digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Obama Newest Spin: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’

elections.foxnews.com — The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News ’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it might have helped reduce violence in the country.....

show profanity settings
expand all
  • abran1984, on 09/04/2008, -22/+84Obama admits the surge was a success? WOW!
    • Charlotte_Web, on 09/04/2008, -7/+26“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

      Well, um, yeah... we DID anticipate that, that's WHY we had the troop surge!

      Mr. Obama, your foreign policy inexperience is showing!

      And this is the guy who wants to tell our generals in Iraq that they don't know what they're doing!
      • solboldi, on 09/05/2008, -4/+12Obama is now the King of Flip-Flops.

      • didiman, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4John Kerry would be proud
      • ProfessorSYM, on 09/05/2008, -4/+3The surge wouldn't have been necessary if the Republican civilians in charge of securing the country immediately after the invasion had not screwed it up so badly by releasing the entire Iraqi army back into the general population, failing to secure Iraqi weapons arsenals and failing to have a real security plan on the ground.

        The surge was a bandage applied to a wound created by the Republicans in the first place.

        And because we are not going to keep our armed services personnel over there forever, as soon as we withdraw the violence will continue.
      • zeitgueist, on 09/05/2008, -2/+4I watched the interview.

        What he said was, the troop surge along with bribing the Sunni's reduced violence beyond anyone's expectations, however the primary goals of the surge, which were to have Iraq take over responsibility for the region, and to start political cooperation between the factions, were not met.

        It's a complex stance to take, and doesn't fit well into a soundbite.
      • bam359, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Why is "Flip Flopping" bad? Why can't someone be persuaded by a good argument, adjust their position based on new evidence?
      • bruce86, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1@Bam59
        You must be new. The republicans have very strict rigid mindset. In their eyes, the world is black and white, and there is good decisions and bad decisions. If they are inconsistent with anything, their entire world view will collapse and they would be left afraid, ignorant on how to deal with a world of shades of Grey. Needless to say they violently defend this good evil view of the world, because the alternatives are just too scary for them.

        So in their minds if you are wrong once, you are always wrong. I know which is hard to reconcile, since everyone is wrong once. In these cases the republican mindset just revises their old beliefs, the good old hindsight bias. You can see this now as republicans now say we didn't invade iraq for oil, or wmds, but instead to promote democracy.

        But don't take my word for it, There have been many psychological studies on this type of mindset. Here is a good starting point, but no means the only strange things conservatives do.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_Authoritar ...
    • siszam, on 09/05/2008, -9/+2He's selling out and pandering to the warmongers whose idea of success is killing our troops.
      • sKiLLa182, on 09/05/2008, -3/+4No, you should listen to his whole answer. He said the surge worked by reducing violence, he didn't say the surge was going to end the war and he never ceded this point.

        In reality, all the surge did was replace troops from all the other countries that pulled out.
    • DocOctavius, on 09/05/2008, -5/+6You guys need to pay more attention, and quit just reading snippets- he said of course it worked- our military gets the job done no matter what- the point it the whole initiative was a waste of money and lives because we still haven't "WON" anything- we just paid off a bunch of people to stop fighting, so McCain would win in November. Bush = McCain and Obama = Next President
    • Slungsolow, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5and i have no clue why this is called spin. he even said it while in "the no spin zone".
    • wild, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2Taking it out of context and trying to turn it around. Buried for being an inaccurate explanation of the words he used.
    • mediablitz, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2except the "surge" was only a piece of the puzzle. The MONEY surge in Anbar was a nice addition.

      And what of this:

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5728393&pa ...

      ""What's in front of the commander between now and the end of the year is a great deal of uncertainly," a senior military official told ABC News. "He's using everything he's got, and we don't see the landscape changing dramatically between now and the end of the year."

      Among the factors Petraeus cites are security needs surrounding upcoming provincial elections and the continued threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Another concern cited is uncertainty about the future of the so-called Sons of Iraq, the Sunni tribesman and former insurgents now working informally with coalition forces. "

      So, as long as we keep paying them off, they will let Bush tell America the "surge is working". Of course, this SURGE is going to have to last at least a year, probably more.

      You know, troop levels like the Generals wanted from the beginning, but Bush and Rumsfeld fired them over requesting.
  • Chahrlie5, on 09/04/2008, -22/+81Holy ***** I just saw a pig fly by my window.
  • diggFunction, on 09/04/2008, -18/+56Does he have a choice now that the conservative base is pumped up?
    • Sfenton, on 09/04/2008, -0/+22No.
    • 140Suffolk, on 09/04/2008, -0/+16What is that supposed to mean?
      Are you saying that Obama is lying to get votes?
      • ThinkOutTheBox, on 09/04/2008, -2/+13He is lying to get votes, hes a politician they all lie to get votes.
    • zeitgueist, on 09/05/2008, -2/+4Might want to listen to the whole answer instead of soundbites, big guy.
      • 140Suffolk, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Why don't you enlighten us?
      • zeitgueist, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2@140suffolk Sure.

        The goals of the surge were A) reduce violence B) force cooperation between rival factions in the Iraqi goverment and C) Push the Iraqi government to take control of it's own affairs. Keep in mind, the surge was essentially increasing troops to somewhere closer to the level that should have been there in the first place, but weren't due to gross mismanagement of the war.

        Obama's argument is that A has succeeded very well, due to increased presence and bribery of Sunni militias, but B and C haven't been successful at all.

        It's a complex position that doesn't lend itself to a soundbite. It's not at all a concession to conservatives unless you straight up didn't watch or read the entire comment.
  • tomasII, on 09/04/2008, -21/+80This needs to get to the front page......The majority of Diggers will have a stroke, knowing that their man has verified what most of us have known for a long long time.
    • zelig, on 09/04/2008, -6/+35This will NEVER reach the front page. Click the digg logo and take a look. No room for this when it's clogged with Sarah Palin hit pieces.
    • Kizilbash, on 09/05/2008, -5/+4He's not my man. And it's still a lie. The violence went down because 1) The US pays former Sunni insurgents not to fight. These will very likely start fighting again soon as the pro-Iranian Shi'ite government you installed is declaring war on them. 2) Iran coerced Muqtada al-Sadr into not resisting the US occupation anymore. 3) Baghdad is almost completely cleansed of Sunnis, nobody left to kill by the Shi'ite deathsquads and no Sunni terrorists left to blow up stuff.

      Nothing has bee resolved though. There is still a Shi'ite government in place that is hated by the Sunnis (and hell-bent on destroying the Sunni Awakening groups), the Muqtada followers are still disgruntled with the US occupation and the way they are ignored by the government as much as the Sunnis are and the Kurds and Arabs (Shi'ite and Sunni alike) still need to slug it out over Kirkuk (and some other areas).
      • tomasII, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Thank you Colin Powell. Since you are not there and since you have no firsthand knowledge and only spout the defeatist liberal talking points, I think I'll believe the reports from reporters who are there on the left and the right that say the surge has worked.
    • zeitgueist, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6Go ahead and get it there. The whole answer is very cogent and well thought out. Stop reading the headlines only, and start watching the interview.
  • Ridgeliner7, on 09/04/2008, -23/+70This story, along with all the other Obama flips will be buried, totally. He has screwed his left supporters on almost every issue they care about, yet they continue to get down on their knees to him and take it.

    Here is another story that should be front page: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Supports_P ...

    Obama & Company have recently been attacking Palin as being in the pocket of big oil, over this natural gas pipeline she pushed for. Problem is, a month or two ago, Obama's people were supporting it!
    • oldbookguy, on 09/04/2008, -13/+3I don't support Obama (nor Mccain for that matter) but why when any candidate has the balls to say I was wrong mean he / she flip - flopped?

      Personally I think that is a trait to be admired, a trait the current administration lacks and one I have not seen in McCain either.

      bobbarr2008.com, a man who was one of the first to say, I was wrong on the original Homeland Security Bill, it went too far.....which led to his demise at the hands of the GOP.

      .
      • farmerjohn48pan, on 09/04/2008, -0/+9He never really said "I was wrong" did he?
      • texasconnelly, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6He hasn't said he was wrong. He said “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

        That is a lie. He never said that until now.
      • didiman, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5Obama wouldn't admit he was wrong, O'Reilly asked him that a couple of times explicitly. That's what happens when you think you are above everyone else, he is incapable of admitting mistakes.
    • quidpro, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Yeah, he supported the natural gas pipeline. They have both (Palin and Obama) talked about this at least once since the day she became McCain's choice. So what? Welcome to the month of September.
  • barktwiggs, on 09/04/2008, -17/+57So, Obama's running on his judgement, not experience huh? What did he say he initially about the surge working or not? I can't quite remember. Somebody help me out here.
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 09/04/2008, -2/+7Isn't good judgment gained by experience? He said that it helped quell some of the violence but he would not say that it would work.
    • solboldi, on 09/05/2008, -4/+11Lol, he said it would fail.

    • BowieX, on 09/05/2008, -10/+5Nobody said the surge would fail.

      Obama simply said that Afghanistan was the more pressing issue, regardless of our supposed "duty" to "fix" Iraq. He voted against the Iraq surge because he was for an Afghanistan surge.

      Obama makes the case that, each day Afghanistan goes ignored and Usama bin Ladin gets away, military operations in the Middle East are a net failure, regardless of the microcosmic value of Iraqi operations. (Of course it would be great for US to have a sparkling Western democracy in Iraq, but the means through which this was achieved was reprehensible and is only going to cause more friction.)

      In my personal opinion, he's smart enough to know that, regardless, he has to be gushing about SOME part of the military industrial complex or he faces assassination. ... IMHO.
      • Rippleeffect, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry, You're wrong.

        http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/020 ...

        "Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those "factors" but because he thought it would fail. He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

        I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
  • Sfenton, on 09/04/2008, -26/+61This needs to get to the FRONT PAGE.

    If articles about Sarah Palin's husand impregnating his own daughter can get on the Front Page......
    • Hangingtree, on 11/04/2008, -2/+11wait.... seriously? if so link please.... I have to see it for myself.
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 09/04/2008, -1/+11Me too. If that is true they have sunk to a new low.
    • coffeebaby, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2how did i miss that?
  • dwiezel, on 09/04/2008, -19/+54This just shows another character flaw and weakness in a candidate that is patently unqualified to be President of the United States of America!
    • oldbookguy, on 09/04/2008, -14/+4
      what? A character flaw to admit you were wrong, you must be drinking too much of Oreilly's kool-aide.
      • farmerjohn48pan, on 09/04/2008, -3/+14Kool-aid is for the left. Bill serves cool refreshing truth.
      • Troika37, on 09/05/2008, -2/+4Old - Please link the interview in which Obama said "I was wrong to oppose the surge. I believed it would fail, but it succeeded."

        Thanks in advance.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 09/04/2008, -26/+46Wrong Senator Obama... John McCain imagined it.
    • sKiLLa182, on 09/05/2008, -7/+7Yep, and John McCain still thinks he's going to win this war too. How do you win an occupation?
      • didiman, on 09/05/2008, -5/+6skill here's some advice...sign off of digg, turn off your computer, put down your kool-aid, and go outside. You need the fresh air.
      • jakereilly, on 09/05/2008, -5/+4didiman here's some advice...sign off of digg, turn off your computer, put down your kool-aid, and go outside. You need the fresh air.
  • BillE3, on 09/04/2008, -20/+54Obama is turning into a Bill Clinton clone, jumping after any poll to look good. He has no platform to stand on and no commitment to anyone.
    • zeitgueist, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2There isn't any contradiction if you, you know, actually watch the full answer, as opposed to mashing buttons based on headlines.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/04/2008, -14/+59Good luck getting this to the front, I dugg it.
    It's from fox news + it's directly from Obama's mouth = FATAL ERROR 0x0FF29
    I the typical digg user have crashed into my personal blue screen of death.
    • TheDHC, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4A wild nonleftistdigger appears, protect the endangered diggers people, get this to FP
  • Rippleeffect, on 09/04/2008, -21/+18I'm glad he finally admitted what we've all known for a while now. But I thought that everything that Palin said last night in her speech was a lie.
    • Rippleeffect, on 09/04/2008, -3/+17Apparenty my sarcasm didn't come through. I'm sure that the Obama people say that his "flipflop" is a sign of good leadership, admitting when he's wrong. So why skewer Palin or McCain when they change their mind?

      I think the main difference between O and P/M is that O will flop based on who he's talking or pandering too. P/M will change their mind when they've been shown the error of their viewpoint.
      • farmerjohn48pan, on 09/04/2008, -2/+9Thanks for the clarification! I was about to digg you down!
      • Rippleeffect, on 09/04/2008, -3/+5@Farmer
        Yeah, that's what I get for trying humor when I'm on Digg at the office.
  • DubbGirl, on 09/04/2008, -19/+27Obama was doing well until he beat Hillary. He know represents old politics: Attack and Defend. I miss the old Obama when he used to play the race card and victim game.

    I am shouting this with my friends!!
  • Madrigalian, on 09/04/2008, -24/+40“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said

    McCain anticipated it. McCain fought for it. McCain made it happen. Despite the collective Libocrat's defeatist, hand wringing, McCain never faltered from the goal.

    In other words; while Obama ran around like the rest of the libocrat chicken little's screaming; "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!", McCain was winning the war and setting the stage for our men and women not to just come home, but to come home as victors.



    • elleigh2, on 09/05/2008, -3/+8Well said and Amen!
    • jakereilly, on 09/05/2008, -3/+5You made one mistake.

      The war isn't winnable.

      The surge didn't work because of mcSane. It worked because of several factors in Iraq.

      What is victory? You necons have YET to describe it.

      Killing all those darned terr'ists? Sorry, as long as the US follows the necon foreign policy of preemptive war, those people will still hate us. Its common sense.
  • TCSavant, on 09/04/2008, -18/+44Wowzers! Obama just gave McCain kudos on his judgment for a war-time decision. Is it Christmas already?
    • jayzDigga, on 09/04/2008, -1/+15By Christmas, Obama will be working his re-election to the Senate.
  • ReverendJon, on 09/04/2008, -20/+38We all thought the surge would work including Obama, The difference is that Obama wanted to call defeat and run hoping to score points with American voter's,when we lost. What a shame you bet against us Obama! Your nothing but a liberal whore that sells his country off for power and money! SHAME ON YOU! Ditto to your supporters!
    • elleigh2, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6Amen, Rev!
    • zeitgueist, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1Didn't watch the interview, did you?
    • GuyDanger, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1"Your nothing but a liberal whore that sells his country off for power and money"? Have you seen what has been happening to America? Are you blind? I don't understand how you right wing morons can't get your heads out of your asses long enough to see that Bush and his cronies have destroyed the fabric of what America stands for. McCain won't change a thing. Is that what you want, another puppet president? I am sure you realize you are on the losing side of all this. Digg is just the catalyst into which the change of this country will ride. Obama '08!!

      And ***** all you uneducated bastards. Bring it!
      • ReverendJon, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Wow! What a vocabulary for such an educated person, Instead of repeating liberal trashing points why not try to think for yourself? Perhaps you have been brain-screwed for so long you can't!
        PS McCain was the liberal choice for us in the event that you were on some distant planet having your intelligence upgraded, He is as liberal as Hillary Although, he is a hell of a lot better for this country then Obama!
        Say why not go back to your native planet if you are the only one there you could be voted most intelligent following Dirt!
  • Madrigalian, on 09/04/2008, -16/+34"He (Obama) repeated his campaign’s foreign policy position that Afghanistan must become the “central front” in the War on Terror."

    *****. Obama is scared of Iran. Period. Beyond that he has absolutely no concept (unlike Palin who clearly showed she understood this last night) of the fact that this is and always has been a proxy war, where Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, even Iran, etc are all just proxy theaters for a much larger and more dangerous economic conflict among super powers. And frankly, if Russia or China ever looked cross ways at him I swear he'd just piss himself and curl up in a little socialist ball singing kumbayah.

    Afghanistan has it's strategic importance, sure. But "Central Front"??? OMG please do not let this man become president.
    • lensman00, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Interesting argument, and I can see some validity to it. But can't it just be turned around and used against you the next time the importance of Israel as a kind of political litmus test comes up? And doesn't it suggest that the notion of "homeland security" is merely a stalking horse for a tighter domestic surveillance regime?
    • ChristophyBrown, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2To be honest, I can't even believe you'd rather McCain as president. It just hurts me, as a Canadian, to see such foolishness. It must be that you have different priorities of what you believe is important, such as going to war and staying at war, keeping America viewed as the "Evil Empire", whatever.

      Oh, and clearly Palin has a great understanding of world politics because she can read what the teleprompter says. I think she'd be the one to piss herself if "Big bad Russia or China" ever looked cross ways at her once your old ass McCain dies of a heart attack. Isn't the average life expectancy for males like 75? Isn't Mccain 72? So that means he'd OLDER than the average life expectancy of average American man by the third year. If he died, then Palin would become President and all her Moose hunting experience wouldn't do ***** for her.

      So I don't see how ANYBODY could pick Mccain over Obama. Just doesn't make sense.
  • jayzDigga, on 09/04/2008, -15/+32"Those who can't do teach" What you didn't know was that before Obama was a community organizer, he was a break dance instructor. He never could get the back spin or the head spin and now the media spin is showing to be a bust too.
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 09/04/2008, -2/+11It's not his fault that he couldn't master the head spin. His ears were catching too much wind.
  • Judasmac, on 09/04/2008, -14/+35FTA: “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

    In ways that nobody anticipated. That comment speaks volumes.
    • jayzDigga, on 09/04/2008, -1/+17John McCain Ad: "Obama was against the surge before he was for it"

      Huffington Post: "John McCain's new ad is full of lies, Obama was for the surge before he was against it"
  • mattowan, on 09/04/2008, -19/+34Obama admits McCain (oh and Bush, wow) were right!
    • sKiLLa182, on 09/05/2008, -3/+4No, he admitted that the surge reduced violence. Remember, McCain still wants to "win" this war. How does he want to win? By bringing the troops home with honor. What would be the difference if McCain brought the troops home in 3 - 4 years or if Obama brought them home in 2 - 3 years?

      Is there more honor in staying there longer? Either way they are leaving an occupation. The war won't end until they leave.
      • mattowan, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1The difference is McCain will bring the troops home when we win, i.e. Iraq is stable enough to survive without us. Obama wants to bring them home regardless of a lasting peace. Maybe Obaa should focus on his hometown of Chicago where more people were shot and killed this summer than soldiers who died in Iraq.
  • Paultards, on 09/04/2008, -22/+20The Ron Paul's, the Harry Reids and the other negative folks in Congress are eating their words, big time. Paul said we couldn't win and Reid said we already lost....Fortunately we have strong leaders in this country and not a bunch of wimps like these two..Obama is weak on defense, but is finally showing some improvement in that area
    • bills534, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2The occupation is far from over and far from winnable
  • HeartlandUSA, on 09/04/2008, -24/+18874 Dead, 1601 Wounded, 9 Kidnapped - Iraq in August 2008

    McCain 8/28/08: "Iraq is A Peaceful And Stable Country Now"

    http://heartlandusa.weebly.com/






    • Rippleeffect, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4Anyone have the statistics for the US this month?
    • Madrigalian, on 09/04/2008, -2/+8Nearly 125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer
      Total Is About Double The Death Toll In Iraq

      CHICAGO (CBS) ― An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That's nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
      http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shooti ...
      =====================================================

      Hey... isn't Barak from Chicago?
      • ssn697, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1What? How many soldiers were killed in Chicago? Why are you comparing soldier deaths, instead of overall deaths? No one else counts?
    • doctorfungi, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Heartland,

      The reported monthly death toll of Iraqi civilians decreased in August from July.
      http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

      Now, I understand that these numbers may not be entirely accurate, as the methodology used only counts reported deaths, but there is still a consistent trend of decreasing casualty counts.

      No one said the surge would make the deaths drop to 0, but it has worked at reducing them massively.
  • 140Suffolk, on 09/04/2008, -20/+24So in other words, if Obama had been president, he'd would NOT have approved the surge. And we'd have lost Iraq to al Qaida by now. They'd have control of a big chunk of the world's oil.
    • Kizilbash, on 09/05/2008, -8/+13You are an idiot. Al Qaeda never stood a chance of controlling Iraq. It is a SUNNI group. Iraq is 60 percent SHI'ITE Arab and only about 20 percent Sunni Arab, with the rest Kurds who are ruled by secular Marxist parties (though most of them are Sunni, there are Shi'ite Kurds as well as Yazidis and other religious minorities) and a handful of Christians. It is Iran that stood a chance of controlling Iraq the minute you walked in. And it does now. Congratulations.

      But then, like your hero McCain you know ***** about Iraq and don't give a ***** about it either.
      • stix213, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1Yeah you are right! A Sunni group could NEVER control Iraq!!!

        Ohhh wait.... Saddam's Ba'ath party was actually a Sunni group and controlled Iraq with an iron fist with ease.

        But I thought you were a freaking genius on Iraq?
    • jstohler, on 09/05/2008, -3/+9If Obama had been president, we would have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the mission there and never wasted our time on that podunk country in the first place.
  • Madrigalian, on 09/04/2008, -18/+31Nearly 125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer
    Total Is About Double The Death Toll In Iraq

    CHICAGO (CBS) ― An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That's nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
    http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shooti ...
    =====================================================

    Hey... isn't Barak from Chicago?
    • kebinusan, on 09/05/2008, -5/+3Want to send our troops to keep the peace at home now?
      • Madrigalian, on 09/05/2008, -3/+4No, I want to throw out the liberal idiots in charge who facilitate criminal thuggery with their entitlements and hand gun bans and racist affirmative action programs. Idiots just like Obama, who was apparently a grand "community organizer" of these murderous neighborhoods.

        BTW, the Black Panthers called themselves community organizers too. Chicago knows all about "community organizers" like these. Their efforts (like Obama's) on behalf of the community are clear and apparent. Chicago is a racially charged war zone where you're more likely to be shot in your own front yard than if you actually drove a Humvee in Iraq.

        Why hasn't Obama demanded we withdraw from Illinois yet?
    • zeitgueist, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4American soldiers are the only deaths that count in Iraq. We should not look at any other deaths because civilians and brown people are worthless.
    • ClosedCaption, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Barack is from Chicago...So is Kanye West are you blaming shootings on Obama? What about Kanye?
    • bills534, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2wtf are you talking about?
    • ssn697, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1Amazing you keep getting Dugg up for this insanely stupid non-argument. It makes me wonder about the true motives of the "Conservatives"

      Again, since you seem to think only soldiers lives matter: How many soldiers were killed in Chicago?
  • nopRT, on 09/04/2008, -21/+7If you're beating your wife, hitting her harder would probably get the job done quicker, but that doesn't mean you should be beating your wife.

    Disappointed in Obama, but at least he's not promising more wife-beatings.
    • Smaulz, on 09/04/2008, -1/+10wha... huh?
    • Rippleeffect, on 09/05/2008, -1/+8That may be the worst analogy I've seen in a long while.
    • elleigh2, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6Dumb Ass!
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4You're right, you do beat your wife harder, seeing how she's not actually your wife, but some lady from across town who is trying to cut your head off in the name of a mythical figure.
      • jstohler, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1How exactly was Iraq going to cut off our head? With a big pile of sand?
      • farmerjohn48pan, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Ask Daniel Pearl that question......oh wait, you can't......An Iraqi terrorist cut his head off.
    • stix213, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2If your wife was trying to kill you, I would recommend beating her harder.
  • abran1984, on 09/04/2008, -13/+21If this doesn't make the frontpage the Digg bury brigade was in full effect.
    • ChristophyBrown, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1Oh god! Oh god! Negative things towards Obama, bury, bury, bury!
    • ssn697, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2It shouldn't make the front page. The interview had WAY more in it than these few words. No mention of O'Reilly agreeing with Obama about going into Iraq. The context of the words, being that NO ONE thought it would go the way it did.

      Nor that the troop level are staying up, and remaining up. The surge is a rise in troop levels that will last at least a year. It is also the level that Generals told Bush was needed from the start, but he ignored.

      Why the need to pick 2 words out of a 45 minute interview. It is trash, lowering the level of discourse yet again.
  • DuggDowner, on 09/04/2008, -19/+12The surge worked as long as you ignore the fact that it was supposed to be a short term increase in troops not a permanent one.
    • solboldi, on 09/05/2008, -3/+10It was never intended to be permanent. It was short-term move that worked.

      • DuggDowner, on 09/05/2008, -8/+3Except it's now permanent.
      • bendiggn, on 09/05/2008, -2/+3In order to determine that something is short-term you would have to define the "term" in a time-line. Bush didn't want to do that because it would have been deemed a failure.
        I military terminology a "short-term" surge is usually define in months, not years.
        A plan can't fail if you don't have a plan in the first place.
      • mediablitz, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Oh REALLY? So now you are calling Petraeus a liar? How un-American of you.

        Here, you the ring wingers who only listen to talking points:

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5728393&pa ...

        And since following a link that you aren't told to follow is agiainst the rules:

        "If Petraeus's recommendations are accepted, there would be no further reduction until early 2009, when one Army combat brigade that is due to go home would not replaced. Instead, the troops that would have replaced them are likely to go to Afghanistan."

        ""What's in front of the commander between now and the end of the year is a great deal of uncertainly," a senior military official told ABC News. "He's using everything he's got, and we don't see the landscape changing dramatically between now and the end of the year."

        Among the factors Petraeus cites are security needs surrounding upcoming provincial elections and the continued threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Another concern cited is uncertainty about the future of the so-called Sons of Iraq, the Sunni tribesman and former insurgents now working informally with coalition forces."


        So, unless we stay there, and keep paying the Iraqi's off, the surge collapses.
    • Rippleeffect, on 09/05/2008, -3/+6Permanent means forever. Has forever happened yet?
    • mustangmike53, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5The surge brigades have all come home. I guess that didn't make your talking points.

      http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=53340 ...

      http://www.army.com/news/item/3874

      • mediablitz, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1And the troop levels have remained, and WILL remain. I guess THAT didn't make your talking points:

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5728393&pa ...

        "The only drawdown Petraeus has called for, according to a senior military official familiar with his recommendation, is a modest reduction of two Marine battalions, or about 1,500 Marines, a tiny fraction of the 146,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq."

        Note the number, then run away...
    • Paultards, on 09/05/2008, -1/+0Better check your facts on that one
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1I know what you mean, it's similar to the temporary tax increases and bridge toll increases CA democrats levy on us.
  • koolmoecraig, on 09/05/2008, -19/+16Digg it down slaves. You know you will.
  • goodrich37, on 09/05/2008, -11/+18Well, at least he's telling the truth ... now. Any chance O'Reilly can get Reid to admit we didn't lose the war?
    • mrpetey, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2like you believe NoBama tells any truth???? (not that Reid has uttered a word of truth in his life). He just says what he needs to in order to get into office. he is just another slick willy. All about him, nothing about you or country. He just wants the power to tell you what to do. So why not just tell you what you want to hear to get that power.
  • coffee200am, on 09/05/2008, -19/+18NObama is scary. His foreign policy consists of Apologies and group hugs. That ain't gonna work. Jumma Carter x1000.
    • dinot, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4As opposed to bombing the living ***** out of every place we think we hate and creating MORE people who hate us, I'll take apologies and group hugs any day.
  • nixfu, on 09/05/2008, -11/+6
    He said he is willing to go to war if Iran gets too close to having a nuclear weapon....hear that anti-war pussies...OBAMA IS READY FOR WAR!!

    • mrpetey, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5Maybe a race war, class war, but not actual war to protect this great nation. The vapid idiot would sell us so short and let our @ss hang in the wind before defend this country.

      You are really bitching at "anti-war pussies" and you are voting for obama???? Damn I do hope that was sarcasm I just didn't get and was a little slow tonight. Otherwise - what a dumb@ss
    • 4mytroops, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5Obama taking this country to war over anything scares me about as much as an 8 year old kid whose only knowledge of war is the fact that he owns a Battleship game.
      • ssn697, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2You mean like Bush taking us to war in Iraq, and ignoring the advice of his generals for all those years, until we were almost defeated?

        Like that?
      • 4mytroops, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1No. I mean like war knocking at our door and Obama standing there like an idiot going uuuhhhh.

        Like that.
    • bills534, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1you people seem like you would be more comfortable in Nazi germany than in the USA. You are scared of somebody who wants to avoid wars? wtf is wrong with you?
  • buddywlkr3, on 09/05/2008, -7/+23When you listen to Obama clearly, I still don't believe that the success is being attributed to the surge. He speaks of other factors causing the success. And , he points out, there still has been no political success. They, of course have achieved more politically than the partisan Democratic congress here. They have been too busy trying to hold political show trials on Bush people.
  • hollywoodphony, on 09/05/2008, -12/+10Wow, you all knew the surge would work? It was that obvious? Because I don't recall any generals saying "this will definitely work". But I guess that I was wrong. Apparently, it was a sure thing. God thing Digg is populated by so many military strategists.

    I'm not sure how this is a "flip/flop" and I don't see why, rather than promote intelligent, civil discourse and promote this as "even the Democratic nominee acknowledges the Surge is working", everyone here has decided to play I told you so about something they know nothing of.
    • Troika37, on 09/05/2008, -5/+6McCain bet his political life on it working. Obama is on the record opposing it over and over.

      Who shows the best wartime judgment?
      • hollywoodphony, on 09/05/2008, -4/+1Probably the one who would have saved 4000 American lives by not getting into that war in the first place. That would be my vote. Good thing we got Saddam and his anthrax factories, though.
      • Troika37, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4Saved 4000 American lives by not getting into that war in the first place? Perhaps you really missed the fact that Iraqi forces fired on US planes EVERY DAY for over a decade. Perhaps you missed the fact that Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja.

        I guess your President wouldn't protect those American pilots who were enforcing UN-mandated no-fly zones. I guess your President would let ethnic cleansing continue at will without interference.

        Don't go moving the goalposts. You posted talking about how the surge is working and no one should point out anyone who opposed it. Now you're talking about the beginning of the war in 2003.
      • hollywoodphony, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Who's moving the goal posts? You asked who shows the best wartime judgment, but you want to limit that to one segment of time. It's easy now to say "Oh, we were right" because "only" 23 soldiers died in August. I didn't miss the fact that Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds at Halabja. In 1988. Before the first Iraq War. By your logic, we should be invading any number of countries right now. Luckily for the Somalis, they don't have any oil, so that won't happen. If we can just drop the combative attitude for 2 seconds and talk to each other as people, you know this war is about oil. It's not about no-fly zones, it's not about the Kurds. Not a single US plane was ever shot down by the Iraqis, not a single $14,000 reward was ever handed out. Our pilots didn't need any president to "protect" them. You won't listen to me, so read what the guy below me wrote. This is a war that was propagated by a military ignoramus who chose to listen to the wrong people, again and again. His mistakes have cost thousands of brave people their lives. I am thankful the surge worked. I'm sure Barack Obama is too, regardless of any political damage it may have cost, because nobody wants these soldiers to die. That seems like a pretty reasonable position to take.
    • Tarree, on 09/05/2008, -2/+4Anyone who knows anything about military history knows "the surge" would work. If Bush had invaded and occupied Iraq properly by well known military principles, we would have been where we are now years ago. Thousands of US soldiers and even more Iraqi citizens have died needlessly due to this obvious mistake. Bush was/is ignorant of military and world history and the principles that can be derived from them, as are many people who don't care to study History. He chose to listen to political advisers such as Donald Rumsfeld who may actually have been even more ignorant than Bush himself. Rumsfeld is a man with no discernible talent.

      Of course, this makes BHO even more of an ignoramus than Bush. BHO and the 'experts' he consulted are even more useless than Rumsfeld. After all, they saw the failure of the incorrect policy and deduced the correct policy would be even less efficacious. The whole lot of 'em have s*** for brains. It's not that they can't find the light switch in a dark room, it's that they don't believe there is a light switch.

      As far as what is 'victory' in Iraq, that is a good question. Victory in Iraq is pretty much the same as victory in the American Revolution or in Japan or Germany in World War II. That is, a sustainable non-repressive government that guarantees some degree of civil liberty and a disinclination to attack other civilized nations without some reasonable cause. While that is not precise and nothing is ever perfect, the defeat of Germany and Japan in WWII are pretty much the Gold Standard of victory. The defeat of Germany in WWI is the lowest standard of victory.

      Is victory possible in Irag? Well, of course it is! But the Bush administration has no stomach for it. The Iraqis are setting up schedules for American withdrawal. Can you imagine Germany or Japan doing that in 1947? No, of course you can't (if you know history.) Truman would have kicked the c*** out of them for even thinking it.

      It was the Democrats who came up with Unconditional Surrender in WWII and nuked Japan to get it. But they did and it worked! Truman went from massive, frequent Japanese suicide attacks to none. How? He kicked the c*** out of them, just as FDR would have. The Gold Standard. It was JFK who brought us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia to force Russian withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Cuba. First JFK talked to the Russians. Then they shipped nuclear missiles to Cuba. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Democrats are worse. Russia took its missiles back home.

      Bush would have trouble scoring an extra goal in a soccer match to protect the teams lead, let alone nuking Japan or stopping Russian freighters on the high seas.

      So is victory possible? Yes! Under Bush? No.
  • demicritter, on 09/05/2008, -16/+17What a pathetic piece of *****!

    A few months he declared we lost!
    • Terrk, on 09/05/2008, -4/+4Let me ask you this?

      Terrorists create random terrible acts, acting out against the people they hate.

      So how do you win?

      Ah, you can't. Because Terrorism isn't so much a nation, or a country, but an ideal.
    • sKiLLa182, on 09/05/2008, -4/+2You did lose. You will never win. It's like declaring a war on racism or any other crazy ideal. You can bomb whomever you want and kill whomever you like but at the end of the day there's still going to be racism, etc.

      Maybe in some crazy totalitarian regime where the government could watch and control everything you do. Maybe then they could stop whatever they wanted and declare a war on whatever they didn't like, but then you would be giving up those very freedoms you are trying to protect.
  • DealCracker, on 09/05/2008, -11/+14Obama takes the other side of an issue after being on the wrong side? No...say it isn't so!
    • sKiLLa182, on 09/05/2008, -4/+2No, he didn't at all. He said the surge worked to reduce violence. He didn't take another side and he still said he wanted to immediately begin a withdrawal of the troops.
      • DealCracker, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1He apposed the surge. If he had been in a position of power it never would have happened and we would have lost the war. Now he has decided that it was a good (even great) idea. That's a either and flip or a flop (can't keep track of all his positions to know which).
  • StepCousin, on 09/05/2008, -18/+7O'Reilly DOMINATED Hussein Osama bin Barack!!!
    • Terrk, on 09/05/2008, -2/+3See, even Republicans will stoop to the lowest level!
      • StepCousin, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1I'm sort of a Libertarian, but I stoop pretty low, too.
    • sKiLLa182, on 09/05/2008, -3/+1McCain is a famous brand of french fries.
    • StepCousin, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3You guys didn't like my new name for Barry?
  • incredibilistic, on 09/05/2008, -14/+15Okay, Obama admitted the surge worked. Fine. And I hope it does make it to the front page so we can have more intelligent discussion about it. But riddle me this McCainites: what does victory mean?

    I really want to know what victory in Iraq means. The fact that Bush is now in talks to get our troops home in a few years what is the message we give to the American people when they get home? Seriously, what does victory mean? What does it look like? What did we take away from this war (besides an enormous debt and wounded soldiers)? What did we gain by being in this war? Yeah, Sadam is no longer in power (although we put him there and considered him a non-threat before 9/11) but we took care of him years ago.

    One last thing, if you vote McCain into office there will be "more wars". These are not my words, those are John McCain's EXACT wars. Don't believe me, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w
    • SleighBoy, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3It's pretty foolish to assume that a non-Obama supporter is a McCain supporter. I detest them both equally.
    • stix213, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1At this point "victory" means taking away victory from the terrorist groups. Terrorist groups are now demoralized and find it harder to get new recruits for their cause because of "victory" in Iraq.

      The propaganda value of a rag-tag group of terrorists defeating the world's most powerful military machine is absolutely incalculable, and would lead to an explosion in terrorist recruitment (and attacks) worldwide.

      Yeah it might very well have been a mistake to have gone into Iraq in the first place, but to follow Obama in handing the terrorists the greatest propaganda tool imaginable by surrendering in Iraq is so foolish I can't believe you need this explained to you.

      Terrorist recruitment went through the roof when they succeeded in taking down the world trade center with minimal resources and just a good well thought out plan. Defeating the US military in a head to head fight is on a completely separate level.
  • DeskFlyer, on 09/05/2008, -12/+10What's wrong with proving you are an honest candidate willing to admit you were wrong about something on national television? That's the candidate I would vote for, unlike one who sticks to lies and attacks as basis for his campaign. You can bury me now, but just try to keep the spittle from your frothing mouths off your keyboards in the process, ok? Easy now....easy....
    • doctorfungi, on 09/05/2008, -4/+3Honesty doesn't generate foreign policy experience.
      • allodude, on 09/05/2008, -3/+8Neither does being the governor of Alaska. Hey-yo!
      • sKiLLa182, on 09/05/2008, -2/+7What does generate foreign policy experience? Being a P.O.W.? So if I'm held captive for a few years in some Russian gulag, do I gain ominous amounts of foreign policy experience?
      • doctorfungi, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2allodude,

        I agree with you, but I don't think the Palin decision had anything to do with foreign policy.

        sKiLLa182,

        21 years in the senate would generate foreign policy experience, even if being a military officer in prison wouldn't.
  • Terrk, on 09/05/2008, -16/+9Hoy ***** balls!

    You mean to tell me that if we send in MORE people to keep Iraq's ***** in line, that terrorism acts and casualties will decrease? That doesn't make any sense at all! /s

    Thank you for reminding me how dumb Dems and Republicans are.

  • shalstvedt, on 09/05/2008, -8/+17Not to put context on this or anything... but if you listen to the entirety of Obama's answer to Bill O'Reilly's question, you would understand his position. He states that, yes, the troop surge *reduced violence* considerably, and he admitted it did so to a greater degree than he expected. One cannot argue against that. But then he went on to explain that just putting more troops in Iraq, while it may reduce the violence, only gives less security responsibility to the Iraqis. If we put all of our resources into this war, yes, it can be reduced in impact significantly. But that is neither in the interest of Iraq or of the United States, and it is not what we should be doing. al-Maliki and Obama met during his European tour and the Iraqi PM supported Obama's plan and logic for withdrawal. Yes, the surge reduced violence temporarily, but it did not serve our long-term interests at all.
    • Madrigalian, on 09/05/2008, -6/+3Yes, but... yes, but... yes, but...

      Democrats are the party of "yes, but's". "It worked, but..." ; "You're right but..." ; "I voted for it but..." ; "We authorized it, but..." ; "We were successful but..." ; "Saddam is a dangerous threat, but..." ; "Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but..." ; "Of course we support Israel, but..." So on, and so on, ad nausea...

      Why don't they just say; "We must always rebuttal anything the right says or does, good or bad, right or wrong, we must always find a way to cloud any and all issues to favor the left while tearing down the right. All we have to do is say; "Yes, but..." and we can frame any argument as a "common sense" win for our selves and an indictment against conservatives regardless of any success."
      • jakereilly, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2And Republicans are the party of

        "Let's kill innocent people in a sovereign nations"

        "Let's take away our citizens personal freedoms!"

        Point?
      • hsunav, on 09/05/2008, -1/+0It's called not being a reactionary right wing *****.
      • Madrigalian, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Don't sweat it guys. Remember, you can always move the goal posts again and again until no matter what you will always get the last "Yeah, but..."

        I know you will.
      • ircgoliath, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Read the whole article and listen to the interview. This has nothing to do with "right wrong, right bad!" and everything to do with the fact that the world doesn't operate in black and white. The world operates in grays and that's where the "yes, but" comes in.

        Frankly I would rather have a president (democrat, republican, or other) that is capable of seeing what went right and what went wrong so the issues can be addressed. The actions of the current administration is to "stay the course" and completely ignore what's going wrong.
    • bills534, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1Finally, an intelligent comment. Most commenters here obviously didn't get past the description.
    • Rippleeffect, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2We needed more troops in there to quell the violence to allow the security forces time to properly train and maintain the peace. Any else realize how difficult it is to create a police/military force from scratch?

      We screwed up buy going in there in the manner we did in the first place. We screwed up by going in with too few troops to begin with. We screwed up by letting the violence get out of control. We needed those extra troops (against the request and desire of Obama) to fix our mistakes as best we could.

      You dont fix a mistake by turning and walking away. "Sorry we invaded your country. Here have it back in pieces"
  • sKiLLa182, on 09/05/2008, -10/+18So the surge ended the war in Iraq? Oh it didn't? Because Obama is trying to do that and the surge didn't help to end the occupation. It actually increased it. It was the opposite of a withdrawal, that's why he opposed it.

    All he acknowledges in this interview is that the surge worked to reduce violence. It didn't end the war. It didn't reduce the amount of troops in Iraq.
    • neveroddoreven, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1How do you know that withdrawl will end the war? It will end US's involvement in the war but who's to say that a civil war doesn't erupt again without the presence of the United States? Barrack doesnt talk about winning the war he talks about withdrawing. McCain is all about success. If it takes 1 more year or 5 the important thing is to build a stable Iraq and not lose the stability that we have fought for so hard. Even Obama has backtracked on his troop withdrawal strategy.
      • Buddhaismybuddy, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Dude, civil wars have been going on in the middle east for thousands of years.
  • Kizilbash, on 09/05/2008, -14/+10You can have your nice circle jerk, it's still a lie. The violence went down because 1) The US pays former Sunni insurgents not to fight. These will very likely start fighting again soon as the pro-Iranian Shi'ite government you installed is declaring war on them. 2) Iran coerced Muqtada al-Sadr into not resisting the US occupation anymore. 3) Baghdad is almost completely cleansed of Sunnis, nobody left to kill by the Shi'ite deathsquads and no Sunni terrorists left to blow up stuff (which also explains why the millions of refugees will not return any time soon, no Sunni neighborhoods or mixed neighborhoods to return to).

    Nothing has been resolved though. There is still a Shi'ite government in place that is hated by the Sunnis (and hell-bent on destroying the Sunni Awakening groups), the Muqtada followers are still disgruntled with the US occupation and the way they are ignored by the government as much as the Sunnis are and the Kurds and Arabs (Shi'ite and Sunni alike) still need to slug it out over Kirkuk (and some other areas).

    Obama proves yet again that he's not much of a candidate. It is only in comparison to the idiot McCain and the religious nut Palin that the Obama ticket is suddenly a credible alternative.
    • stix213, on 09/05/2008, -0/+21) Actually we pay them TO fight against the insurgents... and they only agreed to after the ass kicking the surge started to bring. So again, it was the surge.

      2) Hahaha - yeah Iran is really so pro US occupation as they have so much to gain by a US victory right next door. It had nothing to do with the surge forces combined with the new Iraqi military putting a royal ass wooping on Al-Sadr's militia, who are now nearly non-existant. Hard to tell your militia to fight the US when there isn't much militia left.

      3) That's completely false.
  • Kizilbash, on 09/05/2008, -12/+8Anyway, I'm sure you are all very pleased with yourselves now the US has installed the most pro-Iranian regime the Middle East has ever seen. Way to win dudes!

    Oh and:

    POW! POW! POW!
    • spankaccount, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1You don't read news papers, do you?
  • DocOctavius, on 09/05/2008, -11/+12You guys are retarded- he said the same thing he's been saying, only in a more exaggerated way. Of COURSE it's been a success- nobody is disputing that. His point is we still shouldn't have commited so much money and so many lives toward such a pointless "win" which will still never happen. If no more violence happens in Iraq, then good- it was still a waste of American lives and tax dollars.

    Obama proves yet again he's the best candidate. In comparison to the idiot McCain and the religous nut Palin that the Obama ticket is obviously the only one with any logic or conscience in their decision making and diplomatic skills.
    • Kizilbash, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1"nobody is disputing that"
      I think I just did...

      I agree with you on the rest of it though.
    • linuxdad, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1Pointless win, I would call that statement retarded but there are many people with mental problems that are more understanding of what Iraq and Afghanistan mean then you do. Have you looked at a map lately? What country is between them? We took out a dictator and his sons who relished killing and torturing (sorry panties on ones head is not torture) people on one side. We are taking out the Taliban a group that Hamas and Hezbollah aspire to be like on the other. In doing so we surround the biggest Islamic threat on the block. DUH!
  • ElHeffe, on 09/05/2008, -8/+13Yeah so what he said the surge is working... we still shouldn't have been there in the first place.
  • Waiting2awake, on 09/05/2008, -10/+12If the surged worked - why are Americans still dying on foreign soil? Sorry, can't win an occupation.
    • jwalt1776, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Al-an bar Province is solely controlled now by the Iraqi's, and their own police, and army. The biggest province, "There!" The green zone is also, "Occupation Free!" as you would call it!
      Idiotic Rhetoric, again!
    • hope4god, on 09/05/2008, -1/+0@Waiting? what are you saying out of the wrong hole? The surge is working Iraq is getting better and you ObamaGate cry babies cant stand that. Mother Clinton still has troops in Kosovo, we still have troops in Germany, S.Korea, what 50 years or longer since those wars ended? I can see your very unbiased? good thing you dont make decisions.
  • Flushnasty, on 09/05/2008, -8/+15LOL Burried. Read the whole thing and you'll see that its taken out of context.....like everything on fox. Oh and the surge did help reduce violence in Iraq. Too bad they all went to Afghanistan which is doing MUCH WORSE.
    • Slungsolow, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3The surge did little to bring down the violence in iraq. It was all a secondary operation as remarked by Bob Woodward in his newest book. This is based on a book from the same Washington Post editor who brought down watergate. Tsk tsk tsk.
  • linuxdad, on 09/05/2008, -11/+9Obama is too weaselly to admit in public and in front of his wacko left wing anti-American base that he realizes that the surge is working. Any agreement with the success of the surge would put Air America in to a tail spin!
    • Waiting2awake, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1How can you win an occupation? You can't. Start to see through the newspeak.
      • stix213, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Uhhh, but we have... so I don't see where you are coming from. Are you in some 2006 time bubble or something?
    • Slungsolow, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1You should try watching the news.
    • stix213, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1I'd like to digg your comment up, but to lie by implying that Air America isn't already in a tail spin prevents me.
  • 140Suffolk, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1
    Al Qaida "...never stood a chance of controlling Iraq." That's what you say. But it seems AQ thinks differently.

    Isn't al Qaida there in Iraq right now? Why are they there, if not to move in and take it over? Wasn't it Saddam and his Sunnis the ones running things in Shiite-majority Iraq for 30+ years? Weren't the Taliban a tiny minority that moved into Afghanistan and took it over? Both cases show that a tiny brutal minority can take over a Muslim state.
  • shadus, on 09/05/2008, -3/+2Sickening. Nothing like pandering to the right. This is exactly why I won't vote for Obama (not that I'd vote for McCain either.)

    I'd write in a candidate before I'd vote for the insane warmonger who wants to continue bush's failed policies or someone who thinks putting more of our troops in harms way is successful and absolves the telcos of responsibility for the violations of our civil liberties.

    Disgusting.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 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.