What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
100 Comments
- edgery, on 10/12/2007, -5/+63How many generals does it take to bring this idiocy in Iraq to an end?
- 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. - 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 - inactive, 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). - TechnoGuyRob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@edgery
One. General higher intelligence. - 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!
- 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 Crawl out of your hole mister if you can, and demand your brain back because clearly it has been replaced by some of that chicken *****. - 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.
- inactive, 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. - 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??? - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11So is ridiculous spacing supposed to be the new thing in getting your comment noticed?
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11They gave the literal bowls of chicken feces to a naked pyramid of Iraqi prisoners.
- 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. - 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.
- inactive, 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??? - steve693, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I spent about 30 seconds questioning whether the "chicken feces" were a metaphor or literal chicken feces. . .
- 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. - 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!! - 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. - 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? - 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. - DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sadly The Onion is beginning to sound more real than most of the mainstream media.
- 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 *****. - loquax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In his best Homer voice--"MMMM chicken fececes....."
- pjack91, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's not what I read:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51854 - SwordofKahless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why is texastig being modded down for providing that quote?
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - jamie939, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6IF YOU CAN'T WIN THE ARUGUMENT THEN MUDDY IT., typical Rovian strategy.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3SyDIGG, your posts are pure comedy gold.
- 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
- Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4For network TV he had to use the polite term.
- 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. - 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. - 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 - 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!
- 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. - 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 - 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 *****...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! - Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh man another progressive realist..
don't burst their bubbles.
some of us are waiting for the revolution. - stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I would say the biggest change the general disapprove of is losing.
- 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. - 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. - 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? - 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! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2[I love Digg's inability to place comments where you wanted them... Moved]
- 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... -
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is