What is Digg?74 Comments
- alapoet, on 07/10/2008, -6/+41Never mind what the President of Iraq says.
Idiots like McCain and Stevanoski obviously know way more about Iraq than the Iraqis themselves. - MercyPolitics, on 07/10/2008, -4/+32 McCain, Stevanoski and about 20% of Americans are still drinking the kool-aid of " the surge is working " and " we are winning in Iraq " against the " bad guys ".
But wait who are the " bad guys"? They use to be the Sunnis, but now they are the" good guys". Some of the Shiites' " good guys " of yesterday are the " bad guys " of today....kind of confusing, Stevanoski, don't you think?
If it would have being up to McCain, the US would still be in Vietnam. - wonderworm, on 07/10/2008, -5/+26McCain.....lying since 1940.
- thejimmyo, on 07/10/2008, -2/+21Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: “The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal"
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/200 ... - medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -1/+19Next:
McCain denies there are guns, bombs or any form of explosives in Iraq. Whenever something goes "BOOM", it is just another celebratory firework by Iraqis welcoming the US. - budgetguitar, on 07/10/2008, -2/+12Forget McCain's flip flop problem, the real story is his cognative problem. The guy can't remember what he said 2 days ago!
At this point, I wouldn't trust him to manage the $5 left in my checking account until I get paid next week, how can I trust him to make the U.S. a better place for me and my fellow Americans? - afx1, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9whatever your definition of "passing comment" is, it was also reinforced by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie when he said, "We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops’ withdrawal from Iraq."
- Verchiel77, on 07/10/2008, -3/+11Yeah, "McCain's right"...except for his blatantly false (or pathetically confused) claims about the Iraqi position.
Pesky facts getting in the way again. - lordblue, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9It's been reported on CNN, we have video...how much more do they have to say for us to leave?
- pintomp3, on 07/10/2008, -5/+13reality seems to have an anti-mccain bias.
- OohChit, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7The man has been drinking the kool aid out of the same cup as gw has been drinking from.
Both are puppets of the bankers and intellectual elite.. - Verchiel77, on 07/10/2008, -3/+10McCranky embarrasses himself, yet again.
He can't keep events straight for a single day.
THIS is someone who should have his finger on the button? - burningmanstan, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6"We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops' withdrawal from Iraq,"
National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie - DangerCollie, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6Somebody wake up grandpa.
The Iraqis are not requesting a time table and STAY OFF MY LAWN!
Punks. - kevinkitching, on 07/10/2008, -2/+7Two words Skippy. MISSED and POINT. RTFA.
- archiesteel, on 07/10/2008, -3/+8The only reason there is less violence in Iraq (it's only "doing well" relative to the absolute disaster it was before - it's still a very violent place) is that the Sunni chieftains have decided to start policing the areas under their control. It has very little to do with the surge.
That said, since you seem to think that things are going well, then you should agree with the Iraqi prime minister when he says that he wants the US forces to leave, or to have at least a timetable for withdrawal. The fact that you don't is a shining example of the right's pathological tendency towards cognitive dissonance. - SpinningHead, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4You cant throw off stevanoski with pesky things like facts. His gut knows the truth.
- archiesteel, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6Hey, kendall, haven't you looked at the polls? Your guy's losing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama ... - yosserhughes, on 07/10/2008, -3/+7You know, until fairly recently I could dismiss McCain out of hand as having almost zero chance of gaining the WH, and therefore whatever he said had little consequence and could be ignored as background noise. But after Obamas performance this last month or so, I'm not so sure.
- Hellman109, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Dont ever let a politician tell you they misspoke, was confused, etc.
If they are confused, they have dozens of advisors who can help them there.
I dont expect any president / presidential wannabe to know everything, but in order to run a country the team around them needs to know everything. - SpinningHead, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4McCain didn't say "The Iraqis have not passed a law requiring the withdrawal of US forces". He said that Iraqis hadn't requested a timeline...which is true only if "Iraqis" doesn't mean the majority of parliament, the prime minister, and the majority of Iraqi citizens.
You also said, "Once they pass a resolution or draft a "Maliki Doctrine""
Well...A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill
You're changing the goal posts again....McCain is your man. - mrsteveman1, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4That has nothing to do with the subject. If the Iraqi government wants us out, we leave. McCain seems to not care what they say.
- phrenzy, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Do you look in the mirror and realize how pathetic you are? You are more over the top than Colbert at his funniest.
"McCain is right..." .. Ok, so you think we should stay in Iraq? That's what you think is "right"? Ok, fine. But he is INCORRECT when he denies that al-Maliki has asked for a time table for "foreign troop withdrawal" - Or do you just not believe he ever said that and the liberals kidnapped him and forced him to say it at gunpoint?
I think what you meant to say (but were too ***** to come out and say it) is "McCain doesn't give 2 ***** what 'the Iraqis' want and neither do I. We leave when WE see fit." - SpinningHead, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Washington Post 2007 - BAGHDAD, May 10 -- A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.
Check this out from next week...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/politics ... - SpinningHead, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Hoshyar Zebari is spokesman for the separatist Kurdistan party. They've been afraid that, without us there, they will be forced to share their oil with the rest of Iraq. Incidentally, one of Bush's top fundraisers, Ray L. Hunt, got a (likely illegal) contract with the Kurds for their oil prior to fulfilling the requirement that there be an oil-sharing deal in place.
- pintomp3, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3it's not gunfire, it's freedom fire!
- ZenMojo, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3We can't abandon British Petroleum. Did we abandon British Petroleum when Iran got a democracy and demanded a larger share of oil revenue? No! This is America, dammit!
- inactive, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3Why should he say anything different? We aren't leaving. He should say that they're asking us to stay. People don't want to hear the truth, so say whatever sounds like what they want to hear. And then go back to doing what we'd plan to do all along.
- burningmanstan, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3That was June 18th. This is July 10th:
"We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops' withdrawal from Iraq,"
National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - burningmanstan, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Many of you seem to be forgetting that Iraq is technically a democracy now (isn't that what you wanted?). The politicians who are requesting withdrawal time lines are most likely representing the wishes of their party and electorate. Some of these politicians are pro-US. If we ignore their wishes and don't come to withdrawal agreements, the people will elect someone who can get the job done ex: Sadrist. Ignore the requests of Iraqis at your peril, at this rate Iraq will have an anti-US president twice as fast as I previously thought.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/politics ... - inactive, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Oh, please educate me. Show me some numbers that:
A) The surge is working
B) We are winning
And if you could PLEASE explain who the "good guys" are and who the "bad guys" are in Iraq, that'd be great...
Thanks! - rz8472, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Breaking: Old Man Yells At Cloud!
- DeePsix501, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2McCain's campaign really is very unprofessional when handling this stuff aren't they? His defense of the timetable plan, isn't defending the time table, but rather deny the other side argued for it in the first place? Seriously!? I can't believe that republicans use the concept that having a plan is WORSE than not having one.
If that's how he defends himself, the Presidential Debates will be a BLAST!!! - Sapphric, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3How ignorant does he think Americans ARE?
- mrsteveman1, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4No one mentioned obama *****
- pushu, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Well, what else is new? Everything about Iraq has been "misleading", "misinformation" and "disinformation" from day one. Why should it change now?
- richardstaboner, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2lol @ "bad guys", why don't you just call 'em evildoers who hate us for our freedom?
- Import98, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2I am shocked this person is even a presidential candidate. When I was a kid I never thought I would see the U.S.A fall apart this way under someone like Bush & Co. To have someone that would essentially be another 4 years of Bush, this country is doomed.
- neozeed, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2We will leave, when BP&Exxon are good and dammed well ready to leave! Also check with Halliburton & Blackwater Intl.
- devophl, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Clearly we have to save the Iraqis from themselves!! They are an evil, disorganized society that can't rule themselves so we'll do it for them!
But seriously, I don't think anyone other than the Iraqis are talking about a withdrawal. We didn't invest over a billion dollars into Iraqi on permanent military bases and a huge embassy if the intent was to leave. I know Bush and McCain see no less than a South Korea like setting of at least 50,000 troops staged in Iraq for at least 30 years. The only difference compared to today is whether these troops will be doing combat or not. We're there to make sure the Iraq government doesn't turn on us and throw out the US interests... all those contractors and oil companies. I haven't even heard anything from Obama that tells me he will totally withdraw from Iraq.
I still believe that one of the reasons we went to war in Iraq was to find a place to put the 30,000 troops that were staged in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. Al Qaeda used this as a rallying cry for 9/11. If we can't stage them in Saudi Arabia because they were destabilizing that country, we have to invade another sovereign country in the Middle East in order to stage them. I think the Pentagon and the military industrial complex, not to mention the oil companies would do everything in their power to prevent a withdrawal from Iraq now. - archiesteel, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2"If we're going to release that info, then we might as also start releasing troop locations, number, and inventory of each unit."
Uh, no. These are completely different - one puts the troops at risk, the other may *perhaps* embolden some insurgents. (I guess they have motivational issues or something...) - geekee, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1If you read what the Iraqis want, it's a timetable AFTER they get their ***** together, not an absolute timetable. McCain is right.
- inactive, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1So that makes it all ok?
Gotcha. - inactive, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1"the other may *perhaps* embolden some insurgents"
May? Sorry but to deny that they will be emboldened is naive.
"one puts the troops at risk"
We'll just use your logic.....*perhaps* it may put troops at risk. - devophl, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Pretty much every major group in Iraq is calling for a total withdrawal of US troops in the next 2 years. Maliki, who has been very sympathetic to the US saw the handwriting on the wall. Six months ago, Bush approached Maliki with this agreement with the idea US troops could stay as long as possible. I believe I heard the original agreement was to around 2030. But the agreement was laced with issues that no independent government would accept. Maliki followed along until word got out what was in the agreement. In the last month, Maliki's coalition government was ready to turn on him if he didn't come out against the agreement.
I suspect Bush is going to tighten his leash on Maliki to force him to accept some sort of long term agreement despite what the rest of the country wants. Bush is up against the UN deadline at the end of the year and clearly Bush has no intention of bringing any of the existing troops home between now and the day the next president comes into office.
Of course, he could start a war with Iran and that would justify us staying!! I wonder if he's thought of that?? - zombies187, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1McCain didn't have the nuts to vote...
- ZenMojo, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2He spent all of it 15,000 feet in the air dropping napalm or in a prison being tortured, of course he wants a second shot at it.
- TruthTeller50, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: “The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal"
I am a proud Con. And I once thought invading Iraq had warrants. But if I have to choose between Stevanoski the box-thinking troll or CNN, I choose CNN. There was no spin in this report - this was a quote. This is a direct request from one of the highest ranking politicians in Iraq. And there must be a reason the request goes unheeded.
It leads me to tentatively believe the following:
A) McCain is lying, as is every news outlet which claims, "we are winning the war in Iraq."
B) Our troops are not there for Iraqi freedom; they are protecting other interests.
C) Those interests are oil / no-bid defense contracts to Cheney cronies. Also, this war establishes
an outpost for our Roman legionnaires. Seoul. Okinawa. Germany, Turkey. Iraq.
I, opposed to the TV pundits, have proudly served in our armed forces. Currently I am fortunate enough to work with servicemen and servicewomen who have returned from Afghanistan & Iraq. The three points above are not my points; they are theirs.
I give Stevanowki credit for sharing his beliefs, but I have seen him troll only political articles for the past few weeks. Young man, if you are on the Republican payroll, say it. Be honest. Many of us suspect you are a spammer. On Digg, sneaky spammers like you don't get far, nor do they start intelligent debates - and (believe it or not) many of us come here for this exchange of ideas.
As for me, I state who I support. At the same time I am willing to discuss my Conservative beliefs, and not spam people who I respect. Stevanowski, I invite / dare you to do the same.
Reddit and StumbleUpon are available, Stevanowski. Troll there. - inactive, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2I'm not sure what will be more fun. Watching Obama win, or watching Obama expand the eavesdropping and warrantless wiretapping programs he seems to have taken a liking to recently.
Oh and when I say fun, I mean it in a shove-a-chopstick-all-the-way-up-your-urethra type of way. - inactive, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1Ignorant enough to elect him into office, like they elected bush twice, and followed him to war on nothing but lies.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is