What is Digg?234 Comments
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26They unanimously voted for Petraeus then when it looks like he is going to present information they don't like they will try to assassinate his character. These people are scum. Anything to gain political brownie points. Last I checked Biden and friends aren't military leaders which is why they have Petraeus to tell them what is going on....
- elvisjulep, on 10/10/2007, -13/+28So Petraeus says it's working and he's a liar. Had he come out and said the surge was a failure, he would have been heralded as a brave purveyor of truth. So it's not the man, it's the message. The lefties on here are so desperate to lose in Iraq that they will bury any positive news from Iraq and digg up anything negative.
I've never seen so many people so excited about losing. Maybe you should all start pulling for Michigan and have a bang up year. - chase001, on 10/10/2007, -21/+36Well since you are such a supporter of Bush's noble "war" I'm sure you won't mind going to the nearest recruiting office first thing in the morning and heading over there to help.
- chase001, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23Almost everyone in Congress voted for Bush's invasions. We ought to clean house and impeach anyone who voted for them or for the "Patriot" Act without reading it.
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15It depends on which branch we are talking about. While it is true that more Democrats in the House opposed the bill than supported it (81-126), that is not true of the Senate. The majority of the Democratic Senators were in favor of the joint resolution (28-21). So there are still a hell of a lot of Democrats that voted for the joint resolution. Chico, I know your aim is to let the Democrats off scott free, but the fact of the matter is they are just as much responsible for this mess as the Republicans.
- plundstedt, on 10/10/2007, -11/+25Hmmm. How much time has Biden spent in Iraq compared to Gen. Petraeus? Seems like a general would have a MUCH better idea of things then a senator. Must my two cents.
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -15/+27However, Biden will vote for all the money the President wants to continue the war. One wonders why he can't craft a bill that gives the troops all the protection they need, anywhere in the world, but still denies funds to Operation Iraqi Liquidation.
If he did, I might even vote for him. However he's absolutely right that the books have been cooked. It's amazing what happens if you don't count the increasing casualties from roadside bombs, for example. Progress! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243).
House vote: 296-133.
Senate vote: 77-23.
Those numbers make it clear that it is true. You're kind of whiny. And you lie easily. - heebeejeebie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19He may not have, but I did. I did 3 rotations so am I qualified to call Biden a liar? Perhaps I am but I wont. What I will say is that Iraq is becoming more stable. Why? Because we're finally fighting the war (aka "the surge"), rather than sitting back and being targets.
I will not call Biden a liar. I will just say that he is not qualified to judge Patreas comments or actions as wrong. - CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17Biden should know, since he's spent so much time in Iraq analyzing the situation. /sarcasm
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12You have to realize that Biden, who voted to confirm Patraeus, who also voted to make the president give this report on the benchmarks, and is now trying to discredit the person he help confirm.....
It's no wonder the approval rating of the new democratically controlled congress is at it's new low! - lebaige, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Everyone in Washington has their minds made up before this report even happens. What's the point?
- ralph12c41, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14I will believe a Military man before I any of the 30 or so Politicians in Washington that are so full of themselves that they have destroyed the credbility of the Legislative branch of Government. Wait a few days and if it fits Joe Biden's ego driven beliefs he will offer a glowing report on Iraq. He has no courage.
- mitchellk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17The dumbest man in the Senate speaks again...with no basis for doing so. Biden has no expertise or experience in Iraq, but he is calling Petraeus wrong even before he hears what he has to say. This is typical of Biden's arrogance.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11The average citizen is not qualified to make strategic decisions in a military campaign. If you don't like the war then complain to your congressmen but while they are there they need to be given every asset they need to do the job they have been asked to do.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -12/+20The citizens want the troops out so the US military responds by adding more troops. Obviously more troops can reduce violence but it is totally unsustainable. Why? With 27 million Iraqi's and at least 1 million dead, countless wounded, displaced or homeless from two American wars, everyone either feels pain or knows many who do. We're there at the call of Iraqi's three-thousand year enemies to occupy and steal their oil. Such a strategy will never satisfy the people. This is just plain old common sense.
All it is doing is creating more instability at the region--just want the military industrial complex wants--endless war.
It has and will only bankrupt America--and then who will seize its assets and control it? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -17/+25Senator Biden voted for the illegal invasion. While it's nice that he recognizes that the Pentagon is wrong, it's too late.
- dontspamjay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I think most people agree that the General in charge of operations has the best assessment of the progress being made. I'm sure Sen. Biden's take on the progress is influenced by his political stance (this is probably true for all congressmen).
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Wonder which Democrat will call Petraeus a liar? because you know thats what they are thinking.
- iceperson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I think it's high time we change Godwin's law to include this weak argument.
Oh, and I already served my country in the desert once. Semper Fi. - Jamihabs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Move On" is already calling him "BetrayUs"
- WarPirate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8(Watching Live)
Tom Lantos is an ass. This is a hearing not his stump to whine about how much he hates the war. - Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Except he wasn't "appointed" and then magically had the job. He had to be approved by others, including Democrats. He got their votes, they said "listen to the generals on the ground", now that the message isn't what they want to hear, they are trying to spin him as a liar. Put up evidence he's a liar otherwise shut the ***** up.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Ummm, I'm as lefty as it comes. I opposed the war completely. However now we've made the mess, I think we have to stay to try and build at least some semblance of government and security. Careful who you tar with that brush.
- Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You think he WON'T get cross examined? You're showing your hand by saying that he'll sugar coat and twist it. If he was going to say the surge isn't working, you'd come out and say he was a beacon of truth. Just accept it, the surge is producing positive results. Not across the board as we'd all like it, but there is progress being made. No one likes to be wrong, but in this case, you simply are.
- Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Again: That vote you keep talking about was not "for the war." Again: It was to grant the president the power to use military force in Iraq to force Iraq to abide by UN sanctions. It was sold by the administration as a necessary diplomatic tool, but as soon as it passed, preparation to oust Saddam Hussein went into overdrive, and any mention of diplomacy was gone. Bait and switch.
That vote was also held in a time when anyone who dared disagree with the Bush administration was labeled a supporter of terrorism.
I know I've said these things before. I will continue saying them, for the good of people who seem to have forgotten events only six years' past. - jlhoben, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Iraq is working great - defence spending is way up, America has a great base in the region and a conflict that will keep the MI complex happy for years to come. It only gets problematic if you start thinking about the American people, which would only matter in a democracy. So get the pretext for continued involvement (you don't even need a convincing justification) and its business as usual.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Bet you Keith Olberman dose it.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I guess Democrats only listen to the generals when they find generals that tell them what they want to hear.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9WHOOSH
I guess you missed the pun. - robwooldridge, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Been there, done that. I put my money (and my life) where my mouth is. Now that I am in the Army, do I have more credibility with you?
Great.
The politicians in question (democrats in this case) are more interested in gaining political power, even at the expense of the soldiers who are trying hard to win this war. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Oh none of them have the courage to directly call Petraeus a liar, but they will try to associate everything good that Petraeus says with Bush. Then they will call Bush a liar.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6They wouldn't have needed significantly more troops if they kept the Iraqi Army intact.
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"overrate american military"? How so?
"getting [its] worthless ass kicked out of iraq"? How so? - rjn17960, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6There's no need to have 67 votes to cut off funding. You need 67 votes to override a veto, which presumes a funding bill already went to the president.
They need to send a funding bill with a timeline, and if Bush vetoes it, send another, ad infinitum. Bush is the one with his hand out for money here, holding the troops as hostage. - Jamihabs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5But you support the troops....Right?
- CosmicJustice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7To those of you are dismayed by the anti-American rants on digg remember that many if not most of these people are in other countries and posing as US citizens to post hateful "we Americans suck" messages all on US sites.
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5American citizens vote for people to make tough decisions. Army Generals and Military Commanders should not base their military decisions on the "will of the people".
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Exactly. I wish they'd do that.
IMO it does present a political risk, but one I'm willing to take :P
The Democrats just need to make a clear message to the public that Bush's veto of the bill does not represent a failure on their part to fund the troops. The only way the troops will be in additional danger is if Bush decides to continue the occupation knowing that at some point he'll have a money crunch. Remember, Commander in Chief, eh? - Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Thank you sir for your service. Dugg up for that and for telling the truth.
- repins, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14So let me get this straight....a Congressional Desk Jockey says a General who is actually in Iraq commanding troops in battle does not know if he is winning or loosing?
Sorry, I am going to have to side with the General on this one.... - RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5My point is, he doesn't care what is in the generals report. Never has, never will. His journey to Iraq was all for show. His main goal, it appears, is to save face for the 109 Democrats who also voted for the war, so that his party can win the 2008 election. He could care less about the troops, the Iraqis, or any of that. Just so his party is in the seat in 2008, hopefully free from any hard decisions.
- mattowan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Bush, listen to your Generals.....oh wait, never mind.
- Octantis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I am really surprised with how many people here are taking a non liberal stance on this story. Going into the comments I thought it was going to be a Patraeus is a lap dog flame fest. I am happily surprised.
- maf2345, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Yep, nothing says "I'm an expert" like a congressman telling a General who spends his time on the ground with the troops whether his evaluation of the situation on the ground is accurate or not. For anybody who wants the real story of whats happening in Iraq, read anything by Michael Yon, and the weekly stuff that comes from the Multinational Force in Iraq websites. Jesus, what a tool biden is.
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You're right swrostmore, what he said was correct. But I still can point out that it was the majority in only one branch, and the overall majority was slim. There were still a LOT of Democrats that voted for the resolution. You might recognize some of their names, as they are running for President now. But as a Democrat apologist, I'm sure you'll be giving them a free pass.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Hey redneckerson, the 109th congress had 245 Democrats. ~156 Democrats voted against the war. Therefore, "the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the invasion" is an accurate statement.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5That has to be the most accurate description of Biden that I have read. Well done and good for you for staying "up" on things.
- noahhoward, on 10/26/2007, -5/+9Yeah I'd like to see your proof for that otherwise you can ram your head right back up bidens ass.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 231 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is