What is Digg?79 Comments
- grendel59, on 10/12/2007, -9/+62George Bush 1999:
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
George Bush 1999:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
So my question is: do we file these under "HYPOCRITE" or "LIE" like the following:
"Major combat operations are over." Bush, May 1st, 2003.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002
"We know where [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003 - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36but... but.. but... CLINTON!!!
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -12/+41What a hypocrite. When are the Democrats impeaching him?
- rtoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20The difference is Clinton actually listened to the American people and didn't go to war. Whereas Bush is doing whatever the hell he wants, while the majority of the American people are saying "Get the ***** out of Iraq!"
- Boor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Unlike Bush Clinton didn't do everything he wanted to, regardless of the ramifications. Sex scandal aside.
- horatius, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Impeach Cheney the Dick first.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14HAHAHHAHA BUSH IS GETTING OWNED BY THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS ON CNN RIGHT NOW
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13listzman: according the republicans and fox news, changing your position according to new information is flip-flopping. are you calling bush a flip-flopper?
- VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -7/+17Get out of my country mrwiggles123 for you are what is wrong with it.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"I am not a crook."
-- Bush, in an announcement in the near future - Ourai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Bush, you flip-flopper you.
Oh, wait. Wasn't that /your/ rallying cry? - trer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The difference is that Iraq has oil while Kosovo doesn't.
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"(we now know there was never any link, it was never a haven for terrorists)"
Actually Iraq IS a haven for terrorists now, we literally created one for them. - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9...and what is that?
- dattaway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Watching him on television now about him vetoing the bill. The left side of his face looks like he got into a fist fight. He's pissed.
- whorelock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Flip-floppin rules!
- KrnlPan1c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ rtoo
Or better yet, "Get the ***** out of office!" - gooddaysunshine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Kissinger is wanted for war crimes in multiple countrys
- dawg109, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11George Bush, Be careful when you point fingers because there are three pointing back at YOU. 1999 comments have come back to haunt him. LOLOL What a bunch of hypocrites.
- Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How about:
"We have to go into Iraq because it is a haven for Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations."
(we now know there was never any link, it was never a haven for terrorists)
"If we leave now, Iraq will be a haven from which Al Qaeda will be able to launch terrorist attacks"
Now if we can just give them some WMD's, then go back in time....VOILA! We've finally created an Iraq worthy of invasion! - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Kill two birds with one stone.
haha wow, seriously I knew jokes existed about Bush's name and Cheney's name, but I never put the two together that we have a Bush and a Dick in office.
/immaturity - artkit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4While I don't think this is a simple basis of comparison - I don't see anything defenseable about bush's change in stance then and now. Kosovo was a much more manageable conflict, yet he wanted to pull out... similar to Somalia. At that point, it was all about wag the dog and dogging Clinton's credibility as an extension of the Lewinski scandal. Though it is obviously some politicization on the otherside, there IS no other scandal other than those this president and his administration created since the very day people went ( or were disenfranchised rather) at the polls in 2000 and 2004. If Bush was opposed to a much more manageable conflict such as Kosovo, then what is the logic of continuing an unmanageable (many would rightly say unwinnable) war when the very presence of the U.S. is [excuse the pun] adding oil to the fire?
From CIA leaks, to switching focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, abuses at Abu Ghraib, a hasty invasion turned into a nasty occupation, Halliburton setting up base in Dubai, accounting mishaps in the millions, soldiers raping girls and murdering their families, "friendly fire" cover ups, false wmd claims, thousands of iraqi civilians killed- thereby bolstering insurgent recruitment, in addition to soldiers facing extended tours, lack of infrastructure to treat them when they return, and latest polls showing the majority of soldiers' morale is so low THEY want out within a year. Yea, what happens in the Middle East DOES affect the world - and judging from the downward spiral in this administration has created our presence in Iraq has made the world that much worse...
I'm not for a pull out necessary - just send all the chickenhawks who deceitfully ill conceived this war to finish out their terms in the same Iraq they claim they were liberating. If they've made so much progress let em' lay in the bed they made. - fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6MoveOn.org, please have a field day with this. This could make a great ad.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3IMHO, its more an indication that when push comes to shove, they'll say whatever is politically convinient for them at the time they're saying it. Hence Bush circa 1999 vs. Bush today. And Bush in 2003 saying "Mission Accomplished!" when it was convinient for him to try and take credit even though the reality of the situation was there wasn't that much credit to be had, vs Bush now claiming that setting a time table is surrendering in a war he's already declared us the victors in.
- k2thelew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6In other news: the sky is blue.
Excuse my sarcasm but is anyone actually surprised by this obvious, blatant contradiction? - dave11980, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"listzman: according the republicans and fox news, changing your position according to new information is flip-flopping. are you calling bush a flip-flopper?"
Thats one of the many problems with political parties, they group people together and judge them by the actions of a few. I never called anyone a flip flopper. I don't like Hillary now and I didn't like her when she was voting on the war.
This could be an easy argument to make as to why Clinton was right on not providing an exit strategy in Kosovo. the bottom line is we shouldn't be anywhere except in the US. The only reason we have a problem with Terrorists now is because of our meddling in their affairs in the last century. Continuing to do so will not fix the problem. - anaesthetica, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7He was also the architect of a decade of peace with the USSR in the middle of the Cold War and the beginning of the nuclear arms control regime. He was able to overcome ideologues in order to develop reasonable, rational relations with the USSR and with the PRC, to lessen global tensions, and to reduce the threat of international nuclear annihilation. He did plenty of objectionable things, but don't miss the forest for the trees. He's someone who was able to see the forest for the trees.
- givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes, yes they are.
- slantyeyed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3ummm, DUH? hello? Bush is a republican and he said this in criticism of the Pres Clinton, a democrat. It's still Dems and Reps today. They'll both flip-flop just to spite the other side.
- dave11980, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@horatius
If you impeach Dick first then Bush can appoint another vice president. Then impeaching Bush would get you a president that was never voted on. See Nixon/Ford. - TrojanGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Bush: a retreat-and-defeat cut-and-runner. And whatever else Republicans have labeled Democrats who have been calling for a timeline.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@anaesthetica
Don't you love being dugg down for presenting a rational argument?
Maybe if you had some profanity or meaningless catch phrases in your post, you would get dugg up. Here are some that the DiggLibs use. I like to include them in my conservative arguments because it seems to be what people Digg.
No war for oil!
Impeach Bush!
Selected not Elected!
9/11 was an inside job!
Bush and Enron!
Cheney and Haliburton!
CARL ROVE!!!!!
No WMD!
Saddam Was a gentle old man!
All conservatives are Christian racist wackos!
Iraq has nothing to do with war on terror!
Bush is Hitler!
Republicans are racist, homophobic, etc!
Christians are STUPID and should SHUT UP!
The Bible is a myth and the Qua ran is a beautiful work!
Libs are tolerant!
Generic Liberal Comment!
Jews are only persecuted outside of Israel!
Conservatives want to destroy the earth!
GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Clinton was impeached over a BJ!
B-b-b-but Clinton!
Neocon
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
CARL ROVE!!!!!!!!
There you go... - DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem I have is that there is never, ever, ever going to be a time in Iraq that the major conservative argument, that is "If we leave, terrorists are simply going to overthrow the government of Iraq" won't be a true as a threat. There is always going to be a radicalized, religious conservative element in the middle east that wants to see the democratic government toppled and replaced with some sort of religious regime. That argument seems irrational to me, since it can be used forever to justify this occupation.
Iraqis do not seem to be stepping up so Americans can step down, and threats to move troops out is the only way to get them to recognize that they have to a) organize themselves as a government, b) raise their own defenses against radicals, and c) contain the radicalization of their own people. Right now we're sitting in Iraq policing a civil war and acting as an infinite crutch; a crutch that cannot be sustained forever.
Oh yeah, and Karl Rove. - jsowder18, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Captain Insano shows no mercy!
- bastian89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@dariqaaz dug you up for the sweet art, but who cares about a bunch of numbers? Everyone who wants them, has them now and are reposting them... it's annoying. All of you go away.
- SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@donnelson
The opinions of anonymous ranters on the Digg site have exactly zero effect on politics in this country. Now deflate that large sense of self-importance that you seem to have.
My words of wisdom to you: no one that matters is listening to your political opinions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well they were a sponsor of terrorism... Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25k each. That enough should have been enough to justify invading. The WMD program (remember: they were mobile weapons labs) I believe they had and either destroyed or moved to Syria when the writing was on the wall.
Why they apparently lied about the yellowcake is beyond me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3badly
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I totally see the hypocrisy, but at the same time you can validly spin it as a knock against both parties.. that when push comes to shove they'll do what's right (in this case opposing a timetable) when they're in power. When out of power they throw mud at the other side by siding with a public opinion that they very well know to be illogical and dangerous.
And I have to point out another obvious fact: Kosovo was not as unstable as Iraq, and Iraq is in a much more strategically important region of the world than the Balkans. What happens in Kosovo stays in Kosovo, what happens in the Middle East affects everyone in the world. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The effort in Yugoslavia was a UN engagement. The withdrawal of US forces would have significantly reduced the UN forces in the region, but would have left the effort to other members of the UN to handle. Certainly there would have been a troop surge by other countries had the US pulled out. This surely would have ensured mission's continuation.
The problem that Bush and other Conservative Hawks had at the time was that this was the first time that the military was places expressly at the pleasure of the UN. Indeed the US armed forces because the UN armed forces. They did not want American forces to be commanded by UN Security Council. This is the basis for calls for withdrawal from the Right at the time. Whether or not they are (or were) right is another matter.
We all know that the US is basically going it alone in Iraq. Withdrawal of troops leaves Iraq with no support; a clear difference in consequence to Kosovo.
Comparing these 2 statements, however tempting and similar they may be, is academically irresponsible.
Now, you little Diggers, digg me down for making a well-thought out argument as you always do. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So you're saying it's a good idea to have a timetable now but not a good idea in 1999?
- SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No war for oil!
Impeach Bush!
Selected not Elected!
9/11 was an inside job!
Bush and Enron!
Cheney and Haliburton!
CARL ROVE!!!!!
No WMD!
Saddam Was a gentle old man!
All conservatives are Christian racist wackos!
Iraq has nothing to do with war on terror!
Bush is Hitler!
Republicans are racist, homophobic, etc!
Christians are STUPID and should SHUT UP!
The Bible is a myth and the Qua ran is a beautiful work!
Libs are tolerant!
Generic Liberal Comment!
Jews are only persecuted outside of Israel!
Conservatives want to destroy the earth!
GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Clinton was impeached over a BJ!
B-b-b-but Clinton!
Neocon
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
CARL ROVE!!!!!!!!
you can do better than that, *****. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@dawg109
I know you are...but what am I! - caution, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I guess he could have been asking for a timetable in a non-shooting phase of a very limited conflict as far as the US was concerned. He may have been discussing a different region of the world with different issues.
Making this comparison and relating it to Iraq makes Bush's critics look stupid.
Bush has done enough for you to criticize and provide your all-knowing, all-seeing, conspiracy-drenched hindsight goodness for the sheep to digg up. - SirBarnes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well, ask President Bush why he is changing his mind now
Breaking news: The President and the Vice President is conducting a phone poll to determine how many people would like to see them impeached - the number is 1-202-456-1111. Poll opens at 9:00AM 05/04/2007. You may vote early by calling earlier and leaving a message.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Cheney_wants_to_hear_your_opinion_on_why_they_should_be_impeached - faithhealer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Pile this onto the already mountainous heap of hypocrisy and hubris documented during this administration.
- appleann1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Rshack said.............."I want him dead."
That the way you debate, wishing someone dead? You've got a big problem. - saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wanted to? Try did. Dec 23, 1998.
His administration also started drawing the lines between the al-Quaeda and Iraq that the current administration is being blamed for. We blew up an aspirin factory back then over that one.
What I find odd is that a story criticizing a Republican from 1999 can make front page digg, but a similar article criticizing a Democrat from 1998 gets flatlined. Sure, the majority of Americans are thinking the grass is greener on the other side, but they'd realize it for being as dead brown as this side if they'd bother to look up past events and the reasoning of current events.
I really wish he would have surprised all the analysts and signed this bill. Let Iraq do whatever the hell it wants, America has more pressing domestic issues than to deal with that. -
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is