of lectures if you want to validate (there is a good mix of liberal and conservative speakers): http://webcast.berkeley.edu/new_search.php?search_ ...
      • brad3378, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Immigration

    • TinternAbbot, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Buried for being wrong.
    • Sogui, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Uh huh, go google "MCCAIN PLATFORM WIKI" and "HILLARY PLATFORM WIKI"

      Pro life vs. Pro Choice, Pro gun vs. anti-gun, Universal Health Care vs Tax Credit + Free Market, Stay in Iraq vs. Set a withdrawal, Anti-Nafta vs. Pro-Nafta, etc...

      Yea they're ***** twins, now take a look at Obama's platform versus Hillary's.
  • wirthless, on 04/29/2008, -7/+9Maybe its just me, but I liked John McCain a lot better before he started his presidential campaign. He used to strike me as a thoughtful, sincere, independent thinker.

    But ever since he starting campaigning, he has turned into a clone or George W. Bush. He has literally done a complete 180 on Iraq and the Bush tax cuts, among other things. I don't know if he decided it was the only way to win, or if he's actually been replaced by a robot. Either way, I don't like the prospect of him becoming president.
    • jforjools, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Absolutely. Alny good 'maverick' parts are dead and gone. The man just wants to be president.
    • lazyfisherman, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0Refer to the brilliant "McCain is that he moves around on issues so much, when people hear him saying one position on an issue they don't agree with, they think he's lying and think he really believes what they do" post above..
  • Kangalanatolian, on 04/29/2008, -7/+17This is the catch - 22, if I remember the term correctly. If everybody is peacefull, we can stay in Iraq for 100 years or more. But if they are attacking us over it, we must be brave. We must never cut and run. This is how we will stay forever. Feel neo-conned yet?

    The founding fathers had a very clear way to deal with what they used to call pirates - organized criminals without a country to call their own. It is called the letters of Marque and Reprisal. Americans have every reason to vote out ALL members of congress who voted to allow president Bush to go to war. They violated their oath to uphold the constitution.
  • Zera, on 04/29/2008, -6/+1Mirror?
  • timla, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2This is going to be his "I invented the internet"
  • CrackpotPress, on 04/29/2008, -5/+11He just conmtinues on with the Double Speak.. If you want your gas prices to rise, the mortgage companies to continue to bend you over and unlimited deaths in the "Oops, wrong country" war Vote MCCain!
  • Goodbyeworld, on 04/29/2008, -12/+3Guys, let's get honest...

    McCain is ***** old. He really doesn't know any better. Let's put up with him now, and come October, vote Obama or, I daresay, Hilary.

    Bashing him on digg.com isn't going to help anything. We, as a community, share pretty similar tastes, and the people that don't get dugg down to oblivion.
  • mit7, on 04/29/2008, -5/+3100 years is but a blink of an eye of the universe. sarc*
  • protogenxl, on 04/29/2008, -3/+4¿Qué?
  • LadyKofNYC, on 04/29/2008, -8/+14Of course he wants to pull out of Iraq. He's on a new mission to "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran". Crazy *****.
  • dizilbdog, on 04/29/2008, -6/+3And they say Alzheimer Patient's can't do anything... Mr Mcain you are great I'm glad the hospital let you check out to run for President....
  • moolaismyfriend, on 04/29/2008, -9/+4I gotta wonder peoples ability to feed themselves if they even consider voting for this fossil.
  • JK1150, on 04/29/2008, -6/+7everyone knows what mccain meant by saying we should continue to have a presence in iraq, same as we do with germany or japan. they will just continue to bring it up, so the republicans will continue to bring up rev. wright. politics as usual...
    • rahamm, on 04/29/2008, -5/+3MCCain has such a problem with the 30 billion dollars with pork barrel projects at home but he loves them over seas. The bases in Korea alone cost 5 billion or so dollars a year. Why does America need that money when can spend it in another country right?
    • defwheezer, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Holy *****- there's Oil in Korea, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines too???
      McCain = Bush = Oil Whore
  • forgiste, on 04/29/2008, -10/+4Okay Republicans, you guys accused John Kerry of flip-flopping, this guy is like Kerry^10
    • moolaismyfriend, on 04/29/2008, -7/+3Republicans are retarded, lack morals, and support Al-Queda so they don't give a *****.
  • insanebrain, on 04/29/2008, -7/+2. . and the zeitgeist-protocol continues.
  • rahamm, on 04/29/2008, -10/+8FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!
  • AbsurdParadox, on 04/29/2008, -7/+16"We`ve been in Bosnia for, what, 10, 12, years, Kosovo for 10 years, South Korea for 50 years. Americans aren`t upset about that."

    I am American. I am upset about that.
    • kemp34, on 04/29/2008, -3/+3Same here.
    • JointVenture, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Well you guys need to call those countries and tell them that their economies are going to have to suffer because we are leaving and they are now responsible for their own defense.

      Make sure to say hello to all of europe, se asia, the starving in Africa and so and so on.

      You really think the UN could operate in some of the countries they do if there wasnt the threat of USA forces behind them?
      • rahamm, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2As soon as those countries start paying taxes to the US maybe we can keep their economies afloat becuase right now we are having troubles with our own.
        • JointVenture, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Im almost there with ya, Im just about ready to say ***** em.

          But Ive got a little bit of tolerance left because I know what a disaster it would be for the world if the USA pulled out all its troops everywhere.

          What would Finland do to protect their oil fields? They would have to start building a viable NAVY yesterday.

          The problem is most the wingnuts think that the reason Europe/Russia/China are at peace is because their just nice guys, they dont want war.

          Wrong, they are at peace because they live under the protective umbrella of the USA.

          Just look at what happened last year when Russia threatened to cut of natural gas. How would that have played out without allies?
    • Picaroon, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3The vast majority of Americans aren't.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Do you have data to back up this statement, or are you going off a blind assumption like the media and politicians always do about absolutely everything? :) (No offense, just making a point)
  • TinternAbbot, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2He said "I would hope we could leave" and it would be good to reduce our visibility. That's not the same as "WE NEED TO GTFO."
  • itsontheway, on 04/29/2008, -5/+3Whether or not McCain has good, noble intentions is beyond me. Yes, he flip flopped on this issue. He is a politician and all politicians should be deemed suspect. However, I do know that he was a lot more -- or at appeared to be -- moderate before he needed the extreme right's support for the nomination. Many say he was never the maverick that the media made him to be. There is probably a lot of truth to that. Either way, he had to embrace the crazies to get the nod. I've heard that he has always been more conservative and his involvement with the whole S and L scandal back in the day should be brought into the light.

    For what it's worth, he used to be adored by a lot of democrats before 2004. I think he made some kind of deal with the GOP in support of his 08 election bid. He needed those guys to lock it up. Do note that in 2000 McCain and Bush supposedly had a big fued. In 2004, he's kissing GOP and good ol George's booty. His support among non republicans dropped, starting in 04, I think, and has been on a downward trend ever since.

    Typical politician.
    • rahamm, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3No it was in 2000 when we liked him you know before he went crazy, and when the choice was between him and Bush. Now the choice for him is a choice for Bush they became the same person so he could in the nomination.
  • yourmomdotcom, on 04/29/2008, -4/+3I don't agree with "100 years in Iraq" under any light, whether it's a war or just a "military presence". How would we react if Iraq, Iran, or China had a "military presence" here? I would say we would be pretty damn upset.
  • casuallyevil, on 04/29/2008, -3/+6Things were a lot different in January 2005. If the worst criticism you can level on John McCain is that he changed his opinion about Iraq as the situation changed, I'd say that that's exactly the attitude we need in the White House. From the actual quotes in the article, he doesn't seem militantly for or against either view - most of what he says is essentially "we'll see how it plays out, could be, but might not be." Considering most of the problems in Iraq are a result of using bad info and sticking to a bad strategy, I think he's got the right idea.
    • defwheezer, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2'Bomb bomb bomb...' yeh- he's REAL sensible (Not!), and exactly the kind of unstable Neocon boot licker we need in the whitehouse (Not).
  • h4k0r, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2"I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

    Yes that's worked out in the past......let me think of an example

    This make take me some time....check back in a couple of days



    • foxfire1311, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1How about Japan, Germany, and South Korea?
      Japan's the world leader in the majority of technology fields.
      Germany's economy is the largest and most robust in the EU.
      And South Korea is doing quite nicely, leading the world in biomedical technology.
  • serif69, on 04/29/2008, -4/+7I can't find a single informed comment that isn't a response to the knee-jerk "OMG neocon flip-flop he's so old same as Bush same as Hillary". Do any of you actually know anything about McCain besides that he's running for the presidential nomination for the Republican ticket? Hell, do any of you know anything about any of the other candidates besides what popular opinion tells you? If you're so politically adamant, you should look for facts, not cling to sensationalist cliches.
    • licnyc, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4I know - he's the one who likes to take money for lobbyist in return for favors.
    • Airforcefalco, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2I know - he's a Republican in name only.
    • defwheezer, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4I know he is
      1.) crazy (tortured to insanity)
      2.) Ignorant of most things (economy... Iran... Sunni/Shia/Al Qaida... etc)
      3.) a Neocon ass kisser
      4.) a Loony religious right ass kisser
      5.) a Senator, but never a President
      • serif69, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"not cling to sensationalist cliches."
        Way to be, champ.
  • thrashertm, on 04/29/2008, -3/+3I wonder how the GOP primary would have been impacted had that statement been aired by the media?
  • JointVenture, on 04/29/2008, -4/+5Well if you folks hate McCain so much you better stop bashing Hillary because its over for Obama.

    If by chance he does get the Nomination Im happy to say there is NO chance a Democrat will get elected.

    You're all ignoring the fact that Obama defended Rev Wright just 48hrs ago on Fox, and then today threw him under a bus as if he just had a realization that the man is a whack job.

    Really? it took him dancing on stage like a fool for you to realize this? Judgement?
    Honesty? a different and new type of Politician?

    20 years he listened to that man, he quoted that man many many times in his book, even titled it after one of his speeches.

    I could go on, but its over, you guys better get your ***** together.
    • ph1sh55, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Well speaking of facts- I looked at fox news' article and link to the transcript which you are framing as some dancing around and flip flop. I don't see how you can question his transition to outrage upon learning of what 'crazy' claims Wright was actually making. That's not even the slant from Fox news.
      -------------------------
      QUESTION: Why the change of tone from yesterday? When you spoke to us on the tarmac yesterday, you didn’t have this sense of anger and outrage.

      OBAMA: Yes, I’ll be honest with you — because I hadn’t seen it yet.

      QUESTION: And that was the difference you…

      OBAMA: Yes.

      QUESTION: You heard the reports about the AIDS comments.

      OBAMA: I had not. I had not seen the transcript. What I had heard was he had given a performance, and I thought at the time that it would be sufficient simply to reiterate what I had said in Philadelphia.

      Upon watching it, what became clear to me was that it was more than just him defending himself. What became clear to me was that he was presenting a worldview that contradicts who I am and what I stand for.

      And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and knows what I am about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the commonality in all people.

      And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs.

      QUESTION: Senator, what do you plan to do about this right now to further distance (inaudible) and the need to do that? And what does this say about your judgment of super delegates, who are right now trying to decide which Democratic nominee is better? Your candidacy has been based on judgment. What does this say about…?

      OBAMA: Well, as I said before, the person I saw yesterday was not the person that I have come to know over 20 years. I understand that I think he was pained and angered from what had happened previously during the first stage of this controversy.

      I think he felt vilified and attacked, and I understand that he wanted to defend himself. I understand that he’s gone through difficult times of late and that he’s leaving his ministry after many years. And so that may account for the change.

      But the insensitivity and the outrageousness of his statements and his performance in the question and answer period yesterday, I think, shocked me. It surprised me.

      As I said before, this is an individual who’s built a very fine church, and a church that is well respected throughout Chicago. During the course of me attending that church, I had not heard those kinds of statements being made or those kinds of views being promoted.

      And I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency. I was a member of the church. So what I think it says is that I did not run my pastor through the paces or review every one of the sermons that he had made over the last 30 years. But I don’t think that anybody could attribute those ideas to me.



      http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/transcript ...
    • foxfire1311, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Too many Diggers are overly enthused with Obama.
      He's still a politician. Different and new? No, try researching the Democratic party of the 1960s and you'll see some striking similarities.
      Please, he's nothing new.
  • atact88, on 04/29/2008, -5/+6People's opinions are allowed to change as the situation evolves... aren't they? I used to be one of those OMGz OUT OF IRAQ NOW people, but as the situation changed, I now believe we need to stay and stabilize. Or no wait, this is Digg. No one can change their mind or disagree with the herd. Ever. Change is bad.
  • tiberone, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6If you don't think we should keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, then fine. That's your opinion, and quite possibly a good one at that.

    But saying things like "Flip-Flopper!!!" and making him out to be the shadiest politician since Nixon is ridiculous. He made this comment over 3 YEARS ago, and his view has shifted since then, in response to more developments.

    Sorry you have the same political views now as you did in high school; not everybody can be that blindly ignorant.
  • NotAChickenHawk, on 04/29/2008, -4/+3This guy has spent the last four years freely changing his positions all over the place in order to pander to whichever groups he thinks will get him elected. He has no credibility, and that he pretends to speak about the war from a position of an authority gained from having a 'consistent' position on it takes quite a lot of nerve.
  • NelsonR, on 04/29/2008, -6/+1FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP, FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIT.
    You never know where this geriatric gentlemen is firm in his convictions.
    Tax cut for rich, ludicrous and now the tax cut for the rich is fair and warranted.
    What's wrong with Americans being in Iraq for 100 years.
    Now, only as in an advisory role for the next 100 years.
    Wow, I'm a senior citizen but McBush is over the top in archaic thought and reasoning.
    You all can have him. Anyway I'm getting a load of laughs so the party continues.
    What makes a leader, HUMOR.
  • bronyraurstomp, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3How do I make this be buried as inaccurate?
  • Leadman584, on 04/29/2008, -5/+4McInsane will likely be elected President, and I'm mad as hell about it.

    In 2000 Ralph Nader may have had an impact, even if Bush did get a gift from the SCOTUS. He will have an impact this time. People know for a fact where he stands.

    The dem's are too busy with nonsense that doesn't help anyone. Obama may inspire this nation as Kennedy once did. We have enough seemingly impossible missions to accomplish. A war on all the wars would be good, you know, Iraq, drugs, maybe even ending poverty instead of talking about it.

    Unfortunately the only person I've heard address these issues, is presumed "unelectable", but still running. I just finished reading "The Revolution, a manifesto by Ron Paul" this morning. Quite frankly I have gained a greater faith in the capabilities of the American people than ever before. For all of our failings, we still have the ability to reverse the disastrous policies of the last 30 years. We must work together, for ourselves and for the future of this great nation. We must first learn the truth, then make our voices heard. Since Dr. Paul has already refused his congressional pension, Pay/Waste the $15 on his book and read it. Whatever you think of the 30 second soundbites he was allowed, his explanations are easily understood. Share the book. Kook/Statesman, you decide.

  • HumanRecall, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1back trackig and fishing for VOTERS!!!..I hope them senior citizens have TIVO !! so they can back track to what he said about staying 100 yrs ~~
  • mfc5200, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4I really think McCain is becoming old and senile. There is this for one. But does anyone else remember how he always talks about "Being for the surge from the beginning" and how he said "our military never had enough men, I've been saying that for a long time" But you can clearly go and find videos of him before the war started saying "it will be an overwhelming victory" "we will come in, topple he government, and leave within a matter of weeks" "the troops we are planning on using will be more than enough" etc etc.I think he's old and senile and is beginning to confuse what his advisor's are telling him to say/believe with what he really believed and said just a few years back.
  • 10ksnooker, on 04/29/2008, -4/+1Obama has flamed out in a racists pile, Hillary a liars liar, what is a good Democrat to do. When the final call comes down who will the Democrat politcal hacks selection be -- SELECTED not elected, how cool is that. Watch out for the sniper fire.
    Operation chaos, it a beautiful sight to see.
  • Sogui, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6My logic professor is vehemently anti-GOP and anti-McCain, but he still used the "100 years in Iraq" as an example of a straw-man fallacy.

    Diggers beg for "context" behind Obama's and Wright's comments, but when it comes to McCain he's already been judged before his mouth opens. Diggers if you are going to be so blatantly hypocritical, at least be honest about it.

    I could kill for the day when the average Diggers would admit, "I like Obama/Ron Paul, but it's gotten to the point I've become deluded, so please ignore me".
  • Kenzan, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Rose: Sen. McCain, I understand that you have changed your opinion on Iraq since you were last on the show
    McCain: What? I did not!
    Rose: Yes sir, you did. You said you didn't want Iraq to be like another Korea or Japan or Germany.
    McCain:No I didn't! You're twisting my words out of context!
    Rose: I'm afraid these are your words, not mine.
    McCain: What is this?! Some kind of setup??!!! YOU LIED TO ME, RICHARD!!
    Rose:Charlie Senator, my name is Charlie..don't you remember who I am?
    McCain: Another TRICK! You're Richard Cronkite and this is your SHOW!!! I wont put up it it! My ***** wife will pay dearly for this!!!
    Rose: Senator, are you alright? Do you know where you are? Do you need some help? Bob, stop the tape, will you?
    McCain: Dirty Charlie! You'll get nothing from me DO YOU HEAR ME??!!! NOTHING! GRRAAAAARRRGGGHHH (Rips shirt and transforms into McCain Hulk)

    MCCAIN SMASH!!! MCCAIN DESTORY!!!!! RREEAARRGGGHHH!!!
    (Limb-rending ensues)
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 71 of 71 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.