What is Digg?208 Comments
- emanggid, on 10/12/2007, -31/+206
finally! some politicians with balls! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+135"finally! some politicians with balls!"
Ironic that the new establishment is vanguarded by Nancy Pelosi. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+71We'll see if they really have the balls once Bush goes after Iran. Of course they could always pull a Gulf of Tonkin style staged event to get us into war with Iran.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -13/+62We're already fighting two losing wars on borrowed money in the middle east ... why *not* make it three....
- wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -10/+41the "constitutional confrontation" that the dems are talking about applies to Bush's use of the War Poers Act of 1933, where a President no longer has to declare war to send troops anywhere in the world. He can keep them abroad for 90 days, then the Congress has to decide whether or not they want the troops back. Since the War Powers Act of 1933 is obviously unconstitutional (it was never decided in the Supreme Court... no ones ever brought it up befre) it would seem that the dems would take this to the supreme court, thus FORCING bush to have to bring tropps back from the Middle East. Currently what happens is bush has sent troops abroad, then every 90 days since then the Congress would aprove of his actions, thus granting him another 90 days. Every 90 days that has happened, and I guess the Congress doesnt want that to happen anymore, and theyre in direct confrontation with Bush about it.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -12/+41Bush didn't even go into Iraq without Congressional approval. What makes them think he'd go into Iran without it?
- Kinsbane, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31I'm in agreement with what a commenter on the link said:
"yeah, but tell me why signing statements don't create a "constitutional confrontation"?" - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26This is looking like those CHECKS AND BALANCES our founding fathers talked about....
- dosx2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24@nixonrichard:
"Balls is what it takes to walk up to the president and punch him in the face..."
Ah, that's not balls, actually. That's assault. - 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30wouldn't storming the Iranian consulate in iraq count as going into Iran? I thought that consulates and what not are considered foreign soil...
http://digg.com/world_news/BREAKING_US_forces_storm_Iranian_consulate - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24I'll take "opposition"and "grandstanding" over rubber stamping" and "blank check writing" any day of the week.
President Bush has been using your credit card to rack up insane debt to lose a war that we shouldn't have started in the first place. Cut him off. Take your credit card back, and tell him no. - ggarenn, on 10/12/2007, -20/+33somebody needs to put bush in his place...
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19the country causing the most terrorism in the middle east right now is the united states. by definition.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13In regard to the War Powers Act of 1973. The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to get approval from congress within 60 days of engaging in a military action (90 in some cases). This Act was passed BY congress, FOR congress, so I'm pretty sure they can't claim it grants the president unconstitutional power. The president has 60 days . . . you can do a lot of damage to Iran in 60 days.
- Baconn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Constitutional confrontation" my ass, try impeachment and jail. I'm sick of debates. We elected a new Congress because we want out of Iraq; now we are sending more troops to Iraq and threatening Iran. Enough already!
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24Exile on a distant island, Bonaparte-style, would be my choice.
- silentex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Being a veteran does not excuse you of being a jackass.
And, if any party is guilty of being blinded by their agendas, I am certain it isn't the Democrats. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"...based on the SUSPICION..."
Actually the president and all of his cabinet told the american people that they had positive proof, "a smoking gun", etc.
It turned out to be a lie, but back in those days nobody thought a sitting US president would lie about something so important, or be willing to kill so many people to defend a particular lie. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16The Democrats stand in opposition to everything Bush does because Bush is wrong about everything! You are assuming that the Democrats would blindly oppose Bush's policies even if they were right, just to be un-Bush.
Go ahead, name a few things that we can say Bush was right about in hindsight. Seriously.
By the way, if you don't think Bush is trying to build support for another war in Iran, you are crazy. Technically he invaded Iranian soil today. - Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@ blapierre "Apparently Digg's auto-linking feature sucks so you have to copy-paste the link yourself."
So it's Digg's fault that the linked site has a referrer check? - mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If we all judged a country based on 1 person (it's leader), the world would judge the US pretty poorly. Oh wait they do.
Honestly, if you met an Iranian and had a game of Smash Bros with him, you could probably become friends. Don't judge an entire country based on 1 person.
@systemghost. No one wants Team America world police. If Iran did nuke Israel we won't blame the US, we'll blame Iran. - Xerodog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15@samdu
He had a majority in the house and senate. Approval was a piece of cake, then. He can't do anything willy-nilly anymore. - piratearggghhh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'd like to welcome back our old friend "checks and balances" to the US government.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17What solutions to the Iraq/Iran/Syria problems have the Dems put forward? It's hard to pay attention to their grandstanding when there's no alternatives offered. Someone point me to sources for what the Dems propose.
- ekstasis16, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Let's get ready to RUUUUUUUUUUUUUMBLE!
In this corner, weighing in at 178 lbs., the leader of the free world, the king of sting, the duke of puke (no...thats Bush Sr.), the man who believes Jesus speaks to him in his sleep....George W. Bush!
And in the opposite corner, weighing in at roughly 7500 lbs., its....uh....the Democrats? They're actually getting in the ring this time? Well, hell, return to your corners and let's have a nice, clean fight. No hits below the belt, except for Pelosi who won't feel a thing (theoretically). DING! - smitting, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Balls but no brains? We needed to send more troops 3 years ago. Now it's too late. I don't see how this is an inconsistent view, or flip-flopping.
Also, the indication that Bush wants to send troops to Iran is that a second carrier group is presently leaving Washington to join the other carrier group patrolling the Persian Gulf. - Baconn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Congress declares war, not Bush.
- Krisdafish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Sweet GOD, your kidding right?
The world is NOT BLACK AND WHITE and our government is NOT RED AND BLUE. The biggest problem here is that we like to lump things into two dichotomous categories and pretend they fit. If I'm a republican, then everything the democrats say and do is wrong... and vise versa.
Sorry, but the world and politics are simply too complex to be considered a saga of good V evil. I blame those damn red/blue maps from election season, we have somehow managed to think its an accurate representation. - evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15I think its the part were we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Iran is a major funder and supporter of terrorism in the Middle East.
- sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10You're right. Bush doesn't have to worry about Senate/House elections or his own re-election. He does, however, have to worry about a hostile House AND Senate, and a legacy of mindless destruction which he can only hope won't last eight days after he leaves office. And as for you last paragraph, I...
Say, was this a joke? - hode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
-George W. Bush - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"So why was THAT a good idea at the time,...."
Turns out THAT wasn't such a good idea at all. 3,000 American lives, $450 BILLION dollars, and 650,000 Iraqi dead later, we don't have anything to show, except the loss of most of our major allies.
It was to most representatives discredit that they believed the president when he told them america was in danger, when it patently wasn't. It was to their folly that they supported him at all. Most of them are sorry about it now.
The *smart* thing to do would be to build international support for disarming Iran, (a pretty easy sell), and use diplomacy, sanctions, and ultimately an international force that has the backing of the world behind it. Not some half-baked unilateral ***** at a time when our troops are stretched thin in two wars, living on borrowed billions. - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Everything Bush has done has been a bad move. I don't think he will break his record at this late date.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Breaking? What's breaking? Should we get out the duct tape?
So many things breaking these days. - mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You can't invade a nation just because they're building weapons. Pre-emptive wars is not a good thing. If it is a good policy to invade nations that might be building nukes, the US should invade every nation because they all might. It's not about what a nation might or might not do, it's all about what a nation does.
North Korea did develop nukes. They threatened that they would and they did. Even that doesn't give the US the right to invade them. The only reason one country should have the right to invade another, is to defend itself or an ally from an invading country. If this was followed by every country there would be no war, by definition if you can't attack without being attacked, no one could attack first. We should give this a try, let's never start a war only finish them. Don't give me that BS about "we were attacked first", because a terrorist attack by some Saudi citizens doesn't justify us invading 2 sovereign nations. - Brainwave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Nuclear Weapons are a waste of time, money and resources. Other countries already have enough of these things to annihilate life on the planet 20 times over. So logically... what is the point of building more? So we can destroy ourselves 50 times over??? Why build these weapons to stand up against others who literally have hundreds more? Fighting fire with fire leaves everyone burned.
- enharmonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If I had a My #1 Comment, I'd use it here. It's amazing to me how many people are so befuddled about what's going on here... It's shameful that elected officials could put their own personal agendas ahead of national security...
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@buelldozer
With that attitude we will never break way from oil. That attitude is why Bush started a war......over oil and money. People like you don't want America to have progress because the old way of doing things is fine as long as your son isn't fighting the wars. Right? You want someone else's sons to die or someone else country to be illegally occupied so you can continue live a wasteful, life based on consuming as much as you can. People like you have no shame.
Summiter, getting out IS a plan. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually none that tried to *prevent* our civil war. Just those that picked a side and backed it. ( Many thanks to our French allies who graciously backed the union. America shall never forget your generosity in its hour of need. )
- DooM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I do recall hearing 'Mission Accomplished' somewhere...
Anyway, we're not at war -- we WON the actual war. We're now performing police operations against terrorists... which we're losing. - exodii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I am an Iranian living in Iran, and I feel I must express my views on this.
As it stands, many Iranians are in support of America and would like to have diplomatic relations with the US.
Nobody wants Iran to be like Iraq. Military action would make things worse. I think that if the US took military action, it would destroy the hopes of many people here who regard the west as symbols of advancement and civilization.
On the other hand, I believe some SERIOUS action needs to be taken on behalf of the global community - Iran's people are faced with many problems, that would only become worse if the global community chose to side with our government and let them develop nuclear weapons. - jesushchrist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Um, because Bush is insane? As evidenced by his behavior of the past six years?
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The part where my three sons and other people's sons and daughters die. I have no problem if the only people who fight the war are the people who support it. Bet you wouldn't be so gungho then would you, you armchair Rambo.
- ekstasis16, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Awesome. I think we need to make Congress into a reality TV show on Bravo. They can all move into the white house and have awkward conversations with the Bush daughters at dinner. I mean, who wouldn't want to see senators hook up in dark room with night visions cameras. That's gold, baby!
- DooM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you actually heard the speech Bush gave you would know that he threatened both Iran and Syria which is why Biden did this today. But thanks for posting like you know what's going on, we appreciate it.
- crouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Constitutional confrontation" my ass, try impeachment and jail.
I believe that is what he was implying when he mentioned a Constitutional confrontation. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Oh, you mean the Social Security reform idea that would have cost us $3 trillion up front and caused millions of people to naively gamble away their retirement funds on junk bonds? Wall Street sure was licking their lips at the prospect of an entire generation of ignorant rubes to suck dry. Everyone else saw Social Security privatization for the hideous nightmare it was, one which would have created an underclass of millions of homeless, penniless seniors in 50 years. That's why it didn't pass.
I also agree with his immigration reform idea, but then the Democrats mostly supported it. So that right there refutes the notion that Democrats will oppose anything that Bush supports. On the other hand, since it was never enacted, we don't know in hindsight whether he's right about it. - enharmonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To supplement nixonrichard's comment, I listened to an interview with Pelosi - she said constitutionally, they have two options on Iraq: fund it or don't fund it. Everything beyond that is constitutionally up to Bush. However, that's in Iraq. The bit about the War Powers Act and the other stuff *does* apply - but I think they'll ultimately give Bush the go-ahead.
- orp2000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7You, sir, are an ASS!
The Iranians are trying to impeach their ass clown of a president and Bush is going to push them the other way. - DooM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Um... you don't..? You should take an American History class because there were 'foreign advisors' on most Civil War battlefields and foreign support given throughout the war, professor.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 208 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is