What is Digg?47 Comments
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28shawnfassett,
That's not saying much. - quomen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27Nice headline, thought it looks slightly incom
- jamie1415, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24He's my favorite bush appointee...which is probably why he is being ignored....
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17He seems to be the most honest...
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19The most honest? For saying, in effect, "I don't know if I'm breaking the law, but I do what the President tells me to."
That's just a stone's throw from "I was just following orders."
No sale. If people can ding Sen. Durbin for knowing BushCo was lying about Iraq and not speaking out because he'd be breaking secrecy, we can equally hold Gates accountable for following ***** orders from above. Loyalty is not obedience to criminals. - Gzero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I thought the title was referring to Bill Gates...I'm disappointed :.
- ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7 BYRD: Secretary Gates, the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq authorized the president to use force for two purposes. The first was to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Let me read that again, now.
The first was defend the national security of the United States, quote, against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, close quote.
The second was to, quote, enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iraq, close quote.
Since the government of Iraq that is referred to in the resolution no longer exists, having been replaced by a democratically elected one, do you agree — do you agree that this authorization no longer applies to the ongoing conflict in Iraq?
GATES: I think the honest answer, Senator Byrd, is that I don’t know the answer to that question.
BYRD: That’s being honest.
Therefore, if you don’t know the answer — how does it apply if you don’t know the answer?
GATES: Well, sir, my impression is that it’s the view of the president that it still continues to authorize the actions that we are taking in Iraq.
BYRD: All right.
WOW i cannot wait to see the followup on this one. DO NOT drop the ball dems - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@stauken
The uniform code of military justice makes it clear that soldiers are OBLIGATED to not only ignore illegal orders, but report their commanders for giving them. The military has zero tolerance for illegal orders, or for violations of law, military or otherwise.
So you're exactly wrong about your theory. You can't have a viable military without the rule of law. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If they were scanning brains, they might not have this problem. Clearly, they're scanning people's guts.
"Yep, this one's full of *****. Welcome aboard." - goarmy06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Gugel
Considering only 14% of Iraqis want their country divided...i'd say bad idea.
That was according to a poll conducted by BBC, ABC, Gallup/USA Today, and ARD German TV in March of this year. - magical1492, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Capital letters make a message sound important!
- redxii, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Someone didn't read the article nor the first word of the description.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5That would really suck to be a minority in one of those 3 new nations. Basically, yer gonna die.
- djscott1021, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
- ieatkoalas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Did anyone notice that Sen. Byrd sounds like an old Billy Madison?
- Gugel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Solution to Iraq:
Divide Iraq into three parts. Gradually scale back and concentrate US troops on the borders to prevent a large scale civil war. Use the money saved from the military scaleback to invest in counter-terrorist agencies to prevent a terrorist attack on US soil. Keep scaling back the military in Iraq. Keep investing that saved money in counter-terrorist agencies. The end. - beaverdale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Another very good point raised on why President Bush is waging a war which is illegal. The authorization should be dropped and the President should be forced to put a new authorization in Congress, guess how that one would get voted???
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Please tell me one thing that is inaccurate in this article. One tiny, little thing. Anything at all.
Go on, I'll wait. - LostOnion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I thought he meant saint.
- robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Marked inaccurate simply because the submitters was too lazy to even check what he put for the story title.
Maybe it is a good story, maybe it isn't. But continually allowing submitters to be this lazy only hurts Digg overall.
Cut-Copy-Paste - seriously, why not just get an RSS reader?
Digg- "Where it doesn't matter how many errors there are as long as it seems good to me." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4How did he get around the Bushy brain scan?
- fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3He doesn't know if the war authorization is a street. Fascinating. Please check your titles, kids.
- oneiroi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whoa!
Someone is disagreeing with Bush in his administration?
Quick, make him resign. Or better yet charge him for treason and throw him in Guantanamo! - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1His "being honest" protects him.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Technically the WAR IS OVER. It is now an occupation.... so yes. He has no more authorization and in court would lose, depending on whether Bush appointed them or not.
- thushan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1awwww there there... no-one really cares what you, your dick, your posts, you hacking digg to a million pieces (?) or your emotional problems. This is Digg after all:-) Everybody is a nobody unless your Kevin Rose or apart of his hood...
You can always migrate to the "new" nutscrape ooops netscape.com "portal"... - ummagummas08, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My thoughts exactly. Why is he getting dugg down for makin' a little joke??
- psychohistorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Everytime Gate gets get mentioned I always assume it was Bill
- Shadowhawk109, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was surprised to only see 250ish Diggs on this story. I thought that something involving overlypaid CEO's, Microsoft, and Dubya would be flooded...
Then I read the description...
For the record, I happen to like Bill Gates. Not so much this other guy... - scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but I think you're being too hard on Gates.
His appointment is a political one... he's a civilian and you have to work the system from the inside. If you step into office and start screaming "OMG MY BOSS IS RETARDED!!!" you're going to get fired, regardless of how true that statement is. If you disagree with your boss, you can't make changes if you get thrown out. You'll just be replaced with another loyalist.
Let's celebrate the couple of good things we have going on. - RedShirtNumber2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow I guess they ran out of the Bush Kool Aid after the second term started. I think Gates sees the writing on the wall. He knows where this is going and he knows the President is going to have be nudged back to reality.
- sevenoutdb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As mush as it pains me to say it, I'm starting to like Bob Gates. Too bad Rummy didn't make way for him earlier.
- goarmy06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0beaverdale
You think Congress is going to want the blood of all the Iraqis that will get murdered by a premature pullout on their hands? It's bad enough as it is....our pulling out would make it alot worse as the ING gets dismantled by the insurgents. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2That's close to Sen. Biden's plan and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group too, which I also thought was inevitable the day we disbanded the Iraqi army and bureaucracy. It couldn't have gone any other way.
The problem is, the country isn't so neatly divided. There would still be ethnic cleansing until the people are sorted into three areas. It will be bloody no matter what. But this is the best of the remaining options.
There's also a problem with Turkey and an independent Kurdistan in the north. But that can be worked out, I hope. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The "authorization" was to get UN inspectors back into Iraq.
It was never a legal or legitimate war. It was never, even at the beginning, for the stated purpose. - fractalman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Bush should have his authority pulled. Not only that, he and Cheney must be impeached. Further more, the laws passed by the Neocons must be repeeled. We must demand that the constitution be restored or we will never have the liberty that the founder intended.
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2link to thinkprogress.org = dugg down as inaccurate
Post real stories please. - Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0actually, now is the only time it IS valid.
pretty much everything we thought was in Iraq (and wasn't) is there now...
good job neo-cons! what foresight! - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Oh, and for extra credit: Name the only candidate that has stated that only a declared war would be legal.
There is a very ***** good reason the Founders gave Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Any politician who thinks a "resolution" is good enough should have "RTFC" branded only their foreheads. Or foreskins, whichever they touch more often. - goarmy06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Harry
It provided the transcript and wasn't biased at all (I don't like thinkprogress). Sen Byrd is a tool for asking an irrelavent question, but come on....RTFA! - globalstomp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1***** YOU DIGG AND SUCK MY DICK YOU ***** DICK-SMOKERS FOR TRYING TO CENSOR MY POSTS WHEN I SUBMITTED 7 TIMES AND STILL AFTER F-5 REFRESH YOU REFUSE TO POST IT. I AM GOING TO SPREAD THIS ALL OVER THE INTERNET ABOUT THE ***** YOU GUYS PULL AND WE ARE GOING TO HACK THE ***** OUT OF YOUR ***** SITE INTO A MILLION ***** PIECES INTO THE NEXT ***** MELLENIUM YOU NAZI ***** ***** BRAINS![reply]
- dogshaft, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Ya I thought it was Bill Gates too, but I wasn't so lazy as to not read the description, unlike that guy.
- FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Sen. Robert Byrd Racist KKK
- Cwo655321, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5when is thinkprogress going to stop spamming digg?
just because they say what you want to hear does not make them right, or credible. - stauken, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@EntropyMan
It's completely ok in my mind for military officials to say they were just following orders; fact of the matter is that's how it works and you're broken down in boot camp to do precisely what you are told. Doesn't mean higher levels of command should be cleansed of responsibility, there should be some acknowledgement of a mistake but still -- he IS telling the truth.
And we don't break the law-- we also just do what the president tells us At this stage in our government, a law can change virtually overnight.
Look at over-time for certain professions within the IT world. Gone, overnight. We do what we're told. - SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Yeah well Microsoft is ***** anyways lol
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is