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
351 Comments
- rkettner, on 10/12/2007, -50/+308How about we just post stories when it is discovered that Bush has told the truth about something.
This would reduce some clutter on Digg. - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -67/+235do you believe everything you see on fox news ?
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -53/+218"Ever heard of a guy named General Petraeus?"
Bush replaced Casey with Petraeus when Casey disagreed with the surge plan. Putting Patreas in Casey's place probably went something like this:
Bush: "Gen. Patreaus, how would you like to advance your career?"
Patreaus: "Sounds good!"
Bush: "That's great. All you have to do is agree with everything I say."
Patreaus: "Hmm.. sound like a bad idea, but man I really want to advance my career. Sure, sounds like a plan." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -46/+203They are, they put him back in office for a second time.........
- Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -43/+196So one minute he's the "decider", and the next his hands are tied...
What a blatant *****. He might as well just announce on live TV that he thinks Americans are dumb as *****. - bolerobell, on 10/12/2007, -47/+180Wow you righties must really be drinking the Kool Aid by the gallon. Casey was fired and replaced with Petraeus because he wouldn't support a surge.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -34/+143You mean Casey and Abizaid, or the guys he put in the field after he fired Casey and Abizaid for not asking for a troop surge?
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -13/+120@tubatechno
Your use of labeling is innaccurate. Being anti-war does not make someone a blanket liberal.
I am strongly against this war as a Libertarian. Most of the collectivists that use digg delight in labeling me a conservative, because it allows them to dump their hatred of the religious right onto me... I am in fact strongly in favor of conservative economic policies that are anti-corporation in that they promote freedom for the small business and the individual, and that allow the average citizen to hold onto money that would otherwise be stolen in taxes.
I am also however, anti-war, pro-gay rights, and pro freedom and choice on just about every social issue.
If you are going to call names... feel free to call them "peaceniks" or something like that... but being anti-war does not make someone a liberal.
With your loose definitions of what makes a liberal, and what makes a conservative - *I* could call YOU a liberal for wanting to continue brazenly pouring taxpayer money into this debacle of military adventurism. Don't claim to be a conservative when you boldly support the theft of taxpayer dollars for use in frivolous and wasteful Government programs. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -32/+133At some point you people are going to have to realize that it's not 2003 anymore, and that 70% of a population can't be dismissed as fringe radical "moonbats." Argue for the war all you want, just remember that at this point *you* are the nutjob who is contradicting all available empirical evidence.
- canti32, on 10/12/2007, -43/+130Stand by for the Clinton defense.
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -37/+103Guess the Joint Chiefs were out of the loop, then?
- dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -29/+92"General Petraeus (before he was unanimously confirmed by congress) gave testimony"
I think the point is that Bush was already set on the troop surge when he replaced Casey with Petraeus. Therefore, he wasn't listening to his generals in the field. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -17/+66"I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are."
-General John Abizaid, Nov. 15.
"The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term."
-General George Casey, Jan. 2007
The Bush surge was conceived by Frederick Kagan, a neoconservative analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who has never been to Iraq. The commanders on the ground in Iraq were General George Casey and General John Abizaid. They were both on the record as saying the surge was a bad idea, so Bush fired them immediately before the surge began. There is no conceivable way you could claim that the military commanders in Iraq suggested this plan. The nickname given the Bush surge in the Pentagon was the "J.E.L. policy" or "Just Enough to Lose." - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -19/+65I'd also like to add that if you address a group of people (lefities, righties, conservatives, liberals) in that fashion... You are an automaton, and have been sucked into a completely fabricated left/right paradigm. Using terms like that show that you, as a person, have very little understanding of what left and right means, and what conservative and liberal means. It basically displays that you have probably never studied anything beyond talking points... Why don't you look into libertarianism vs socialism... or facism...? Perhaps you should learn what the differences are between a true republic, and a true democracy.. and see why both of those styles of government have often FAILED in history - and why the abuse and ignorance of our constitution in favor of these styles of government may lead to OUR collapse.
There is plenty of info out there about Capitalism vs. Communism... even a modest about of study will show you just how one dimensional and false the left-right farce really is. - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -52/+92Isn't it strange that the man who claims that he "supports the troops" not only says that he will veto the troop's funding, but then says he would leave the troops in a combat zone when their funding runs out? He is telling us, with all apparent sincerity, that he'd leave the troops without supplies in a combat zone just so he could blame the Democrat for what happens next. And yet we still have people unconvinced that the man needs to be impeached.
- EntropyFan, on 10/12/2007, -11/+47@NotAChickenHawk
The troops are going to be supplied, regardless of the budget. No one, even in DC, is that stupid
It will be the typical blame game, finger pointing BS. It will wind up costing a few extra billion or so, but it isn't like they consider that real money. - Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -41/+71"do you believe everything you see on fox news ?"
Do you believe everything you read in blog spam? - JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -19/+47Whether or not you agree with him, banderbe is right- Americablog is political commentary, not political news.
- flashboy131, on 10/12/2007, -16/+43Mission Accomplished
- NekoIan, on 10/12/2007, -14/+41http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_replaces_top_general_in_Middle_0104.html
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -25/+51"was the idea of his commanders in the field, and he's just following their advice. In fact, all of the Joint Chiefs, the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, ALL opposed the surge. He lied, again"
The Joint Chiefs are not in the field. They are in Washington. The commanders in the field are in Iraq.
Your claim is not supported by your statement. - Lnomis, on 10/12/2007, -66/+92Dukeeeey:
Isn't fox news a contradiction in terms? - seanrbaker, on 10/12/2007, -14/+39I love how informed all of you discussing the generalships are...
First of all, the JCS disagreement with a troop surge has nothing to do with Bush's statement - if he stated that the /commanders in the field/ have asked for this, the JCS may disagree all they want to, but it doesn't make the President's comments lies.
Second, and for the record, GEN Casey was /promoted/ after disagreeing with the troop surge, and is in fact one of the Chiefs of Staff to whom we refer above.
Lastly, GEN Petraeus has been pushing for increased 'boots on the ground' for sometime. He is among a group of warrior scholars whose philosophy on counter-insurgency (largely inspired by successful Special Forces techniques used during Vietnam, and now part of Army doctrine written by Petraeus) who made the 'surge' recommendation to the President. If anything, his current situation puts his career in greater jeopardy than at any time previous (save, perhaps, for shortly after commissioning when he married the West Point commandant's daughter).
The troop surge isn't about the politics of control over the military, or spending more money, or anything else. It's about having sufficient troops present to integrate them into the communities which they are trying to rebuild. Having enough personnel so that any place that insurgents may want to control will already be dominated by an established /joint American and Iraqi presence/ and inhospitable to them. It's shown early promise, and will continue to make advances as we move forward.
For more information on the strategies employed, do a Google search for DJ Kilcullen's article on counterinsurgency techniques for Iraq. He's an Aussie Light-Colonel on loan to Petraeus' staff and has done an excellent job of summarizing the key points to success. - rnwen2750, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31KDX200rider - enter the trite name-calling by someone with nothing to add to the conversation other than what they heard on FOX last night.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24"No one, even in DC, is that stupid"
I work at a think tank in DC and get to deal with our elected ***** on a regular basis.
Yes...they *are* that stupid...and I don't mean about the funding thing...they're just *that* stupid. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26"No one, even in DC, is that stupid"
Oh ... that's rich. I don't think I even have to say anything... just point.. and laugh. - stevius, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28it would appear that Bush is picking and choosing who he is listening to and replacing those whose ideas don't gel with his own.
from a link in the article:
"General George Casey and General John Abizaid, the commanders in the field, doubted that additional troops would make any difference in Iraq. They were replaced by surge advocates, including Lieutenant General David Petraeus, now the top commander in Iraq." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19950
"He (Gen. Casey) said the then current troop level of 138,000 could be reduced by 30,000 in the early months of 2006 as Iraqi security forces took on a greater role. President Bush publicly called the talk "speculation" and rebuked the general." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_William_Casey_Jr.
take from that what you will... - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Why do you feel it's necessary to attack someone's sense of patriotism to validate your argument?
- DoubleYouSee, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25@treak007
digg has nothing to do with unbias, it has to do with the popular opinion of digg readers.
Seems the popular opinion of digg readers about that comment is "-1" - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Generals are replaced by the vote of congress. Petraeus was UNANIMOUSLY voted for to be the top commander.
take from that what you will... - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@KDX200rider: I can't be expected to do all your research for you. Use Google if you want to challenge my points. I've provided direct quotes.
"We must send more American combat forces into Iraq and especially into Baghdad to support this operation. A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient."
--"Choosing Victory. A Plan for Success in Iraq"
Frederick Kagan
American Enterprise Institute
This was the plan that Bush seized upon after rejecting all of the suggestions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed former Secretary of State for Bush Sr. James Baker. - aikimann, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26Ok, did anyone even READ the links this guy posted as his references?
Quote form washington post article:
"The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option"
That hardly sounds like "all of the Joint Chiefs, the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, ALL opposed the surge."
And his second link is an excerpt from a left wing book, not a news source. Ya real objective there.
And his third link is to ANOTHER left wing blog who interprets a quote by Bush "President Bush signaled that he will listen but not necessarily defer to balky military officers" as "So now, rather than listening to the military experts, Bush will conduct the war based on the grand powers of his own intellect."
Bush's quote said he will not ALWAYS listen to the generals 100% of the time. If he did, there'd be no point in him being president. He'd just be a puppet of the generals. Instead, it's been interpreted as HE REFUSES TO LISTEN TO THE GENERALS 0% OF THE TIME!
Sure Bush is doing a ***** job, but c'mon, we're supposed to accept this at face value? Even a highschool newspaper editor would laugh at the lack of integrity in this piece.
Buried as Lame. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+32Here are my thoughts.
Be you Democrat or Republican you should be able to see through Bush's *****. I don't care if your a liberal or a neo-con. I don't care what party you belong to, or what your views are. I don't care if you are young or old. If you can't see past Bush's ***** you are a ***** idiot. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23General: "Sir, we need more troops in order to succeed in Iraq... we simply can't do without them."
Bush: "Sorry, but you ain't getting them. Everythings great. It'll be fine. You'll see. Now... run along."
Rumsfeld: "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
General: "*Sigh*"
=======
Many scandals later...
General: "Sir, we just aren't winning in Iraq. We need to pull out now."
Bush: "What's that you say? You need more troops?"
General: "*Sigh*"
=======
A digg post later:
Liberal pundit: "Bush is a liar and he blames everything on everyone else."
Republican pundit: "OMG, you see, the general asked for more troops, you liberals are soo stoopid, always blaming Bush." - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17@repins:
"The monthly death toll in Iraq rose 15 per cent in March, government figures revealed yesterday, as insurgents and sectarian militias defy a crackdown in Baghdad. At least 2,078 Iraqi civilians, police officers and soldiers died in Iraq last month, 272 more than in February. The U.S.-backed crackdown was billed as a last chance to control Baghdad. "
source: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=dd903e70-1144-4def-bc78-f66e659528fa - Willy99, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21so much venom in the rhetoric without knowledge of the subject is a recipe for quagmire.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Sure, the Joint Chiefs are not in the field, so even if they opposed the surge, it does not make Bush's statement that commanders in the field requested it a lie.
But Bush's statement that Commanders in the Field requested it is also misleading. It implies that all, or most, of the (top level) field commanders recommended more troops. I doubt it was unanimous. In fact, I doubt that those who requested more troops at this point were even in the majority. Bush's statement conviniently ignores those commanders who advised no more troops, or those who may have even advised less troops. Once again, BUSH IS CHERRY PICKING THE FACTS TO SUIT HIS AGENDA. Just like he CHERRY PICKED THE PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE TO MAKE THE CASE FOR WAR. Just like when he says that the troops in the field will run out of supplies / funding / whatever, he neglects to point out that if the troops would truly be endangered by running out of funds / suplies, its completely within his power as the Commander-In-Chief (and self appointed "Decider") to bring them home at any time, like before that eventuality ocurrs.
In addition, at every stage the man has re-assigned or forcably retired any military person who has come out against his position of the day. Years ago when commanders requested more troops, but the President did not want to send more troops, those commanders were transfered or retired. What military commander today, who values his career and wants to keep his job, would dare say anything publicly besides what the President wants him to say? - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20War is Peace!!!
Freedom is Slavery!!!
Ignorance is Strength!!! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+34You're right, it's no big deal that the President of the United States maintains an unpopular, unsuccessful, expensive, and deadly war policy by blatantly lying about both his reasoning and the results, because hey, *politicians lie*. Just business as usual, we should wake you up when something interesting happens, right?
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Petraus is fresh in the field; the previous commander (who was replaced as Bush announced the surge) was opposed to the troop surge.
- BradGroux, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18A note from Captain Obvious: Umm, the Joint Chiefs are not "in the field"... they are in Washington.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Moreover, Petraeus is fresh in the field *because* he would request the surge, whereas Casey (his predecessor) opposed it.
In other words, the commanders in the field weren't asking for what Bush wanted them to ask for, so he replaced them. - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14"Has it dawned on anyone that the commanders who opposed the surge are the commanders who hadn't accomplished a whole hell of a lot anyway."
Has it ever dawned on you that these commanders from the start have been sending up requests to do things differently, and were ignored? - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19See nekoian's article. Bush replaced the generals in charge of the Middle East and Iraq who opposed increasing troop levels in early January 2007 (when the surge was announced)
- DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Looks like I'll have to be your substitute teacher for the day.
I was incorrect when I said that Americans don't have a vested interest in the resolution of this conflict. If Iraq remains unstable, it will most likely fracture into smaller factional regions with semi-autonomous governing bodies. While these factional/tribal areas will not necessarily be officially recognized by any world bodies, they will still retain local power. There is a good chance that one or more of these factions will be either influenced or outright controlled by powers that are unfriendly towards the US and it's allies.
Such unfriendly control would result in an increased threat to US holdings in the Middle East as well as jeopardize America's allies, including Israel. This would lead to US to maintain an elevated military presence in the M.E. which would be expensive in both a financial sense and in regards to American lives.
If the US "loses" this conflict it will be seen as weak by its enemies and incompetent by its allies. This would lead to more conflicts being escalated to a military solution because the US is no longer seen as an invincible superpower. In a nut sell, other countries would think they have a chance and they would take it. This does not mean that that US would lose all future conflicts. The overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan is regarded as a moderate success and there is no reason such an outcome would not be possible in other settings. This is important to remember and should alleviate fears of a new "terrorist state" forming in the remnants of an abandoned Iraq.
From a financial standpoint, the US has an interest in ready access to the natural resources available in the M. E. Losing the potential foothold in Iraq makes a general political, and therefore economic, destabilization of the region that much more likely. This market destabilization would spread globally creating negative repercussions for all players on the world stage.
At the moment, there is no way to tell if the "surge" plan will work out to be a strategy for long term success. Reports of violence have been diminishing, but this has been seen before when military tactics on the ground changed. This lull is typically followed by a heavy resurgence of violence after the opposing military forces have reorganized and adapted to the US' new tactics. It is also important to note that this surge in troop presence has a limit. Once it peaks, it must decline or be carried out at the same extended level. Again, it will be very costly to maintain such a presence indefinitely.
So yes, I was wrong when I said the US didn't have an interest in the conflict. However, there was no such interest before this conflict was started. I'll leave the starting of this whole mess for another time. - j0nheck, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Just about to post the same thing--
I realize the military's organization is complex and foreign if you haven't worked with it. But seriously--- Joint Chiefs of Staff != Commanders in the Field.
"Commanders in the field" could represent thousands of "commanders" in Iraq... - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18a) Patraeus was put in place by Bush precisely because he wanted the surge. Those who preceeded him in his position did not. Many other lower level field comanders, who asked for more troops years ago, were reassigned and forcably retired because "more troops" was not, at that time, the right wing talking point of the day.
b) When were Biden and Reed ever in favor of a surge? Perhaps years ago when it might have done some good, you know, before the insurgency had spun well out of control?
c) I do not hate Bush more than I love my country, but I do hate Bush precisely because I do love my country. The fact that he is a liar is bad for my country - among other things, his lying has gotten us into an unwinable war based on false pretenses that should not have been started to begin with, has destroyed our credibility abroad, and has cost the lives of many American soldiers. - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15The author has an ax to grind. Go to his blog to see just what it is.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
Why can't we keep this blog stuff out of here? - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@noahhoward -
So we should make sweeping changes in military policy for hour-by-hour needs? Besides, Petraus was not in the field before he requested the surge. He was privy to the same information the Joint Chiefs would be; perhaps less. - bolerobell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Only because Casey was out of there. What is Congress going to do, leave the position of Field Commander for Iraq unoccupied?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 351 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is