What is Digg?49 Comments
- joewo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Their assertions of the delusional Bush administration-
If you delusionaly believe Michael Brown did a heckuva job in Katrina you may believe Donald Rumsfeld has done a good job in Iraq. Iraq is merely the foreign policy extension of Katrina's failure.
This is not an election but rather an intervention we have coming up next week.
It was quite Nixonian how the feeble attempt at a bad joke as told by John Kerry was turned into a comment against the troops instead of a swipe at the IQ of Bush. - ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Since when is it conservative to nevert take responsibility? - Andrew Sullivan
Since about 2001its been known that anything that happened from that date forward has been the fault of previous administrations, bad intel, Journalists with pesky questions, Newspapers, Former and Current Generals, Hollywood, Media in general, Gays, stupid science, bad reports that just so happen to disagree, Democrats, Liberals, Michael J Fox, Secular Progressives and the goddam kitchen sink. - cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16> The other party is not out to destroy America.
Correct. The Republican party isn't out to destroy America. They are doing what they believe is best for the country. Unfortunately, what they believe is best IS destroying America. No malice on their part, but the result is the same.
> People who can't get that through their skulls might as well press their hands against
> their ears and sing loudly because they'll blindly take whatever candidate their party
> offers them without even considering that there might be reasons for why other people
> would have differing opinions.
I'm all for other people having their own opinions. It's when people have their own facts that I get upset. - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18bury me
- Dopamini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7These people believed in prosecuting the war because they assumed that it would be managed competently. So did many major Democrats. The last several months have proven otherwise.
You expect people to change from extreme to the other? Unreasonable. - VitoC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6bush works in mysterious ways.................seriously mysterious ways.........
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Kerry has never exactly had a good sense of humor. It's kind of besides the point, doncha think?
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"If you're going to trash a strategy, you have to compare it to another better strategy. "
Bzzzzt! Wrong! It is not correct that in order to offer a valid criticism of something you need to offer an alternative. If the Space Shuttle blows up at launch I am fully qualified to say, "that was a disaster." The statement would not be less true if not accompanied by a full explanation of how NASA could avoid future explosions.
Jeez people. Please learn to think. - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Personally I'm sick of the Hate America crowd that have taken over digg."
+
"France is a bunch of pussy wipes with no balls, Russians are just plain stupid, Spaniard's are like the French, the English are pompous arses"
=
Hypocrite - deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's what happens when Kerry ad-libs. Stick to the script Senator.
- GooseKirk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I want to like Hitchens, I really do... like when he says it's degrading to even keep talking about the Kerry thing, everything he said on that topic was spot on. But then he beats up on Tenet. I don't much care about Tenet either way, but that seemed out of line. Woodward's "State of Denial" makes it very clear that Tenet was aware something was going on before 9/11 and did everything he could to make his feelings and what intel they had available to the administration... he even arranged a special meeting with Condi, who seemed profoundly disinterested. Why lay such heavy blame on Tenet?
And Sullivan can blow me. Nice to hear him speaking some sense now, but he could've easily been doing that four years ago. He's just a tool who moves with popular opinion - now that the meme is "Iraq is a disaster," he's johnny-on-the-spot to dress Bush down. Go get 'em, Sully... you brave, brave freethinker. - steveoco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think not respecting the opinions of the rest of the world is one of your major downfalls.
And I mean the republicans. Good luck with that. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4kind of awkward of him looking down and not directly at the camera. does he usually look that way?
- GooseKirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Interesting question, mu99ins. And in practical terms, what other options beyond those three are there? [4] Adapt a new strategy? Which would be what, exactly? Without concrete ideas, that sounds like just muddling through until we can achieve "peace with honor."
How does a uniformed army fight car bombs, suicide bombers, and kidnappings? They don't. They can't. I don't think it's ever worked, anywhere in the world, at any time. Maybe you could make an argument for Algeria, but that didn't really work out in the end. I live in Colombia where the uniformed army has been trying it for 50 years, and it hasn't worked yet. How do you defeat a radicalized insurgent population? There's no easy answer, but here's one clue: applied force doesn't make people less radical. Have you ever had your ass kicked so badly that you ended up liking the guy afterwards? - andyeddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"No one can objectively look at how this war has been conducted... and say that its been done well. Its a disaster."
I think we need to be careful about how we classify this war. The mass media, the entire left wing, many on right, overwhelmingly call the war a disaster. To think otherwise has become an Orwellian thought-crime.
I realize this isn't very American, but lets actually look objectively at this thing. OK, so Iraq is a disaster. Why? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Terrorist Have won.
- steveoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thanks heaps for the info mate. It seems some Americans can't stand a little positive advice.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Cut this guy a bit of slack. He's obviously not an American, and therefore doesn't really know all the issues revolving around this election. He's reading digg, and seeing all this stuff about our upcoming election and Bush, and he makes the assumption that Bush is up for reelection. And being a reasonable person of sound judgment, he wanted to implore us to not vote fir Bush again. I don't blame the guy, he's just trying to help us out.
Either that, or he's a visitor from our future who's traveled back in time to warn us of some horrific impending disaster, and he simply missed his mark by exactly two years....
Just so you know Steve, Bush is not on the ballet this year, but members of his party are, and these guys are the ones that are set up to be held accountable for Bush's actions. - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure, if your ready for the total social uprising...
- Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are ways that Directors of the CIA can get their
points across, even if it means they put their job on
the line. That's what the then acting CIA Director Vernon
Walters did when he was approached by the Nixon Admin to
help with the Watergate cover up. He told them, no, and if he
was asked again, he'd resign. And you can resign without
comment, or you can go public with your point.
Just trying to arrange a meeting does not cut it, if you're
sure the country will be attacked. The thing is, no one
knew when or if the country would be attacked. The
intelligence community was woefully ill-equipped to have
reliable information because they were organized to spy
in the Cold War Era, and the FBI and CIA were not sharing
information. Hindsight is 20-20, and after a sneak attack,
it's easy to point fingers, but either Tenet knew something
and didn't push it hard enough, or he had insufficient intel
and couldn't offer hard enough evidence of an attack.
The CIA has few people who can translate Middle Eastern
languages, so it's no wonder they have no leg to stand on.
But a CIA Director should communicate this inadequacy to
the government, including Congress and the POTUS, and
if he gets no response, put his job on the line to call attention
to the problem. - tuuky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2digg
- EComni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You mean, other than the pending civil war, the trudging guerilla war fighting insurgents in non-military garb, the thousands of civilians dead and the scandals such as Abu Ghraib and the murder/rape accusations that make us even more unpopular over there and everywhere else in the world, the completely ineffectual Iraqi government and security forces, the billions and billions of dollars spent with very little to show for, the reports by our generals saying that the war is not going as planned, the increase of al-Qaeda presence in a country that didn't have an al-Qaeda presence in a war that's supposed to be about reducing al-Qaeda presence, and the fact that we STILL haven't found any WMDs nor caught the man responsible for 9/11?
- tuuky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
How do those words taste, idiot? - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Rats are fleeing the sinking ship that is the Bush Administration.
- GooseKirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Peace with Honor" was Nixon's phrase for muddling through Vietnam in search of some kind of way to quit without "losing." It's extremely appliable here, because it's empty rhetoric, much like "stay the course" and "there's no place to hide from car bombers." These things are meaningless if you're trying to figure out HOW you're going to keep from getting blown up. In other words, there's no rational basis for believing that withdrawal from Iraq will lead to increased terror attacks in America - that's really just rationale for protecting a bruised ego. We're Americans - we hate to admit defeat. "Peace with honor" sounds so much better than "this is stupid and we surrender," doesn't it? Rather than call a spade a spade, we'll muddle through for years trying to figure a way out that lets us save face.
You misunderstood my point about having your ass kicked. But your reply is correct - radicalized Arabs also feel roughly that the US is "attacking civilians in the most cowardly way. I'm certain I'm not going to find respect for that ever."
Right. So you're not going to respect them for the continuing violence. They're not going to respect us for the continuing violence. Sounds like something needs to change, and fundamentally.
And let's not call it "competing factions." Iraq is in what is called a "civil war." I know this because, despite what the media may or may not call it based on whatever, Colombia has been in a state of "civil war" for decades, and the level of violence and hatred here is nothing compared to Iraq. I suppose you could call Croats, Serbs and Muslims "competing factions" in the 1990s as well. It's absolutely ridiculous to keep shying away from the simple fact that Iraq is in a state of civil war.
And - let me sure I have this straight - your solution is to train and equip Iraqis to fight each other better. I know your intention is to train and equip the government to take control (and the US has certainly been trying to do that already, with spectacularly poor results)... but I don't think that's a realistic way to look at it. The effect of such a policy would be to train and equip them to fight each other... and whichever side comes out with the shorter stick is going to blame us. If your goal is to de-radicalize them and protect us from car bombs, I don't follow the logic of how this is supposed to do the trick.
"Peace with Honor" again - the thing about withdrawing from Vietnam was that right-wingers were positive it would start a domino effect leading to the communists taking over America. You might recall that not happening. Five'll get you ten the same thing won't happen with car bombs in America. It's FUD, used to justify an irrationally macho bullheadedness.
At this point, though, overall, I say your solution is probably just as good or bad as any other. Except for that whole hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of Americans killed and wounded thing. There is a better solution to that aspect of it. - freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I actually agree with rhizome. If you think about it, it's very likely this is a false debate we're seeing here. What reason would Bush have to come out and actually endorse the two most controversial figures in his administration right now, without any real provocation? Practically every wants Rumsfeld gone, and Cheney's approval rating are even lower than Bush's. So, since Bush popularity is already about as low as it's going to get, why not endorse the guys everyone blames for Iraq, and then allow individual Republicans who are up for reelection to 'distance' themselves from Bush. This way, you give voters the impression that they can still vote Republican, and not vote for Bush. It's a classic red herring type situation, and has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it.
That's my conspiracy theory for today anyway. - Cornea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3A rampant idiot for not knowing how your electoral system works (although from most of the diggs on here it doesn't seem to work that well)? The kind of American centric world view that is getting the rest of the world scared.
- standalonematt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't believe the justification for war was even an issue in the clip - the argument was the incompetence in the handling of the war. 16 UN resolutions didn't mean the Bush Administration had to execute the war so poorly. So what your saying is that if you are for the war, then you have to have unconditional support for the way it was planned and executed. I know you took a stand and have a strong belief about the reasons for war - but please I hope your not dumb enough to believe that people don't have a right to question the job performance of our elected officials. I just hope if the dems get the house they have the guts to do some serious investigations and hearings into what happened, the billions of dollars lost (or stolen), and the reasons why the troops weren't properly equipped. If we just play politics with this and learn the lessons quickly - Iraq will then probably be unrecoverable, and we will make the same mistakes in future wars.
- crossers, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Bush is the worst president in whole history of USA. and whole world hate USA and all Bush's job!
http://www.shpe-sac.org
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org
http://www.chasr.org/ - GooseKirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree completely, however, it seems clear that Tenet had insufficient intel and couldn't offer hard enough evidence of an attack. All he had was "it looks like something big is coming." But was Tenet trying to turn around the bureaucracy and get more resources and get more organized? At what point can the guy say, "if I don't get another ten Arab speakers, I quit?" Seems kinda goofy to me. I think it's a lot easier to lay your job on the line for something clear, like Vernon Walters did.
Tenet goes to Condi and says, "something's up - we don't know what, but I think we need to try to figure it out." Condi rolls her eyes and says, "sure, OK." If you're Tenet, do you really say, "no, dammit, I've got a suspicion this might be big, and you need to take this seriously, or I quit!"
Of course, if you're Tenet, you know that this "big thing" could turn out to be just some dumbass like Richard Reid. Or it could really really be big. Do you quit if Condi won't take you seriously and ring the alarm bells, knowing you might be mistaken, or stay on the job and try to figure it out with what you've got? I don't see it as such a cut-and-dried decision, based on the info I've got.
I do see, however, a clear failure on the part of Condi Rice. Your CIA director calls for a very unusual meeting to discuss something he thinks might be very important... do you go, yeah, yeah, whatever... or do you say, what can I do to help you get to the bottom of this? That's pretty cut-and-dried, you ask me. It's not like, for example, Tenet has authority to move the FBI to pool resources... but I bet Condi could have.
Anyway, I'm still willing to give Tenet a little benefit of the doubt... obviously he sucked, but I don't see the evidence where he was such a colossal, shameful disgrace and the man responsible for letting 9/11 happen. I just don't know enough about what he was actually doing, and I doubt Hitch does, either. - wizbor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2>polyGone:
Nope just pointing out absurdity by being absurd... guess it was over your head.
>standalonmatt:
Thanks for showing us how stupid the left is.... "we must have hearings and investigations..." lol - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3For those of you who have attention spans that can
manage something other than hurried and interrupted
questions and answers, here's the latest from Hitchens:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152548 - Kallius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@invisiblesun
And this is why the rest of the world doesn't respect the opinions of Americans such as yourself. You think Bush's agenda is his and his alone? Do you really, truly believe those in power will not ensure a like-minded candidate (a "Bush III", if you will) gets "elected" into power?
"Rampant idiocy"? Pot calling kettle, more likely. - steveoco, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3America, your president is dangerous, if not for yourselves, vote him out for the rest of the world.
People are actually starting to get scared. What could potentially come out of 4 more years of Bush? - invisiblesun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4This is why Americans don't respect the opinions of the rest of the world. Please keep in mind our presidents can only hold two terms, so Bush is not on the ballot.
I'm getting scared of the rampant idiocy held by people like you. - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I don't blame you for giving Tenet some benefit of the doubt.
I think we can give all the government some of that, including
Bill Clinton and Condi Rice, too. The attack on 9/11 was new.
Not saying that there weren't warnings, but the realization that
it could happen, actually happen, did not take hold, until it
happened. There were indeed warnings that terrorists would
hijack jet airliners even before Bush was in office, but governments,
esp. democratic governments are slow to act. They're slow because
it takes popular political will to get action in a democracy. Prior
to 9/11, there was no way that airports would have accepted such
security as we have now. The terrorists are looking for other
weaknesses, possibly anthrax or bio terror. Maybe a huge bomb
in a SeaVan container. Once something like that happens, then
governments will react. - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1-GooseKirk
It's inaccurate to use the phrase, "Peace with Honor".
The coalition forces are trying to set up a viable democracy
in Iraq able to the defend itself. This isn't an honor project.
I've had the wind knocked out of me, and I've gotten broken fingers,
and sometimes I my anger turned to warmth towards those I've fought,
but that doesn't apply to the Battle for Iraq, or the World War Against Terror.
The enemy is attacking civilians in the most cowardly way. I'm certain
I'm not going to find respect for that ever.
You're correct that there are no easy answers. What we are
stuck with is to train and equip Iraqis to fight for themselves.
Unfortunately, there's competing factions amongst the Iraqis
themselves, some of whom are supported from outside country.
It's a very "iffy" situation. No guarantee of success.
It's a costly war, if compared to Kosovo or the 1st Gulf War.
But we have to realize it's not just a localized war. It's worldwide.
There's Middle Eastern terrorists in Europe, Asia and the New
World. Their strategy is to ambush civilians, police and military.
Basically, they ask the question, "How many people do we have
to kill before you surrender?"...and they aren't bothered by any
moral compunctions against killing women and children because
they're religious fanatics. Once we start surrendering, things
will get much worse. There's no place to hide from car bombers. - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's not peace with honor. The Battle for Iraq is part of a greater world war
that will last our lifespans. There's no peace involved. It's not like
Vietnam, where the North Vietnamese will stay in their region. There's a
revolution going on in the Middle East to set up a Pan Caliphate. Both the
Persians and al Qaeda realize that the West can be easily ejected from the
Middle East, it's just a matter of X amount of car bombs and kidnappings.
This reactionary Islam-ism is also going on in Europe, Asia and in the
New World. They're licking their chops. The West is folding like a
house of cards.
The coalition is trying to set up a third alternative in the Middle East.
Before the Iraqi elections, the Middle Easterners had to choose between
2 styles of dictatorship: secular dictatorships and reactionary religious
ones. If you had to choose between them, there wouldn't be much
difference to you as far as how your family would fare, so why would you
risk your life to fight infiltrators? However, with Democracy as a third
alternative, one in which there is an economic future and liberty, that
suddenly presents a real choice. The Iraqis that stood in long lines to vote,
proudly showing their purple fingers, made that choice. But the Left in this
world is fervently anti-Bush and has no stomach for war. War is tragic,
but make no mistake about it, al Qaeda and their competitor, the forces
of the Ayatollah in Iran, are not going to be defeated by outside forces.
They have to be defeated by their own people, and not people who are
choosing only between dictatorships. - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Everyone ready for the republican sweep on the 7th? I'm sure nobody will be surprised either.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3She was bring sexy back way before Timberlake.
- wizbor, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Personally I'm sick of the Hate America crowd that have taken over digg. The freak'n war was the result of Iraq's noncompliance to the terms of 16 resolutions of the Security Council since the Gulf War in 1990. The UN Security Council, passed unanimously resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 which gave the U.S. the obligation to act! Get over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
France is a bunch of pussy wipes with no balls, Russians are just plain stupid, Spaniard's are like the French, the English are pompous arses, etc, etc, etc.....The Irish on the other hand...they got Guinness...Brilliant! - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Hitchens is often "awesome", but not here. Sullivan is just
as he described Bush, "unhinged". Not because of his
opinion that the war is going badly, and not because, as
he has repeatedly stated, it's mismanaged. Those are
valid enough opinions, very easy things to charge, but
suffer fatally from generality, frustratingly so. If you're
going to trash a strategy, you have to compare it to another
better strategy.
The listener wonders, what it is that they'd do differently?
It's frustrating because the only things critics would do
differently are limited to only 3 things:
[1] Immediately withdraw; or [2] Withdraw to some schedule;
or [3] Increase troops strength. We're lucky if they mention
anything at all except vague charges or become obsessed over
semantics. The pundits are suddenly all military experts.
So few of them recognize the underground nature of asymmetrical
warfare. How is a uniformed army to fight an non-uniform force
that ambushes using car bombs, suicide bombers, and kidnappings?
The question is an important one, because they won't stop with Iraq.
- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7This whole "debate" is a mechanism of rolling out the administration's most loyal and deluded watercarriers, throwing out watered down criticism toward Bush in the hopes that it will help Republicans distance themselves enough to save a bit of bacon during the election.
These two ***** have regurgitated the most egregious illogic put forth by this administration for years and years. They were the true believers and so to really be making a statement against the administration they'd really have to have a rupture of thought. Nobody goes from being extremist to a middle grounder in the space of a couple weeks. Until they call for impeachment I'll have trouble believing that they've got the revolutionary change of heart going on that they'd need to have in order to have any credibility.
This is all to say that they're faking it. - tuuky, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Is it just me, or is that news anchor HOT!?!?!?!
- madchemst, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Kerry lost the election. Time for him to shut his mouth and get over it.
- cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Wrong #$!@! thread ... bury.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2+digg!!!! But you do have to admit that Hollywood, gays, and Michael J. Fox are pretty destructive. I mean, in that one Back to the Future he gets Biff to crash his car into a truckload of ***** . . . that pretty much convicts all three right there.
- pinoy22, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4Have you even heard the "joke" that John Kerry said? It wasn't even a joke until John Kerry said it did. And if it truely and whole heartedly was a joke, then he needs to work on his punchlines.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is