digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

General: Rumsfeld "Served Up Our Military A Huge Bowl of Chicken Feces"

thinkprogress.org — Today on MSNBC, retired General John Batiste — former commander of the First Infantry division in Iraq — said Defense Secretary Rumsfeld "served up our great military a huge bowl of chicken feces, and ever since then, our military and our country have been trying to turn this bowl into chicken salad." (Video)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • edgery, on 10/12/2007, -5/+63How many generals does it take to bring this idiocy in Iraq to an end?
    • tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -38/+15...did you mean "retired" generals?
    • remove, on 10/12/2007, -4/+50Nine retired generals (and a large list of Democrats and Republicans in Congress) have called for Rumsfeld's resignation.

      http://www.thedailybackground.com/2006/04/19/the-big-rumsfeld-resign-list/
    • Deschain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36tomboy501:

      General Batiste was in Iraq. His being retired now has little to do with how relevant his opinion is on the matter. Remember, this war hasn't been that long.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6I'd need some historical perspective to decide if this really means anything. For all I know, retired generals have always come out of the woodwork to bash their current defense secretary during every war we've ever been involved with.
    • marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -18/+11Yes retired generals do like to bash on going wars. Why do you think General MacArthur was drummed out during the Korean War? How about Patton’s out bursts about not finishing the job in WWII (go after the Russians)?
      If these guys had access to the 24 hour news all the time channels I guarantee you would have hear more about this.
      I think when Generals leave they don't have nothing else to do so the Monday morning QB the current war.
    • linuxps2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17its a little different in this case since he retired during the war that he is bashing, plus think what would happen to them if they were to do it while still serving... i mean c'mon!
    • fakerjohn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Bravo to Generals who give us their perspective.

      We know that Tony Snow, Bush, Cheney and any others in the administration aren't going to play straight with the american people, especially on the topic of D-for-Death Donald Rumsfeld. And with conservatives and liberals both claiming there are filters on all our news sources . . . if you can't trust a a retired general to give you an accurate portrayal of Rumsfeld's relationship with the armed services, who can you trust?

      Monday QB? Whatever. I always thought that was a funny analogy, especially when it's used by some couch potato who wasn't even in the game.
    • gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@remove, problem is like rummy says, there are thousands of generals that say (or say nothing) otherswise. even if he is lying it plays well. 1000s > 9 is the issue
    • mjohnson2112, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ Marvin

      That's not it at all. While they are in the military, they are not permitted to say anything derogatory towards their chain of command. It is only after retirement that they can finally speak their mind without fear of demotion or worse.

      This isn't new. Many of the generals that ran the initial war in Iraq (you know, before we declared victory) felt that Rumsfeld was mishandling the position back then. Batiste is saying what they cannot, but would like to.

      The only generals that would like Rumsfeld to stay in power are the ones who attained their position by being "Rummy Boys". Sanchez anyone?
    • gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Deschain: "Remember, this war hasn't been that long."

      We've now been at war in Iraq longer than we were at war with Germany in WWII. How long do you think the word "long" means???
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"...did you mean "retired" generals?"

      Retired generals probably have no experience or perspective compared to, say, your average digger...
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bring us a general that was not given a bad Officer Evaluation Form for poor performance
      and then those of us who know why the generals are upset with rumsfeld might listen. But to many in the military Know why Batiste has sours grapes.
      Just like Clark another substandard performer looking for a job with the democrats.
  • TechnoGuyRob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@edgery

    One. General higher intelligence.
  • steelmaverick, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2I don't get the chicken feces part? Did we really feed our troops chicken *****?

    And why does that guy sound so much like bush?
  • steve693, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I spent about 30 seconds questioning whether the "chicken feces" were a metaphor or literal chicken feces. . .
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11They gave the literal bowls of chicken feces to a naked pyramid of Iraqi prisoners.
  • SpannerX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26"Chicken Recipes
    Tasty Meal Ideas for Any Occasion Plus Recipes by Food Network Chefs"

    Gotta love Ads by Google
    • Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1maybe we should ask Alex and Heather to show us how to prepare it on Control-Alt-Chicken...
  • zelig, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4Hey, folkes, this isn't the Daily KOS
  • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -33/+4Zelig ...you are wrong. This is the Digg wing of Daily Kos. Digg is infested with the same liberal crap as Daily Kos. Every other story is an anti-bush one.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29It's comforting to know that being correct is now a liberal trait.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21"Digg is infested with the same liberal crap as Daily Kos."

      You can call it crap when it's speculation or opinion. What we have here is a fact -- This general did say this, and many other generals have said the same thing (sans the chicken feces metaphor).
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5"It's comforting to know that being correct is now a liberal trait."

      Don't you know? Being liberal is never having to be right. Just go with your feelings and you do good as a liberal.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2"You can call it crap when it's speculation or opinion. What we have here is a fact -- This general did say this, and many other generals have said the same thing (sans the chicken feces metaphor)."

      And I suppose generals are robots and don't have opinions? ROFL. For every general you can name with one opinion, I can name two with a contradictory opinions.
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"Being liberal is never having to be right."

      Takes a lot of balls to make a statement like this when your side has lied relentlessly, attacked our freedoms, looted the treasury, destroyed our good name world wide, launched a war against a country that was no threat to us, constantly violates our own laws and declares essentially that they aren't even bound by law, replaces science with lies, and this list could go on indefinitely. Crawl out of your hole mister if you can, and demand your brain back because clearly it has been replaced by some of that chicken *****.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Being liberal is never having to be right. Just go with your feelings and you do good as a liberal."

      That's a much better option than what Bush's conserva-fascists are offering.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"Takes a lot of balls to make a statement like this when your side has lied relentlessly, attacked our freedoms, looted the treasury, destroyed our good name world wide, launched a war against a country that was no threat to us, constantly violates our own laws and declares essentially that they aren't even bound by law, replaces science with lies, and this list could go on indefinitely. Crawl out of your hole mister if you can, and demand your brain back because clearly it has been replaced by some of that chicken *****."

      You know what they say about opinions ...yours are devoid of facts and stink to high heaven.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3"Being liberal is never having to be right. Just go with your feelings and you do good as a liberal."

      "That's a much better option than what Bush's conserva-fascists are offering."

      Thanks for agreeing my statement. Get through puberty first before you hurt yourself. Next.
    • Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Being liberal is never having to be right. Just go with your feelings and you do good as a liberal."

      You're thinking of Truthiness, and that is more of a conservative trait as Stephen Colbert portrays...look at Anne Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Anne Coulter feels that she was right in that Canada fought in Vietnam, but she was wrong. Bill O'Reilly felt there was a huge war on Christmas, but really, he was just blowing smoke out of his ass.

      Sen. Bill Frist was a doctor, but he felt Terry Schiavo wasn't in a consistent vegetative state..but really, she was.

      President Bush felt that Harriet Miers was a great choice for a Supreme Court Justice, regardless of her lack of judicial experience.

      Shall I go on?
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3SyDIGG, your posts are pure comedy gold.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"You're thinking of Truthiness, and that is more of a conservative trait as Stephen Colbert portrays...look at Anne Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Anne Coulter feels that she was right in that Canada fought in Vietnam, but she was wrong. Bill O'Reilly felt there was a huge war on Christmas, but really, he was just blowing smoke out of his ass.

      Sen. Bill Frist was a doctor, but he felt Terry Schiavo wasn't in a consistent vegetative state..but really, she was.

      President Bush felt that Harriet Miers was a great choice for a Supreme Court Justice, regardless of her lack of judicial experience.

      Shall I go on?"

      No don't go on ...you are done. Anyone who get news from Stephen Colbert/Jon Stewart/ The COMEDY Channel is done even before the debate starts. Yes ..."truthiness" is a conservative trait. Next.
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are brilliant. I think the news they report, as well as being comedic (and what about Prez Bush isn't comedic or tragic??), is very viable as balancing out the mainstream news being fed to us 24/7.

      Don't be brushing off Stewart and Colbert as not portraying real news just because they're on the comedy channel. They are far smarter than most of the talking heads I've seen on the tube.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are brilliant. I think the news they report, as well as being comedic (and what about Prez Bush isn't comedic or tragic??), is very viable as balancing out the mainstream news being fed to us 24/7.

      Don't be brushing off Stewart and Colbert as not portraying real news just because they're on the comedy channel. They are far smarter than most of the talking heads I've seen on the tube."

      Your are done ...see above. Next
  • stinknugget, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2He is AMERICAN, we DO NOT QUESTION American's.

    Its is not the American thing to do.





    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11So is ridiculous spacing supposed to be the new thing in getting your comment noticed?
    • stinknugget, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1Yes, you noticed it didnt you :)
  • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Don't get me wrong, I enjoy generals saying "chicken feces" as much as the next guy - but I think I really would prefer the comment in the context of the entire interview, as opposed to snipped out of the middle for shock value.
  • tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2As much as I hate how everything is going over there, I just cant take someone seriously when they say 'chicken feces'.
    • Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4For network TV he had to use the polite term.
  • Syntheto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Again, what difference does it make? Unless there's a revolution as in France in 1798 or in Russia in 1917, nothing will change. The only thing we've got going is that people can bitch all they want, and they won't get that knock on the door at 2 AM. BTW, 'Revolution' means an armed -- as in guns -- uprising where people get killed and atrocities are committed. Anybody can say "Bush Lied, People Died", but so what? Gee, that changes the way things are done in Washington, boy howdy. So, pay some entrepreneur for your bumper sticker, whether it's 'Support the Troops' , 'Impeach Bush Now' or whatever, but it doesn't do a damned thing. It's just noise. Just be glad that you can say it without getting shot or tortured. That's the real legacy of the American system: the right to bitch. Enjoy it.
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Syntheto, wtf does your post mean? What is your actual point? Your post makes no sense to me, and as it is I can't digg it up or down (although I could go down just on the basis of not having a clear point). I do agree that it's important to live in a country where we can bitch at whomever we want without getting jailed or shot, but that right secured by our country's founders is being eroded as we speak by the Bush Regime.

      How can you say "what difference does it make?" when it makes a huge difference what that moron does from his podium! I have a family member about to serve a second tour of duty in Iraq, starting next month. My daughter could get that "knock on the door at 2 AM" and it's something she dreads all the time, hearing that her husband has been made into a bullet-stopper or a roadbomb tripper, and for what? For a ***** war that has nothing to do with anything.

      Again, I don't know what your point was, but my immediate reaction was to get a little bristled, because you appear to not care about reality. But hey, I could be wrong. I sure hope I am.
    • RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Again, I don't know what your point was"

      The sumary of his post really is 'Everyone bitches, no one acts' thats the bottomline of it.
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Are you sure about that RickySan? I reread his/her post, and didn't really see that, although it's a valid sentiment. I do know, however, that a group of people bitching about things enough can often change policy (that's another constitutional freedom we have).

      Besides bitching about it, what do we do? I joined "ImpeachBush.org" and have signed petitions. I even bought a gun (oh liberal me) after 9/11 and Katrina convinced me I might need it to take care of my family in a disaster -- not participate in a Revolution, mind you, but ostensibly to use it on wild rabbits and deer to feed my family (oh liberal me!) and defend my home if I have to. Sounds crazy when I type it, but it made perfect sense at the time! :) What else can I do when there are pitifully few national guard left in our nation to protect us??
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh man another progressive realist..
      don't burst their bubbles.
      some of us are waiting for the revolution.
  • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I feel like I've been taking crazy pills!!!!

    Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this country? I mean, I feel like I'm sitting right in the middle of The Emporer's New Clothes: The Reality Show.

    Can someone explain to me how an apparent idiot is sitting at the helm of the United States and its military, sitting there for a *second* term, waving off a majority of experienced generals (retired military are the only ones who can speak their minds publicly against their "commander in chief") in favor of one person who is paid to keep the war going and who would obviously be better off posted somewhere in guantanimo bay? If you're gonna explain this to me, please don't just say, "Because he's the Decider!" How is it that he hasn't been impeached several times over?

    Doesn't that smirk tell anybody ANYTHING???
  • pjack91, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's not what I read:
    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51854
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1pjack91 -- Where in that link does it say "Retired Generals Support Rumsfeld's War"??

      I sure loved this quote, though:
      ==============
      "Come on, boys, we're getting shelled out there, and I can't believe the shots they're getting through our defense," said Rumsfeld, growing in confidence and passion as the speech went on. "Now, I know they're playing rough, men, and you're hurt, dazed, and demoralized, but there's no way we're gonna let this thing go into overtime, are we! It ain't over yet—not even close! This is our war! Our war! Our war!" The chanting troops immediately charged out of the barracks and regained possession of 80 percent of Iraq.
      ============== (from pjack91's link above)

      So we now have possession of 80 percent of Iraq -- or rather we have it AGAIN? How nice of Donny to remind our children whose war it is. When he said "Our war," I'm sure he was referring to himself and George Junior.

      Nah, that ain't propaganda, them's the facts!
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hook line & sinker (Some kind of fishing analogy I don't really get, but I am sure it applies when someone takes the onion as fact)

      Congrats pjack91
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Thank you. Thank you. **applause**
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Honestly read that Onion article thinking it must be some subsidiary of Fox! I don't get out much....
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Its nice seeing someone take it in stride instead of being indignant or becoming belligerent. I don't feel like googling it, but there have been cases when real news stories used the Onion as a source, with hilarious results.
    • DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sadly The Onion is beginning to sound more real than most of the mainstream media.
    • DSPGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@DocDEB: The Onion nailed it with a prescient article a few years ago.
      http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784


      Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'
      January 17, 2001 | Issue 37•01

      WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

      "My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

  • jamie939, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Rove, "Crank up that swift boat boys.....We got incomin".

    Limbaugh, "I've heard from reliable sources he is a member of NAMBLA."

    O'Reilly, "I've heard he lives in California, and you know what that means"
    • jamie939, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6IF YOU CAN'T WIN THE ARUGUMENT THEN MUDDY IT., typical Rovian strategy.
    • ChadN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I like to think of it as "If you can't change the signal, raise the noise."
  • mooheiferghandi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I'm sorry. You meant James Carville, right?
  • loquax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In his best Homer voice--"MMMM chicken fececes....."
  • honkyman5000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6These generals don't like change. Rumsfeld, whether you like it or not, implements change. He was the one who led the battle to do away with the draft which I'm sure generals didn't like either.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I would say the biggest change the general disapprove of is losing.
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Oh, okay, so just because he "led the battle to do away with the draft," this means that we should condone and praise his every decision? Sounds like someone has been in a cult just a leedle too long!
    • DawgWyatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Rumsfeld, whether you like it or not, implements change. He was the one who led the battle to do away with the draft."

      Sorry, honkyman5000, but I disagree that Rumsfeld’s opposition to draft is for virtuous reasons. It’s self-serving.

      They (the administration) don’t have the cajones to reinstitute the draft. Doing so would be too out-in-the-open, and would intensify public outcry against the war. And, I suspect, public opposition would make Vietnam-era draft-opposition seem like a picnic.

      Instead, their strategy is the so-called “backdoor draft,” e.g. the recent recall of inactive reserve Marines who’ve already served, and liberal use of the stop-loss policy. It’s a thinly disguised draft that places a harsh burden on those who have served voluntarily.

      If we’re going to have a draft, let’s do it openly, and let the chips fall where they may
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2most generals don't want a draft.. the quality of troops would be poor and they dont' need "cannon fodder" they need smart soliders that can handle themselves. Drafts work when it's about both sides killing more people.. we're way past that with Iraq, we aren't loosing enough troops to call it a "war" with a straight face.. it's imperialist occupation.. we've overwhelmingly won the real estate, just not the people. Also, drafted troops would mean removing many of the silly rules our voulanteer army has... the first off would be Gays... there'd be lots of "gays" just to get out. Many other military rules are only constitutional because you voulanteer to serve... if you compelled men to serve those rules couldn't be enforced the way they are now... generals would hate THAT even more.
  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4another general who didn't get his star because rummy cut his pet program.

    amazing how much attention these guys get. the other 1000 generals who agree with things never get a second over MSM coverage.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Yeah, Fox News really dropped the ball not finding a general that would say everything was going great in the Middle East. I mean if 1000s of them exist how hard could it be to find 1?
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Yeah, Fox News really dropped the ball not finding a general that would say everything was going great in the Middle East. I mean if 1000s of them exist how hard could it be to find 1?"

      Maybe the 1000 generals are busy doing their jobs and is against their code to speak for or against the current adminstration? Has it ever occurred to you the reason some generals retire or quit in the middle of a war? Think about it. Perhaps maybe they were disgruntled while serving and they dIdn't agree with the leadership ...thus early retirement??? If one believe in the mission, why the hell would one retire early? DOH.
  • mackdaddy187, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I thought it was BULL *****!
  • digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4rumsfeld is the guy giving bush a reach around, so he isnt going anywhere
  • unicornbeauty67, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7General: Rumsfeld "Served Up Our Military A Huge Bowl of Chicken Feces"

    I must say that I agree with this headline but Donald Rumsfeld shouldn't get all of the credit here, his co-conspirators should also be named, Dick (very appropriate name) Cheney and George W. Bush deserve their names on the 'wall of shame' right alongside Rummy!

    Sometimes I wonder if Bush being the religious fanatic that he is didn't invade Iraq in order to bring about the end of the world or Armageddon (as fanatics such as Bush would refer to it)! Rumsfeld being career military as he is, I can see how he has been enjoying all of the wars that this administration has been able to start. Bush being the religious zealot that he is began the wars and continues with them to try to bring about the end of the world so he can move onto the next life where he believes he will spend eternity in Heaven (little does he know that he's doomed to be reincarnated as a worm, the same thing he's acted like in this life), and as for Cheney's reasons for helping to start these wars there are two of them, quite simple, first of all money! All of the profits he's receiving from oil and from Haliburton contracts and secondly, even more simple than the first, is that he is just plain evil!

    The United States had absolutely no reason to invade Iraq...NONE!! We were attacked on 9/11/2001 by AL-Queda under orders from bin Laden. This administration has never been able to show any proof that any of this had links in Iraq or with Hussein. Had the evil trio of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld centered our military and money on the hunt for bin Laden then he would either be in custody or dead by now. But that wasn't important to them. They spent more time trying to figure out how to invade Iraq and oust Hussein than they ever did on trying to locate bin Laden and that is a disgrace!

    When Bush gets all defensive about the war in Iraq he begins to talk of all of the innocent people who died on September 11. Well I have news for him, George W. Bush and his cronies have more innocent blood on their hands than bin Laden does!

    This regime, the Bush Regime has definitely 'served up our military a huge bowl of chicken feces!' If Bush truly believes in his war, the war he started, then he needs to get those two daughters of his out of the nightclubs and into boot camp so they can train for a couple of tours of duty in Iraq!!!!

    This regime has blood on it's hands, blood that isn't going to wash off, it will never go away! They should be completely ashamed of themselves, charged with war crimes, the lot of them, and brought to justice!!
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2*** Standing Ovation ***
    • texastig, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5The USA DID have a reason to invade Iraq. Because Saddam was supporting al-qaeda. Hillary Clinton says it all here:
      http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
      "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ***He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members*** ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
      - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3texastig...
      Umm, let's see, that was 4 years ago. Nowadays we realize that the "intelligence" was faulty and/or fabricated by the war-mongers. Strangely, the reasons for starting the war to begin with have gone from a "War On Terror" to "Spreading Democracy."

      So tell me... why did the Bush Regime continue on after the "intelligence" was proven to be false and/or fabricated? Oh yeah, maybe the Regime had something to do with creating that intelligence...
    • gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"The United States had absolutely no reason to invade Iraq...NONE!!"

      None indeed. However, Baby Bush did. Who cares about stupid things like reasons when you've got a score to settle with your father?

      "See, Daddy? I can have a bigger war than you!"
    • SwordofKahless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why is texastig being modded down for providing that quote?
    • DSPGeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@texastig: Hillary made that speech because she believed the intelligence provided by the White House; too bad most of the stuff was pulled straight from Dick Cheney's ass instead of being real information. Matter of fact, the CIA wanted the WMD stuff pulled from Colin Powell's speech to the UN because the data was so rotten.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That intelligence has been around for 12 years, since the clinton administration.
      Kerry was saying before Bush got into office, so were a lot of other democrats. It appearently only became a lie when Bush entered office. So it is "who" is stating the information that makes it a truth or a lie.
      And I notice no similar reaction when Clinton was Bombing serb civilians over the "Truth" in Kosovo, nor any outrage that we are still there.
    • RealDCC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh, that speech by Sen. Clinton is trotted out by reactionaries all the time. They obviously hope no one reads it. In part it says -

      "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

      Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

      Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

      This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

      However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

      If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

      So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

      A UNILATERAL ATTACK ON THE PRESENT FACTS IS NOT A GOOD OPTION.

      Thanks for the reminder - and while at it, remember that she went on to say

      "While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

      If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

      If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

      If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want. "

      How prophetic. After this speech, the inspectors RETURNED to Iraq, U2 overflights were negotiated. Since that became inconvenient to Bush's vendetta plans, he, not Saddam, forced the withdrawl of the inspectors and began shock and awe. What we didn't know, but many suspected, was that shock and awe would erode into shock and aw *****.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Realidcc
      Hey, wake up
      We Bombed the snot out of Serbia, and kept bombing till they agreed to pull out of Kosovo, on the guarantee that once they had regime change and order was established, they could reenter.
      Then a whole assload of NATO troops entered Kosovo (late because the whole action was mishandled by Gen Wesley(kissing bill clinton buts) Clarks.
      You may not consider it an invasion, Serbia may see it differently. So did Greece and for that fact the only country that actually offered refuge to Kosovar Albanians, Macedonia, is now facing the same "insurgency", actually just Albanian Organized crime trying to seek power.
      Now come on ask me how I know this.....
  • gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2[I love Digg's inability to place comments where you wanted them... Moved]
  • SwordofKahless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think we could have won the hearts in minds if the goal was only to take out Saddam and the leadership then get out, or from the beginning the goal being to give the people what they want (a 3 way partition, Kurdistan, a Sunni state and a Shiite state in the south).

    Saddam's own generals were misled into believing WMD existed. All the intelligence agencies UK, Russia, US, etc all believed he was hiding WMD. The issue of WMD is irrelevant since he violated the cease fire agreements violating 17 UN resolutions. There was also the humanitarian crisis where sanctions were not hurting Saddam but the poor people who were powerless to do anything about the authoritarian regime they lived under.

    In addition he had sent the Iraqi republican guard to assassinate an ex-president Bush Sr. while visiting in Saudi Arabia. Whether you like Bush Sr. or not this and the issues above could not be ignored.

    Holding Bush and Rumsfeld accountable should be not about the reasons for going into Iraq but the handling of Iraq-Middle East foreign policy. Condi Rice should be the first person to be let go in this administration, particularly for the handling Hezbollah - Israeli conflict.
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0

      What's wrong with Saddam sending uniformed soilders to assinate a former commander in cheif of the USA? It's his duty as the "bad guy" in the story to at least try to kill somebody important. There was a US base there with soldiers and everything militray to attack. Don't forget Bush SR. ordered the deaths of thousands of his citizens/soliders.. Our current president ordered Saddam's nation invaded... All's fair in War!!! That's what the lines on the map are for. If you don't want to get shot at, stay inside your lines!!!

      Now I don't want anybody to get killed, but what purpose did Bush SR have in being in a declared war zone anyway? He's a former head of state, who's retired so that makes him a security risk to being captured and leaking sensitive info. Private citizens have no reason to be in a war zone... let alone celebraties. The former president put all sorts of soliders lives a risk for a little PR or "rubber necking" at the crisis area.
    • SwordofKahless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@mabhatter

      Saddam Hussein agreed to the cease fire and UN resolution ending the war in 1991. The assasination attempt on George HW Bush in Saudi Arabia by the Iraqi Republican guard was in 1993. Therefore he was not in a war zone nor were we at war.

      "Don't forget Bush SR. ordered the deaths of thousands of his citizens/soliders"

      In 1990 unprovoked Saddam brutally invaded and occupied Kuwait. The UN coalition of something like 38 nations pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and half way back to Baghdad. So trying to spin this as Bush Sr. ordering the killing of Iraqi's is out of line.
    • coolmojito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Um, just because Sadaam tried to assasinate his daddy doesn't give Jr. the right to have thousands of American soldiers killed, tens of thousands maimed for life, and how many iraqi deaths?
    • SwordofKahless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@coolmojito
      "Um, just because Sadaam tried to assasinate his daddy"

      This is a typical response I hear frequently from liberals and left leaning Democrats. It is unbelievable how people have no problem with an assasination as long as it is of a party they oppose. If it was Bill Clinton I doubt the response would be the same.

      The fact that he is his GW's father is irrelevant. If a foreign leader orders the assasination of an American citizen and worse an American president he should expect a visit by the US armed forces and rightfully so.
    • RealDCC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Revenge for the attack on daddy was already metted.

      The US and Britain unilaterally declared certain regions of Iraq "no fly zones", and for years bombed any military target of choice in them.

      However, reactionaries are correct that it was a motivator (however improper) for GW. Always the ne'er-do-well of the family, Georgie grasped that revenge theme instinctively. He employed the US military in his vendetta, and no facts were going to disuade him, nor would he allow any council to temper him.

      The Bush v. Hussein Feud was on, no matter what the consequences to America.
  • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If anyone is interested in reading a more in depth assessment of the situation in Iraq by retired General Barry McCaffrey, here is a link:

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/10643/iraq_observations.html

    In my opinion, reading this report is a far more constructive endeavor than sloganeering around some ex General's metaphorical musings about chicken *****.
    • DSPGeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0McCaffrey is known as a Kool-Aid drinker second only to Tommy Franks. I'd be inclined be believe someone who actually had boots on the ground leading forces in Iraq, rather than passing through on a whirlwind tour of selected spots.
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2General McCaffrey worked under the Clinton administration for several years. I hardly consider him a *****.

      His report mentions positive and negative. I consider it balanced.

      You'll have to do better than parroting the "kool aid" line we've all read on the internet a thousand times to refute what was written in this report.
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The Army's wheels are going to come off in the next 24 months. We are now in a period of considerable strategic peril. It's because Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and said, I cannot retreat from my position." - General Barry McCaffrey

      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015898,00.html

      Yes, yes....a real cool aid drinker, that one.
  • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OK, for those who don't know why the general is retiring

    After a year and a half of notice (that is orders in hand stating that it was so)
    that his division was to deploy to Iraq, one of the Brigades in the 1st division (Out of Vilseck, GE) was rated as "Needs Training" , and was unable to deploy to Iraq

    Of course, 40 years ago if he had had the balls to do something so stupid as complain that the Country got into a war, that after a year, he was still not ready to fight, some one in the press might have pointed out that little fact. but it does not fit well with Mainstream media/Democrat/Neo-Com action line.
    Mores the pity
    • RealDCC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0(1) Source?

      (2) With the military so stretched, using up resources and consuming training material on the field of battle, could there have been some underlying reason for a readiness problem? In early August, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged at a news conference in the Pentagon that the US military has reported a shortage of equipment and a declining capacity of combat readiness after a prolonged war engagement. There are other indicators -

      http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,107179,00.html :: "Up to two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades are not ready for wartime missions, largely because they are hampered by equipment shortfalls"

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5640843 :: "The war in Iraq is taking a toll on the Army National Guard's readiness for future combat duty. The plight of the Arkansas National Guard is a case in point: It was forced to leave millions of dollars of equipment in Iraq."

    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was in the 101st at the time, I know people who were in the 1st, the whole freeking army knows what happened with batiste. He was a Political general and was known as a political general for a long time. Think Al Haig. I don't need to research the internet to find out that for along time now the 1st Infantry has been nicknamed the worst infantry division. and there are no bad soldiers, only bad generals. and up to 2/3rd of the brigades have been in that shape for 20 years. Who you going to blame that on
  • mrgardon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Generals like Batiste are our last line of defense. Those Generals who would refuse an order from Bush to go into an unnecessary war must be told that the American people support them.
    • unicornbeauty67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0You are absolutely right on!! The incompetence shown by Bush and his cronies is so extreme that not only should the brave men and women of the military refuse to take orders from them, but I don't think any of them are even competent enough to have their orders taken in a restaurant!

      Funny how Bush and company wormed their way around reinstating the draft. This had been a hot button issue during the last election, the election that John Kerry won by popular demand. During the debates reinstating the draft was mentioned a few times and Bush said that if he were reappointed president by the Supreme Court then he would not begin the draft again....low and behold he kept that one promise. But at what cost? Because he chose to keep that one promise out of all the promises he made, he's had thousands of our very brave National Guardsmen activated and they along with those already active duty, have been sent into a war zone that has quickly turned into a civil war in Iraq! Not only have these men and women been activated but they and the already active duty military personnel have had to do tour after tour after tour in Iraq! He's held these men and women past their 'out date' against their will! This is angering in it's own right, but then there is the fact that he's left us in the USA completely unprotected and vulnerable! We count on the men and women of the National Guard in times of disaster. Had Louisiana not been short on Guardsmen then they would have been there to help in the evacuation of New Orleans and other towns hit so hard by Hurricane Katrina last year, saving lives! The families in the mid-west have been having to endure tornado after tornado without the aid of the National Guardsmen and this is costing lives and money! One of Bush 's famous Bushisms, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." This is crap! Al Quad is not some rag-tag group, they're organized, they have patience and they plan. By "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here," is not only wearing out the troops who live but it is leaving us completely vulnerable to another attack! We need our troops here to protect us! I COMPLETELY SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! These are the bravest men and women around! But Bush and his cronies should be charged with war crimes for the deaths of these brave people and an additional charge of crimes against humanity should be brought against them!
  • MajorityRules, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You're all a bunch of ***** idiots. You deserve the chem/bio/nuke you get for undermining our country's effort to protect your sorry asses. I'm not kidding.. I hope you remember this when you gasp your last breath. This general is angry because our government backed off to appease your bleeding heart 'war-wariness'.

    Something must be said for you democrats though... you are all puppets of our forefathers. You are the idiot opposition to make the real government.. the true power.. feel better about themselves and realize how 'not' to do things. Good job.
    (Do you really think your own people chose the 'donkey' (ass) as your mascot?)

    The war goes on.. whether you want it to or not. And you'll probably get to live as a result. I'm going to go contemplate the pros and cons.
  • unicornbeauty67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey majority rules, what chem/bio/nuke are you referring to? Last I heard, Sadaam didn't have any of those! Even that bumbling, smirking idiot who lives in the White House has admitted that Iraq doesn't have any 'weapons of mass destruction,' so if you have knowledge that the rest of us don't, please do share.

    As for us Democrats "all being puppets of our forefathers," beats you repuklicans er, I mean repubicans, er, republicans (sorry I graduated with GW Bush, hence my literacy troubles), being puppets of this kool-aid serving, cult administration!

    You say," this war goes on whether you want it to or not." Well, obviously we don't want it to and you say that we'll probably get to live as a result, is that a sick joke? Do you pay attention to how many of us die every single day as a result of this republican oil mongering war? Why don't you tell the parents, siblings, spouses and children of our dead veterans that we get to live as a result of this war because their dead family members might just disagree with that ignorant statement of yours!

    Instead of contemplating the pros and cons, why don't you head down to the local recruiting office and volunteer to serve as a bullet stopper in Iraq? That would be much more useful than your ***** "contemplating!"

    On a final note, your name, MajorityRules is way out of date. If majority ruled then we would have an intelligent president right now, John Kerry, because he received the majority of votes!
  • sensoukami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The rampant inability and utter unwillingness of people on EITHER SIDE of this debate to engage in meaningful and intelligent conversation is truly tragic.

    Nobody seems to want to admit that everyone is full of *****, lying, distorting truth, manipulating information, evading responsibility and accountability. Both Left and Right need to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses, and soon.

    Every messenger is shot, every motive questioned, every truth becomes inconvenient, every mistake becomes a capital offense. The polarization of debate and politics in the US is one of the great tragedies of our times, and reading this comment section doesn't make me in the slightest bit any less pessismistic.
  • MajorityRules, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@unicornbeauty67
    >admitted that Iraq doesn't have any 'weapons of mass destruction,' so if you have knowledge that the rest of us don't, please do share
    ************
    Heard of Persian Gulf Syndrome? Are you one of those people who believe it was sunshine exposed Diet Coke that gave us PGS.. or perhaps bug spray? Please say no. To answer two of your questions at once, I was there for a long time during the first war, and yes I saw them. Even your French butt buddies say that they had WMDs, but don't know where they are now. Smell some coffee with me for a sec; Iran and Syria.
    *********
    >Why don't you tell the parents, siblings, spouses and children of our dead veterans that we get to live as a result of this war because their dead family members might just disagree with that ignorant statement of yours!
    *********
    I know a lot of them and they, without exception, support the war. These are heroes and families of heroes. It's people like you who protest at the funerals of servicemen and pretend to yourself that you're doing their families a favor. They abhor you and everyone like you. You spit on the graves of anyone who shed blood to make sure you don't have to. I sit here a disabled vet, in total agreement with our current administration's policy to wage war on terrorism. Thank God we have a military base of operations (Iraq) right in the center of terror central. If Carrie were in office we'd have bases here in the states to deal with the problem, oh.. and roadside bombs here in the states.

    We've lost around 3000 people in over 3 years, some of them I fought and bled with. That's less people than the first day of most wars. You remain safe because of these brave men and women and cry about their gift to you as if you have sacrificed ANYTHING in your entire life. You are a self serving, ignorant, spoon-fed, pussy.

    Was that politically incorrect or too intolerant? LEAVE and go to France.. plenty of anal sex and relative truth there for you and all of your liberal friends.
  • unicornbeauty67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MajorityRules said: "I know a lot of them and they, without exception, support the war. These are heroes and families of heroes. It's people like you who protest at the funerals of servicemen and pretend to yourself that you're doing their families a favor. They abhor you and everyone like you. You spit on the graves of anyone who shed blood to make sure you don't have to. I sit here a disabled vet, in total agreement with our current administration's policy to wage war on terrorism. Thank God we have a military base of operations (Iraq) right in the center of terror central. If Carrie were in office we'd have bases here in the states to deal with the problem, oh.. and roadside bombs here in the states."
    **
    So you say that you know "a lot of," parents, siblings, spouses and children of our dead veterans and that they according to you, "without exception, support the war." Unfortunately, I too know "a lot of the parents, siblings, spouses and children of our brave veterans who have died in GW Bush's quest for world domination and they "without exception support our troops but despise GW Bush for starting this war that caused them such heartache!" You try to make us believe that the surviving family members of the brave men and women of our military who were slaughtered in this illegal and immoral war support it? That is insane! Ever heard of Cindy Sheehan? I know for a fact that she doesn't "without exception support this war," and there are many more like her rather than like those who you say support the war for oil.
    ***
    You say, "It's people like you who protest at the funerals of servicemen and pretend to yourself that you're doing their families a favor." It's not people like me who protest at the funerals of servicemen, I've never in my life protested at anyones funeral!! I've never known anyone who protested at a funeral!! So your next statement that, "They abhor you and everyone like you," is completely wrong because they don't know me and never met me and absolutely never saw me protesting at a funeral!!
    ****
    You say, "You spit on the graves of anyone who shed blood to make sure you don't have to." I've NEVER SPIT ON ANYONES GRAVE, EVER! Although when GW Bush finally dies I'll make a special trip to spit on his grave!!!! But I'd never do anything but honor one of our servicemen whether they come home dead or alive, our servicemen didn't start this war, they didn't want this war and for the most part they don't support this war! Even those who do support it (troops that is), I am behind them and support them 100%! It's GW Bush, the ignoramus who so bravely guarded the Texas Borders while heroes were dying thousands of miles away in Viet Nam.
    ****
    Now this quote of yours had me laughing out loud! "If Carrie were in office we'd have bases here in the states to deal with the problem, oh.. and roadside bombs here in the states." First of all Senator Kerry is spelled completely wrong, as a disabled vet that you claim to be, perhaps you should use the GI Bill to educate yourself! Secondly, bases here in the states is EXACTLY what we need! If our borders and ports and airports were secure then we would be much more secure and the troops who have died, are dying and will die in the future in Iraq would be here at home protecting us and wouldn't be in such danger! The hijackers on 9/11/2001 were here illegally and there are many more just like them here now. We sure could use the manpower that is currently in place in Iraq to protect us here at home!
    ***
    Now with this you just want to show your immaturity: "We've lost around 3000 people in over 3 years, some of them I fought and bled with. That's less people than the first day of most wars. You remain safe because of these brave men and women and cry about their gift to you as if you have sacrificed ANYTHING in your entire life. You are a self serving, ignorant, spoon-fed, pussy." For one thing, you act as though losing 3000 people in 3 years is nothing, well I see it as sickening! As for me remaining safe because of these brave men and women, I will agree with you that these are extremely brave men and women but I wasn't planning on visiting Iraq anytime in the past, present or future and since Iraq had no WMD's, we would all be much safer if our brave troops were here at home with their families, guarding our borders, ports and airports than we are with them risking their lives senselessly in Iraq, and that includes them, they would be much safer too!
    ****
    So prove to me this, "You remain safe because of these brave men and women and cry about their gift to you as if you have sacrificed ANYTHING in your entire life. You are a self serving, ignorant, spoon-fed, pussy." When have i "cried about their gift to me?" Do I know you? You don't know what I may or may not have "sacrificed in my entire life!" I'm not "spoon-fed" as I feed myself and use forks when I see fit. I'm far from "ignorant."
    ****
    Your whiney little rant is just that! Unless you were at my Grandfather's military funeral and my Father's military funeral then don't tell me how I feel! But since you thought you that you would go on your little whining, name calling rant, here's mine to you...You are nothing but an ***** and a phony! Anyone can get online and claim to be a "disabled vet," you claim you were "there for a long time during the first war" well I'm here to tell you that the "first war" didn't last a long time, duh! It's fools like you who make things up that cause such disbelief in people! As for your "Was that politically incorrect or too intolerant? LEAVE and go to France.. plenty of anal sex and relative truth there for you and all of your liberal friends" I don't give a ***** about political correctness nor your intolerance! You can't make me "LEAVE," and it seems you know quite a bit about the French, you say they have "plenty of anal sex" there? Sorry, I'm not into anal sex, perhaps because I can't stand assholes...LIKE YOU! So go butt-***** yourself crazy in France if you like but stop your faking and lying cause it makes you sound just like GW Bush!
  •  

    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.