digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bush May Fire CENTCOM Head, Replace w/ Pro- Iran War General

thinkprogress.org — "Observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. ... It may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • quakerorts, on 03/06/2008, -15/+99Jesus ***** Christ! Bush seems determined to leave the world in flaming ruin when he leaves office.
    • principle, on 03/06/2008, -8/+14He is not leaving.
      • Hortnon, on 03/06/2008, -19/+7^ delusional
      • Waiting2awake, on 03/06/2008, -4/+20Bush is going to leave - but the philosophy that got the US into this mess isn't going to leave. That is kinda the problem. All hail the new boss, same as the last boss.
        • Tomchei, on 03/06/2008, -1/+3You gonna take him out???
          He's gonna escalate a war into Iran and null the elections giving himself 4 more years using the laws he's passed in the past 8 years that no one did anything against.
          • mcquitty, on 03/07/2008, -0/+0And if he doesn't, are you going to say you were wrong?
      • masterm1nd, on 03/06/2008, -12/+5Do you wanna bet? What happens when he does leave? Are you going to remember how wrong you were? Or are you just going to forget about it and move on to other ridiculous claims?
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 03/07/2008, -2/+2^ irony. this douche doesn't apply these same principles to his own blather. Check his posting history for the skinny, folks.
          • masterm1nd, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2I don't recall making any absolutely ridiculous predictions lately. In fact, I just looked in my comment history, and it looks like I haven't made any predictions. As far as I can tell, it looks like you just made a ridiculous prediction about me, and were wrong. So back to my point, are you going to even realize you were wrong? Or just forget about it and do it all again tomorrow?

            The fact that you said irony makes your comment that much more ironic.
      • pintomp3, on 03/06/2008, -2/+6he can rest easy now and step down, we the people are making sure we put in another war mongering neocon:
        http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtm ...
      • t3rmv3locity, on 03/06/2008, -2/+2Even though I doubt he is going to try and stay in office, I think if he was given the chance turn America into a police state he would take it. Remember this story? http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_End_of_Ameri ...
      • jstohler, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Four days later, and he's leaving. Any comments?
    • Alegoo92, on 03/06/2008, -11/+5I guess you can even pan a person for things they haven't done
    • BadseedJR, on 03/06/2008, -0/+12He's replacing key officials with his yes-men. I'm not excited to see where this goes... There's obviously some ulterior motive here.
    • billyjack1958, on 03/06/2008, -8/+7Worse yet, if McCain, Hilary, or Obama get in, they will see to it that the status quo is carried on. I am voting for Ron Paul.
      • Brownds, on 03/06/2008, -8/+5Nice waste of a vote. More kool-aid son? The People will change America the politician wont
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/06/2008, -2/+10You act as though the voice is only important when it goes with the crowd. How is a vote for what you believe a wasted vote? Just because he won't win does not mean it will be wasted. My vote will be for Ron Paul as well, even if it is written in. It will be counted and noted. I will have been heard.
          • Brownds, on 03/06/2008, -5/+1Ok well good luck with that.
          • theaceoffire, on 03/06/2008, -1/+3Noted by one guy in a back room counting.
            Not noted by the people who are actually controlling us.
          • Opiate, on 03/06/2008, -1/+2Yup and that is the difference between men of principle and ***** sheep.
          • horatiolust, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1< My vote will be for Ron Paul as well, even if it is written in. It will be counted and noted. I will have been heard>

            Actually, it won't. You are not voting for Paul - you are voting for electors who are committed to Paul. If Paul isn't on the ballot, no electors. State Boards of Elections do not count write-in votes for Pres/VP.

            Welcome to real world. Enjoy your visit.
          • bjornski, on 03/07/2008, -2/+1You may as well write in "Kodos", it'll do just as much good.

            But hey, you showed 'em, huh? You rebel, you.
        • diggduggjoe, on 03/06/2008, -1/+3The only wasted vote is voting the way the MSM wants you to. I most likely will vote for Paul, unless he endorses some libertarian. Voting the lesser of 2 evils, just insures evil wins.
          • SLuM, on 03/07/2008, -1/+2Voting for the lesser of two evils is the same as voting for the greater good.
        • MarkKezner, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1You know, you're right. From now on, I'm gonna vote for whoever the media tells me to.
          • swordmaster29, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1Baa, I am a sheep who votes for who Digg tells me to. EVERYONE LOVED HIM ON DIGG, SO MUST I! Remember, you can't be a non-conformist if you don't drink coffee.
        • daxsymbiont, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1in his opinion everyone should vote for bush when he run for president.

          in his logic bush would have 100%

          hitler would be jealous.

          screw godwin.
    • Axemantitan, on 03/06/2008, -2/+2If he leaves office: http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Election_Tha ...
    • PolishLogic, on 03/06/2008, -1/+3How so? Because of what a magazine article speculated by citing "well-placed observers"? Anyone can create a theory and then credit that theory to well-placed observers. It happens all the time in journalism, it's how you deflect heat when you editorialize your article content, but you don't want it to come back and bite you in the ass later if it turns out to be false.

      Fallon has expressed disagreement a number of times, yet he still has a job. If Bush was dead set on "yes men", he'd have been gone after the first uttering of a dissenting opinion. I've got to admit, it's quite an impressive showing of doomsdayers coming out based on the unsubstantiated speculation from an Esquire writer.
    • JesusHatesYou, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4It's been a pattern since Bush took office. He loves dumb "yes" men. Remember the General (Zybrinski?) who said that he'd need more than 100,000 troops for Iraq? Or that Pentagon guy who said the Iraq war would cost more than $70 billion in total?
    • rz8472, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4Fallon has implied that he would resign if the US attacks Iran. Either way, it looks like he's going to be out. They'll probably get a modern version of Gen. Curtis "Nuke Vietnam" LeMay to replace him.
    • r337ard, on 03/06/2008, -1/+2I think you ment to say "Securing our Destiny" instead of "leave the world in flaming ruin". It's understandable, the keys are totally right next to each other.

    • GlassAgate, on 03/07/2008, -2/+0When Bill Clinton left office, he left a mess. Stuff was missing, things were out of place. It all made the news.
      When George W. Bush leaves offices, he'll leave something no one could have ever imagined, except that it
      started long before his departure from office.

      Please note: I am not trying to say anything bad about Hillary Clinton. I'm just comparing how Bill Clinton left
      office with how George W. Bush will leave office.

      If I am wrong about how Bill Clinton left office, could someone correct me, please? It was almost eight years
      ago, and I wasn't much of a follower of the news, back then.
    • ClosedCaption, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1He always listens to the military experts...then fires them when he dont like it.
  • Insightful, on 03/06/2008, -5/+61Not surprising at all. Remember the highly respected General Eric Shinseki, 1st Asian American as a 4 star general, former Army Chief of Staff (highest ranking US Army officer) and creator of the Stryker Interim-Force Brigade Combat Teams.

    Five years ago in response to Sen. Levin's question on troop requirement, he made the following prescient statement: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence."

    For that he was publicly rebuked by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Shinseki retired unceremoniously.

    There is a high career cost for a senior military officer to contradict his or her politically appointed civilian commander. I am not sure if I can do it but Shinseki made a brave choice. I hope Fallon will make his stand as well.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/06/2008, -16/+6Shinseki was also the creator of the French Hats for Everyone uniform policy and Army of One.
      • cohortq, on 03/06/2008, -1/+12He was also right about Iraq you *****.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Shinseki was right about NOTHING. Even during the invasion and at the peak of the surge, we come nowhere near his generic number of "several hundred thousand." He was picking a random number so high as to be unattainable just so he could say it couldn't be done. Patraeus has proven Shinseki to be wrong yet again.
        • cohortq, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1 Thomas E. Ricks and Ann Scott Tyson. "Abizaid Says Withdrawal Would Mean More Unrest", Washington Post, November 16, 2006, p. A22. Retrieved on 2006-12-13. "General [Eric] Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations."
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

          Just backing up what I post, because you know, we didn't have an insurgency in Japan or Germany where we actually did an occupation the right way.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Per Abiziad, International troops or Iraqi troops would have been sufficient. The disconnect between the military(CENTCOM) and civilian(Bremer) reconstruction led to many problems that could have been avoided.
      • frozenwookie, on 03/06/2008, -1/+5who gives a ***** about what hat you wear, i mean alot of people cried and whined about the berets, but once again... just a hat, not like you wear it in Iraq.
  • hawkeye17, on 03/06/2008, -12/+13I can see it now. The History Channel brings you "Is George Bush The 3rd Anti-Christ!!?" Historians are going to destroy Bush's legacy of incompetence and lawbreaking.
    • FleetAdmiral, on 03/06/2008, -2/+23They can not possibly do more to destroy Bush's Legacy then he did himself.
    • joshuaheretic, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2I may be missing something, but who were the first two anti-christs?
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Napoleon, Hitler.
        • owenkun, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1How can you say Napoleon was an 'anti-christ?' His expansionist views were in keeping with the most of the world's mindset at the time. Think about people in the Americas moving west. Think about the British capturing land all over the globe. You're a fool if you think Napoleon is Hitler's equivalent.
        • CaptinCrunch, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0I think the first two were Nero and Hitler, not Napoleon... Nero burned christians and tossed them to lions for sport, Hitler killed milliions of Jews, Napoleon was nowhere near in the same league.
    • JesusHatesYou, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2Most prominent Jews/Neocons said Bush was going to be looked at as the next Truman. Maybe they meant for Israel.
  • SheilaNoya, on 03/06/2008, -8/+53Bush has already filled many of the top military positions with evangelical generals. General Casey, the current Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, is one of them. When Rumsfeld was coming under scrutiny, General Casey replied, "I have complete faith in Donald Rumsfeld. God has a hand in all of his decisions."

    Gee - Who knew that God would turn out to be such a bad military strategist.
    • cageybee, on 03/06/2008, -5/+34their God is money.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/06/2008, -16/+7He mentioned God, GET HIM!!!
      • Waiting2awake, on 03/06/2008, -4/+13If he mentioned Allah - what would your reaction be? Shouldn't it be the same?
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/06/2008, -8/+8Mentioning God does not make you evangelical. Similarly, mentioning Allah does not make you an islamic extremist.
          • GreyICE, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4Saying God is divinely guiding someone's judgement makes you scary though.
          • Waiting2awake, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1 So, let me get this straight - are you equating the Islamic extremist and Christian Evangelicals?

            Good show B.T.T, I do think we can agree on something.
      • MmmPi, on 03/06/2008, -2/+4The problem here lies with not if he is a faithful or an atheist, but that they rely on faith in order to be lead in their job. Wars are not won by "knowing" you are right, they are won with things like logic and math.
        • nigh7dagger, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1So using logic and math doesn't allow you to "know" you're right?
          • GreyICE, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2No. It allows you to prove that you're right.
      • xenuxenuts, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2What if his strategies were guided by tarot cards? How about psychics talking to dead people? Oh, here's a good one: drug induced hallucinations?
    • Elderon, on 03/06/2008, -5/+12Personally I don't care that he believes God. What I do care about is him letting ***** strategic choices going unchecked because he believes god talked to rummy and gave him his strategies.... thats called not doing you're job
      • masterm1nd, on 03/06/2008, -7/+4Because that's how we fought this war. The guy sat there on 4 hits of LSD day in day out and waited for God to tell him what to do.
    • masterm1nd, on 03/06/2008, -18/+4I'm sorry, but do you have information that proves a different strategy would have turned out more effective? Fact is, you have no idea. Fact is, for all you know another strategy would have led to the end of the world already . Fact is, mistakes are made in every war. Fact is, Rumsfeld is a military strategist, you're not. Fact is, he knew an awful lot of key information that you do not.
      • Elderon, on 03/06/2008, -5/+7Neither do you. Way to stick up for rummy! pathetic. I think we saw how good his strategic planning worked. look how bogged down we are in Iraq. Also, you do not know who I am, You do not know if I am or am not in the military nor what rank I hold. Don't go making assumptions on what I know.
        My comment was about the article. Replacing competent commanders with more "pliable" candidates seems very detrimental to security. I'd rather have someone who knew what they were doing and was good at their job, then some kiss ass boot licker.
        • NoCt1, on 03/06/2008, -4/+5First. I doubt that you are in the military. Second I doubt that we know everything that bush and rummy would know. There is a thing called a need to know basis and frankly the us people are not in the need to know part. Come on. they just now admitted that UFOs are real. for real man. You think you know everything. No. You think because you sit at home and play civ 4 or sim city or empire earth or even risk makes you a strategist.. No. We are not defending bush or rummy we are simply saying that he has information that we dont. therefore his plans may be different. then what you think. plus YOU CANT PREDICT THE FUTURE.

          Masterm1nd I dugg you up. For the fact you understand that everyone does not have equal access to info.
          • masterm1nd, on 03/06/2008, -3/+3And we can't predict an alternative present...
        • masterm1nd, on 03/06/2008, -3/+4Exactly, neither do I. Meaning, the guy who has prepared and trained his whole life to do what he does, has access to more classified information than you, unless of course you rank above him like you imply, is probably more qualified to make make war decisions than you and I.
        • masterm1nd, on 03/06/2008, -2/+4And I'm not trying to stick up for him, I just don't think you have the grounds to put him down. You say, look how well his strategy worked, but what am I suppose to be looking at? The highest return rates for solders by any nation ever? What about a low death toll compared to historical wars? Yes, I'm sure it could be better, but it could also be a LOT worse. I'm just not in a hurry to go back in time and see how things would have turned out with you in charge, even if you had your hindsight.

          The only thing more important than what you know, is knowing what you don't know.
      • roho76, on 03/06/2008, -1/+2Yeah. Here's a better strategy.
        Let's not invade other country for no reason. There done.
        And I didn't need direction from the "LORD" to do it.

        ***** retard.
        • masterm1nd, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1That's like saying the best baseball strategy is to not play baseball. It just doesn't help us much when the games already begun.

          ***** retard? Who's the one who thinks I disagree? Although I agree with you about keeping to ourselves, it's irrelevant to our current situation. Maybe you should make that comment BEFORE we are already in a war? Although I'm not for getting in to other countries business; if we're going to do it, we may as well do it right, right?
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 03/06/2008, -3/+3Depends on 'Which' God they're talking about....

      From Rummey's past experiences, it would make sense if he was worshipping the southernmost God....
    • owenkun, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1That's funny, since I seem to recall that God put some emphasis on not killing people. Maybe I misread that part.
  • Stevanoski, on 03/06/2008, -26/+7Buried for surpassing the ***** quotient of any story.
    • jstohler, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1And yet, it was 100% correct. As proven by today's news.
  • neonominator, on 03/06/2008, -43/+5pro iran war general?? we can only hope!!!! yes we can!
    • TrevaLVF, on 03/06/2008, -5/+27Your orgasm over such a morbid possibility is obvious and nauseating.
      • CryRightardCry, on 03/06/2008, -5/+19The right wingers are looking to Iran for more of their "war porn" collection.
        They have been using the Abu Graib and Iraq pics for so long they can't get it up to them anymore.
        They need some fresh pics of murdered innocents to get off.
        What other possible reason could they cheer for war and human misery?
        Oh, maybe oil.
        Or religious intolerance.
        • dluv, on 03/06/2008, -12/+2And don't forget to blame the right wingers on your lack of originality. Because remember, Clinton and Obama don't steal other peoples thoughts and pass them off as their own. No they don't.
      • mcquitty, on 03/07/2008, -2/+0Religious intolerance? Have you looked at how many Diggers are intolerant of any religion? Especially christianity.
    • billyjack1958, on 03/06/2008, -0/+17If you are so pro-war, why aren't you over there?? Do you have children? Are they in our military? Probably not. It is disgusting to me that most of the people who are pro-war have no concept of the reality of it and have never served their country in the military. I have 4 family members in the military and you make me sick.
      • dluv, on 03/06/2008, -5/+1Well I have 5 family members in the military and your 4 make me sick
    • pintomp3, on 03/06/2008, -0/+8perhaps you misread it. it's not a war general who is pro iran. it's a general who is pro iran war. neither is good, but the latter is far worse.
    • frozenwookie, on 03/06/2008, -0/+6are you ***** retarded?
      • bjornski, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3After reading his profile, I can't think of any other excuse.
    • Bushlied, on 03/07/2008, -0/+3Ya and I'll bet your all about picking up a rifle and standing tall too? Idiot. It's only the assholes who don't fight that want war.
  • principle, on 03/06/2008, -4/+44The damage done by Bush to the military command will take many decades to repair.
    • yeti22, on 03/06/2008, -2/+23...and the intelligence community, and the justice department, and ...
    • didiman, on 03/06/2008, -19/+3Your mind is a scary place...I'm glad mine works properly
    • reaper527, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1we still need decades to fix the damage clinton did to the military by continually downsizing it for 8 years
  • Zippo, on 03/06/2008, -3/+55***** hell, January 2009 can't come soon enough.
    • dizilbdog, on 03/06/2008, -4/+3It may never come wooo hahahahaha
    • didiman, on 03/06/2008, -15/+2yes, it will be nice having McCain in office.
      • m0tbaillie, on 03/06/2008, -2/+7HAHAHA What do YOU live, ***** Neverland?
    • j0ew00ds, on 03/06/2008, -4/+7You say that as if the incumbent will be ANY DIFFERENT.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/06/2008, -1/+5the incumbent is the current person, genius...
      • Zippo, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1It would be difficult for the next president to be worse... Bush has set the bar for evil and corruption pretty damn high... cartoonishly so.
    • thePsilocybe, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1The President can cancel elections in a time of war.

      Isn't that convenient?
      • GhostyBoy, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3It won't happen. Bush is a puppet of corporations, bankers, drug cartels, the CIA and the military industrial complex. The illusion of democracy is vital to stopping the public from revolting against these institutions.
      • j0313971, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3not according to the constitution.
        But since when did bush follow the constitution?
  • Infidelcastr0, on 03/06/2008, -4/+28Why do I have a feeling bush will declare a state of emergency or something when his term ends and attempt to stay in power.
    • NickSpinner, on 03/06/2008, -6/+3wel he can, but it wouldnt really matter, its already straight dictatorship
    • RetlawST, on 03/06/2008, -0/+11I've already told my friends and family that the very second January 2nd rolls around, if Bush is not out of the Whitehouse, I will get into my car that night and be it by myself, or with an army of people like me, will remove him forcibly.
      • j0313971, on 03/06/2008, -0/+11january 20th
      • RetlawST, on 03/06/2008, -0/+11Thanks, don't want to get ahead of myself, now, do I? ::marks calender::
      • Infidelcastr0, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1You won't be by yourself.
    • Axemantitan, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Election_Tha ...
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3Why don't we do it now?
    • oldgal, on 03/06/2008, -1/+3google project endgame if you want to get more worried...or scared *****
      • PolishLogic, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1I did, and you're right. I'm scared *****!!!

        Scared ***** that people believe things that only appear on conspiracy theory websites. I'm not even saying it has to be in the MSM, but I'd think finding it anywhere....ANYWHERE....other than a CT website would make it a "tad-bit more" credible, and by tad-bit more I mean "even remotely"
    • GhostyBoy, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3It's not going to happen. They will just replace him with another puppet.
    • JesusHatesYou, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1I'm betting that Diebold will have Bush as the winner of the 2008 election. We can't argue with the machine, so enjoy Bush for the rest of you life.
    • frozenwookie, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2that, or there's gonna be some voting fraud (like in good old FL in 2000) and well get a new bafoon in charge.
    • nealpolitan, on 03/07/2008, -1/+0Is it because you're a crazy conspiracy theorist? I keed.
  • NickSpinner, on 03/06/2008, -8/+6its funny how they always say "may" like theres a chance its not gonna happen. hillary or obama it doesnt matter, their masters will stage attacks to escalate the war, its obvious
    • Mardala, on 03/06/2008, -1/+2obvious, care to back up that comment?
  • Picaroon, on 03/06/2008, -2/+13Fallon is a good guy from what I've read. It would be a huge shame if he were replaced. Plus he shows just how far an NFO can go!
  • Dumbledorito, on 03/06/2008, -5/+31"I feel like George Bush can bring about the Biblical Apocolype. I don't mean the 'Road Warrior, there's no gas apocalypse,' or the 'Jerry Bruckheimer, the weather's going crazy apocolypse.' I mean the 'Revelation of St. John, demons coming out of the ocean, seven headed beast, all that stuff, [apocolypse].' Because, here's the thing, I don't think Bush wants to be President. I think he wants to be The Last President!"

    - Patton Oswalt
  • TwoLOUD, on 03/06/2008, -16/+3Bush is a jackoff, like all of those other presidents, past present and future..***** YOU!
  • ispellkonfusion, on 03/06/2008, -6/+15Don't wait until the end of his administration. IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3WHY STOP THERE?!!
      • leerayIG88, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1We could grab a peach and eat one.
    • frozenwookie, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2no *****, i mean why do we allow this tool to just continue to wreck this nation?
  • didiman, on 03/06/2008, -26/+8thinkprogress = buried
  • chrissku, on 03/06/2008, -11/+2The American people will never allow the President to start another war.
    • CheLives, on 03/06/2008, -1/+5i hope not... but i doubt we have a choice with this cowboy in office.
    • j0313971, on 03/06/2008, -2/+8you mean to say THIS president. if mccain becomes president, we're going to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran. since mccain is a former pow/war hero, that must mean that EVERYTHING he says is right. because war heros are never wrong.

      /sarcasm
    • oldgal, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4oh, I wish that were so. You're talking about the same people who elected him to a second term after he started the current war
  • doza89, on 03/06/2008, -3/+16god i hate bush
  • flaknugget, on 03/06/2008, -13/+5Israel FTW!
    • t3rmv3locity, on 03/06/2008, -4/+2Palestine FTW?
    • frozenwookie, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1isn't this the same israel that irradiated a whole bunch of morrocan children?
  • dluv, on 03/06/2008, -20/+6Thinkprogress.org = Cuckoo central

    Also reported at thinkprogress; Bu$h trying to take over the world, evidence can be found on huffingtonpost.com
    • j0313971, on 03/06/2008, -1/+6Bush (and friends) ARE trying to take over the world. They might have already succeeded.
    • bjornski, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1You Freepers are so funny.
  • briansearles, on 03/06/2008, -20/+4It's on thinkprogress so it must be true!
    • jroyale, on 03/06/2008, -1/+7Yeah... so why don't you go over to thinkprogress and find something where they were so obviously wrong. But be careful, doing all that research might force you to actually learn something - and we wouldn't want that, now would we?
      • PiGuy, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1What like every other time they've said we're about invade Iran? Still waiting...
  • SOS84, on 03/06/2008, -1/+15How many generals and other military leaders have been fired or forced to resign/retire do to disagreements with the Village Idiot? How many have retired in protest?
    • dluv, on 03/06/2008, -10/+1None
      • bjornski, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Are you just being dis-ingenuous to troll, or are you really this mentally challenged?
    • pintomp3, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4shinseki, tommy franks, ricardo sanchez, george casey. any others?
    • stretch611, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5That is status quo for Bush. You either agree with everything he says or you have no job. This is true in the Military, Intelligence Agencies, Justice Department, FEMA, his cabinet, and everywhere else in government that Bush has power over.
      Being constantly surrounded by "YES MEN" and refusing to listen to any dissenting opinion is a large factor on why he is running the worst administration in history.
      Before the Iraq war, all the intelligence said there was WMD, a willingness for Sadamn to use them, and contat with Al Qaida. It was not because of faulty intelligence (the Valerie Plame case showed proof that we did have some good covert intelligence,) but an unwillingness of people at the top to dissent from Bush's preconceived guesses.
      No one with even a simplistic concept of strategy would start a war on two fronts. But Bush wanted to get into Iraq so badly, that we did not finish the campaign in Afghanistan first. Even though we did well there initially, because we did not finish the job in order to move most of our forces to Iraq, there is a resurgence of combat over the last year. Again his yes man agreed with him.
      Because of Bush's idea that the Iraqi people will welcome us as liberators we did not plan for securing Iraq after capturing the territory. That is why our *leaders* had no plan and they did not want to listen to anyone else. And the ugly result of this is apparent to anyone with two eyes.
      Dissenting with Bush gets you fired quickly, agreeing with him allows you to resign with the blame after a few years.
    • owenkun, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1It's like any other job, really. You can only tolerate working with a true incompetent for so long before you start champing at the bit to go work elsewhere.
  • tonyma, on 03/06/2008, -1/+8I'm getting more and more scared of this administration every day. Especially now that we've learned about the staggering cost of the Iraq War. So why not fight another war?
  • pintomp3, on 03/06/2008, -1/+11i guess we should thank hillary for voting for the kyle/lieberman bill giving bush permission to start another war. and mccain is only to happy to bomb bomb bomb iran. ***** neocon war mongers.
  • freezeout, on 03/06/2008, -2/+7Title is misleading. the general is not pro-Iran, he's pro-bombing-Iran. Iran stopped selling its oil in dollars last year and there is no way Bush's puppetmasters will let that slide. As far as the NeoCons are concerned there are only 2 options: watch Iran sink the dollar or bomb the hell out of 'em.
  • Gamer4Lyfe, on 03/06/2008, -1/+8You know what? This does not surprise me in the least, we have got to have the stupidest most illiterate leader in the world. I am so aggravated at that jerk-off and the fact that he can't even say "nuclear" while making a speech. George Bush is an embarrassment not only as a president, but even as an American. George Bush...GO TO HELL!
  • Zombi, on 03/06/2008, -1/+6Dugg for scariest article I've seen today.
  • j0313971, on 03/06/2008, -8/+3Iran isn't going to attack us anytime soon and israel isn't even currently at war with iran, so we have no business being there. we shouldn't even be thinking about iran until israel is at war against them. we are not threatened by iran - israel is. but its going to have to be a pretty dire situation before we even start thinking about getting involved in iran. if israel is about to collapse and is taken over by terrorists that plan to reintroduce the holocaust, then i will be willing to fight against iran. otherwise, no.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 03/06/2008, -2/+7why? who gives a ***** about israel? its possibly the worst country in the world to consider yourself an ally to
    • JesusHatesYou, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4Israel is threatened by anyone who tries to stop their plans to annex more land. They say that the Arabs want to push them into the sea, but look at the thousands of new Israeli settlements built on top of Arabs' bulldozed homes in the past 8 years. Who's the aggressor? It's a good thing the Arabs killed a bunch of Jews today.
      • j0313971, on 03/06/2008, -5/+1so i take it that you thought that that 911 was justified?
        • Acewrap, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4How the hell did you pull that conclusion out of his paragraph?
      • Kythas, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1That's why Israel has been demolishing the settlements and giving the land to the Palestinian Authority? That's why the Arab countries launched a war in 1948 with the specific aim of pushing them into the sea just after their declaration of independence? That's why Egypt and Syria invaded Israel in 1973? Do you not realize Israel is still technically in a declared state of war due to the 1948 war with Syria and were with Iraq until 1993 when Saddam's government was overthrown (they've signed formal peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. I'm not sure about the status of Lebanon)?

        There's no wonder why Israel has to keep itself on a war footing - they are still at war. There is nothing holding the peace there but a cease fire agreement.
  • PHiZ187, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5George Bush is telling the truth that his decisions are made by "the generals on the ground." He just keeps firing generals until they say what he wants to hear.
  • dicklogan, on 03/06/2008, -1/+2If they do that, it will solidify their impeachment.
  • marcomc2, on 03/06/2008, -1/+5"I pledge no allegiance, brother ***** the president's speeches,
    I'm baptised by America, covered in leeches"

    "Conservative political right wing, ideology
    Glued together sloppily, the blasphemy of a nation
    Got my back to the wall, cause I'm facin' assassination
    Guantanamo Bay, federal incarceration
    How could this be, the land of the free, home of the brave?
    Indigenous holocaust, and the home of the slaves
    Corporate America, dancin' offbeat to the rhythm
    You really think this country, never sponsored terrorism?
    Human rights violations, we continue the saga
    El Savador and the contras in Nicaragua
    And on top of that, you still wanna take me to prison
    Just cause I won't trade humanity for patriotism"

    Sorry, just had to put this on here. Digg me down, it makes me wet.
    • monkeysurf, on 03/06/2008, -5/+0I take it you were never good at math. I'll let you think that one through. You're sense of self-control and appropriate use of time are also quite spectacular.
    • Spartan225, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5Dugg, but next time mention the artist you took that lyric from. Immortal Technique - Bin Laden for the first bit. The second same artist but the song is The 4th Branch.
  • monkeysurf, on 03/06/2008, -8/+0Sometimes I can't tell if the stuff on Digg like this is a coordinated effort by groups of people with similiar beliefs. It's always coming from the left which is all right but for people like me who are dead center it can be a little frustrating. Folks, study up and look at this stuff objectively and stop letting your feelings get the better of you. If you REALLY thought this through you would realize the probability of an invasion of Iran is very low. Don't worry about it. There are MUCH MORE important issues to think about like Social Security and Medicare. When was the last time I've seen those subjects on DIGG. Probably, never
    • BlueEagle2, on 03/06/2008, -3/+0It's because this place is like Fark for the most part. The extremists from the Left post here quite frequently. Nothing wrong with it, just a fact. I'm like you centered in my beliefs. But the hatred for a given person seems to be all that these people eat, breathe and sleep 24x7.
  • flip2trip, on 03/06/2008, -7/+1It's amazing to me that anything that is posted to digg that is a negative concerning Bush is immediately considered the gospel truth--you guys need to get a new script because Bush is leaving in a little more than 10 months--you're all going to have to find a new punching bag.
    • stretch611, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5Lets see, Bush has a 19% approval rating. That means less then one out of five people do like what he is doing and roughly 4 out of 5 do not like most of the things he does. Are you sure that that digg is biased against Bush? With those numbers it does not take a genius to realize that most people/websites are going to have a negative attitude towards Bush. Only a site that has a positive attitude towards Bush is going to be truly biased.
  • thedogfatherx, on 03/06/2008, -6/+2There is no way we are going to "attack" Iran
    • pintomp3, on 03/06/2008, -2/+6we are going to preemptively defend ourselves against their wmds and freedom hating ways in order to bring them democracy.
    • frozenwookie, on 03/06/2008, -2/+6you'd be amazed what the village idiot would do for oil
  • tonytopper, on 03/06/2008, -7/+3I'm not disapproving or approving of anything relating to this article here. Does this article say anything other than Esquire will release a story later that will say Bush might replace Fallon. The jury of Digg.com constantly flies off on crappy news like this. Digg.com is becoming a huge waste of reactionary, impatient, and instantly gratified morons.
    • JointVenture, on 03/06/2008, -1/+5Man I wish it was as simple as Bush leaving.
      These wingnuts will still be here singing the same damn tune.
  • shadesofwhite, on 03/06/2008, -8/+1It amazes me that you eat this stuff up......many of these comments are so full of crap.
    Look at reality, fight'em there or wait till the democrats are in power and fight'em here.
  • securitymonkey, on 03/06/2008, -3/+4Just wait until Bush plugs in that new pretzel warmer... the one marked "(c) 2010 SkyNet Industries"
  • GhostyBoy, on 03/06/2008, -1/+6To think these assholes actually have access to nuclear weapons.

    Seriously, get off the Iran trip. That is the worst. idea. ever.
  • Elissar, on 03/06/2008, -4/+2"I'm shocked, shocked to find there is gambling in this establishment!"
  • FormatC, on 03/06/2008, -5/+4It would warm my heart to see some generation Y'ers get drafted and sent to the big dusty :)
    • Jareth86, on 03/06/2008, -3/+5Even though it was a group of baby-boomers who literally started this war in the first place (as well as the ones who made up bush's base). Did you people learn NOTHING from Vietnam?!
      • Kythas, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1I hope we learned from Vietnam.

        We learned to not pull our troops out before winning the war (in Vietnam after we left, over 1.5 million Vietnamese were murdered by the conquering North Vietnamese forces).

        We learned to let our troops fight to win the war and not tie one hand around their balls with ***** ROEs (ok, there are still some ***** ROEs but, for the most part, our boys are being given the ability to win).

        We learned that leaving Vietnam the way we did made us look scared and weak, and is one major reason (along with our pullout from Somalia) that bin Laden called the US a "toothless tiger" and said we don't have the stomach for a fight. That's when he began planning 9/11, because he was no longer afraid of US resolve or our ability to defend ourselves.

        That answer your question for you?
  • dangwoot, on 03/06/2008, -1/+3well when we are dropping nukes on each other on judgement day dont say i didnt warn you.
  • JointVenture, on 03/06/2008, -8/+3You freaks scare me.

    Damn, your life must be so pathetic and devoid of a future that all you can do is log on to the internets to find a reason its not YOUR fault.
  • ZenMojo, on 03/06/2008, -1/+6I KNEW IT!!! I KNEW IT!!! Fallon said he would quit if Bush ever dared to push a war with Iran and I knew it was only a matter of time before Fallon and Bush would butt heads. Fallon: Petraeus is an "asskissing *****." http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
    • Kythas, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1But this article says Fallon denies he ever called Petraeus that at all. So which do you believe? One article or the other is lying, yet you appear to believe both of them.
  • horatiolust, on 03/06/2008, -6/+0"Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."
  • Jareth86, on 03/06/2008, -3/+6Holy *****, Maher was right. He really is determined to ***** something else up before he leaves office.
  • amightywind, on 03/07/2008, -4/+2Better we take action on Iran now than to be struck by their nuclear weapons later. War with Iran is inevitable.
  • minox, on 03/07/2008, -3/+2I'll admit that I hardly ever read submissions from thinkprogress. I made an exception this time and realized I am right in not going to it more often. The source of their story is an Esquire article that has not yet been printed, meaning that we don't have the full text. This combined with the fact that the White House seems oblivious to the allegations seems to impugn the fear-mongering of thinkprogress.
  • garhent, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2As a vet, frankly I'm not surprised. The majority of service persons are pretty patriotic from the top on down. Everyone fighting for common sense and actually prioritizing the military to actually attack Al Qaeda has been removed from any position of authority.
  • captainboog, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1i seriously doubt it's ever really been about al qaeda. it's been about dominating the entire middle east, once and for all. controlling the majority of the oil supply, keeping it from the other enemies (russia and china). seriously, why would the u.s. not attack iran if it's in afghanistan and iraq? Just look at a map! The U.S. surrounds Iran. Iran was a puppet U.S. state 30 years ago. You think maybe the U.S. wants it back? Now, whether or not they can do it is another matter, as it appears as if the U.S. is losing or at least not winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just remember Vietnam. It got a lot ***** worse before it ever got better. Better being the U.S. giving up and the communists overrunning the south. So maybe that's not better.
    Hell, maybe the robots will pacify Iraq. If the U.S. can just hold on for another 5-10 years...
    Folks, the Middle East ***** is about much bigger things than fighting some half-assed terrorist mujahideen. I believe it's about a world war. The U.S. has been fighting the commies for a long time now. Just recently, the USSR lost a lot of territory. Territory in which the U.S. has military bases now (and soon, missile "shields"). If the U.S. takes and holds the major oil supply, not to mention having more bases on the borders of Russia and China (think: surrounding them), they will be much more able to finally win the war against Russia and China.
    It may only take one more world war before there is one government for the entire world. That's the aim of the U.S. And, of course, the other side.
  • wecanta4dit, on 03/07/2008, -0/+0Do you really think Bush is incharge of the Presidency? But, yes he is to blame for the mess that we are in. We need to vote to not re-elect those officals that allow this kind of leadership. We need to stop re-electing those party officials just because thats the way we always vote. We need to look at the issue's and elect those who make sense and want change in the right direction. Lets all take a look in the mirror. The Bush's of politics didn't elect themselves.
    • owenkun, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1I think it's well understood that when one says "Bush" they really mean "President Bush, the figurehead, together with the secret cabal that pulls the strings from the background."

      It's shorthand, you see.
  • Kythas, on 03/07/2008, -3/+1What? Another anti-Bush article on Digg from a left wing anti-Bush hate site? Say it ain't so!
    • bshock, on 03/07/2008, -0/+2Any accurate non-fiction about George W. Bush is an "anti-Bush article."
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    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.