What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by wix.com
221 Comments
- timj83, on 02/26/2008, -25/+101Good lord between the 50 lobbyists in his campaign, bomb bomb Iran, 100 years in Iraq....how the hell is this guy getting votes??!!! Are people really this stupid?will people really subject this country to another 4 years of *****!!
- madfrogurt, on 02/26/2008, -18/+70Look, I won't be voting for the guy but I at least don't throw up straw mans from his arguments. The whole "100 years in Iraq" is referring to a permanent military presence in the country, like in Japan or Korea. It does not mean we will have a continued large garrison in Iraq continuing the fighting, but rather a smaller force staying in the area as a show of force and to stabilize the area (which I don't think will occur, but at least I'm thinking of what his actual goals are). The newest remarks say we're going to eventually get most of our troops out of the area.
Of course this will get dugg down since the prevailing wisdom of digg is that McCain really wanted a 100 year drawn out war, and obviously now he's going senile by going against his previous delusion. - inactive, on 02/26/2008, -5/+30Wasn't the war won about a month after we went in there? We are nation building now....not fighting a war.
- tillerman00, on 02/26/2008, -9/+33Actually, he hasn't changed his socks since 1972. Arms are too short.
- dusingaz, on 02/26/2008, -5/+23Way to take a quote out of context.
- janeuner, on 02/26/2008, -4/+19What would you call it then? Occupation or not, I don't want my tax dollars to subsidize the defense of an island that is five thousand miles from the nearest US state.
- Sogui, on 02/26/2008, -3/+16I ask "Are the people really this stupid?" when I read the comments about McCain who actually believe he wants to bomb Iran (he says it's a last resort), and wants 10,000 years in Iraq (he was exaggerating to draw the difference between combat operations and a small occupation force).
If you research McCain and throw out all your silly knee-jerking and blog-spin, you'll find that he's a good guy with good intentions, that don't always follow through as he plans... but I'll take that over the current Republican leadership. - NEWNHLISLAME, on 02/26/2008, -2/+14What you just said is the problem. We cant be in every other country. The USA is out of money. How are you going to pay for it? Ron Paul brought this up during one of the Debates and he is right on the money. Try having our forces here to help clean up the devastation from the Natural Disasters that have ravaged the States. I know I would hope that the Government would do a better job if it were my city that was destroyed.
- 3tcp, on 02/26/2008, -23/+34Oh please, he was obviously exaggerating to make a point with the 100 years remark. It was also clear that he wasn't giving an opinion of how long he though we would actually have to be in Iraq. Claiming that this was a flip-flop is as ridiculous as saying Obama's present votes were an inability to commit to a position.
- Gerz1219, on 02/26/2008, -1/+12McCain can't raise his arms above his head as a result of his torture by the North Vietnamese (and presumably he would have difficulty changing his socks). tillerman's joke was a reference to this fact. You were dugg down because you didn't get the joke.
- Merendino, on 02/26/2008, -7/+18I miss the days when Ron Paul was the guy getting promoted on Digg....
- janeuner, on 02/26/2008, -2/+12Ya know, I need a security guard for my house. Since you are so noble, why dont you pay me rent for a portion of my front yard and build a security checkpoint. You can then stand guard outside my house, using your equipment and your time. You can provide my home security for the next 100 years. Thanks in advance.
Or, if you'd prefer, we can just call on eachother when we are actually attacked. But where is the honor in that? - inactive, on 02/26/2008, -5/+15This article is going to be buried soon as inaccurate. This whole article is bull. McCain was saying if need be we would be in Iraq for 100 years. But he only meant we would have a presence there like in Japan. Not our entire military.
heres the proof:
http://victropolis.blogspot.com/2008/02/08-electio ...
please bury this inaccurate crooksandliars article as the bull that it truly is. - brokenspatula, on 02/26/2008, -17/+27Crooksandliars is just that, keep the lies off digg
- darkcthulhu, on 02/26/2008, -5/+15Yes, they are that stupid.
- bdbr, on 02/26/2008, -3/+12I'm not sure its wise to assume that there is any prevailing wisdom on Digg. Its all about what's trendy, and what's trendy now is Barak Obama (or anti-everyone else).
- gbjxc, on 02/26/2008, -0/+9Not sure if you're sarcastic, but Bush himself is opposed to "nation building"--or was during his 2000 campaign:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
"I'm worried about an opponent [Gore] who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence."
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
"... a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight." - jaybo1001, on 02/26/2008, -0/+9Ahh.. intelligent life on Digg. Dugg up for not being a dumbass, and understanding the difference between the war, and a military presence.
- kdawg1012, on 02/26/2008, -8/+16Hey, I'm almost his age and I have trouble remembering too LOL. Seriously, has he ever put out his medical history? Reagan had Alzheimer's and it definitely showed in his last year in office. This position is too important to allow that to happen again.
- spyd3rweb, on 02/26/2008, -2/+10Kevin Rose fixed that, now its all obama spam.
- Staticbursts, on 02/26/2008, -0/+8Thank you for finally clearing that up. I'm getting tired of people misinterpreting or misunderstanding McCain's remarks. While I don't agree with him, he doesn't want to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -29/+37Jeez, this guy changes his mind more than he changes his socks.
- masterm1nd, on 02/26/2008, -2/+9Actually, he doesn't have full range of movement in his arms because he was tortured.
- badqat, on 02/26/2008, -8/+15Dupe...and full of partisan trash rather than telling a story.
- jostheller, on 02/26/2008, -0/+7Diebold already leaked the 2008 presidential results. McCain won with 48%...
- zeusthemoose, on 02/26/2008, -4/+11I think a lot of people are not informed and simply believe everything the tv tells them. McCain will tell people anything they want to hear just to try to get elected. Even if he knows he is telling a lie.
- pedo, on 02/26/2008, -18/+24alll weee are sayyyyyyinggggg is give war a chaaaaannnceeeeee
- Terr01, on 02/26/2008, -2/+8Protip: 1901 is not the same as 1991.
Having a military base in a friendly country is not the same as patrolling their streets while they have their own (mini/normal) civil-war. - 3tcp, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6Yes. If you pay attention to the general election you will notice that people will constantly say things about how he's a hero, a great man, stuff about service to the country, etc.. His political opponents and critics who make guest appearances on talk shows will nearly always say something to this extent before criticizing his policies because they think people are stupid and will interpret political criticisms as downplaying his sacrifices in the military.
He was a POW at the Hanoi Hilton. His dad was pretty high up in the Navy so they offered to let him go but he refused unless everyone that was captured before him was also released. This is where much of his 'hero' credit comes from. They strung him up and beat the ***** out of him constantly causing the injuries that prevent him from raising his arms above his shoulders. - The_Red_Monkey, on 02/26/2008, -2/+8The choices in this election are even worse than the prior. McCain who threatened to change parties to be a Dem VP. Hillary who just scares the heck out of me or Obama who makes speeches all day but says nothing. He is for change! What he is going to change and how he is going to do it is a mystery to everyone, even Scooby Doo.
I am so distraught that I may vote Nader. - aliengoods, on 02/26/2008, -2/+8He made one good point when he said he would lose the election if he couldn't sell people on the Iraq war. Seeing how his only 2 policies are cut taxes and stay in Iraq, he loses half of his talking points right there.
- waynetheman, on 02/26/2008, -4/+10We shouldn't still be in Germany. Or Korean, Japan, etc. And so we should get the hell out of Iraq ASAP. THAT is the point.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -4/+9People should really stop looking at this Crooks and Liars website, it is utter garbage.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/the-senate/ ...
Not one bad thing about Obama.
Give me a break, if you are going to report at least be SOMEWHAT fair instead of spewing crap and putting words in someones mouth. I'm not saying Obama has done a lot wrong but he has had some issues.
McCain's "100 years comment" was about having bases in Iraq for a period of time just as we do in over 20 other countries throughout the world. By having an American prescence we can help to protect another country from attacks. If someone attacked Japan (we have bases in Japan) they would indirectly be attacking us, so they will not. As for flip flopping, people should be thrilled the man sad we will be out sooner. I want us to win this war in the shortest amount of time possible. It is going to take at least a year to get the troops out of Iraq so why not use that time to WIN the war... then bring our troops home. - Sogui, on 02/26/2008, -2/+7He's got an IQ of 133 and he spends most of his day talking to reporters and answering any question they want on the record. Even Obama and Clinton refuse to open their doors to the media and stay as transparent as McCain.
If you or your campaign were worried about his mental condition, the last thing you'd do is expose him to the media all day long and have them ask whatever questions come to their mind. I align with Obama on most of the issues, but I've got to give McCain credit for his transparency with the media. - gbjxc, on 02/26/2008, -2/+7That was a CNN clip...
- markgl, on 02/26/2008, -3/+8wtf does that have todo with anything.
- Wetzilla, on 02/26/2008, -4/+9He was saying that's what he'd like to happen in Iraq, not what is currently happening.
- jdfoote2, on 02/26/2008, -3/+7Seriously, I'm no McCain fan, but if you believe every crazy headline that you hear at face value - "He wants to bomb Iran", "He wants to be in Iraq 100 years", etc., then I hate to break it to you, but you are the idiot, not the people voting for him.
- Terr01, on 02/26/2008, -6/+10What he was doing was falsely equating the kind of occupation we have in Iraq with, say, the kind in South Korea.
Very different situations, and it's just bogus to compare them as he did. - Wosat, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5Buried as inaccurate. (Only because there's not a "buried as complete b.s." button.)
But the point of his statement -- that we *could* be in Iraq 100 years and the American people wouldn't care, as long as we weren't being killed -- is absolutely accurate. - n0xin, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4/sarcasm ?
- yakski, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4Make up your mind.. first you say he hasn't sold his soul... then you say he has "more conciliatory attitude toward the far right and adjusted some of his rhetoric"... I think it is clear he has. The old John McCain did not support the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq... but the new one says he supports it and always has.. The reality of the 100years comment is that he never clarified what he meant at the time he made the statement. Only later did he "clarify" what he really meant. And now something even more different. The original intent of his statement was clear, that the US would stay in whatever form is necessary to secure Iraq to US satisfaction (whatever that! is). His attempt to muddy the original statement 's meaning to try and get votes is undeniably just pandering, waffling, whatever you want to call trolling for votes at whatever the cost.
- danlas, on 02/26/2008, -6/+10Guess what, we've been in Japan for over 60 years and Korea for over 50 years. His original quote about being in Iraq for 100 years was not saying that we would be "fighting a war" for 100 years, just that we would have a troop presence there. Therefor his saying that he thinks our part of the war will be over soon is not flip flopping.
Does anyone bother to read entire quotes (including their contexts) before jumping on a partisan bandwagon? - just_chris, on 02/26/2008, -8/+12Jeez, what's with all the McCain bashing here? Every little thing he says is spun way out of control and posted here like the guy is the devil or something. Bash him all you want, but in my opinion he's better than any other GOP candidate. Even if he wins, the country is way better off than with George W. Bush.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4Umm..we took the country from the Spanish and then refused to give them liberty (we claimed to be liberators to the Philippines..sound familiar?)
- 3tcp, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Wheee, false dilemma, I feel like a kid in logic class again. Maybe I'll call my older brother and ask him to get some beer for me.
- Sogui, on 02/26/2008, -3/+6yes, but the delicious spin came from Crooks and Liars. McCain has always stated that we are constantly pushing to hand over control to the Iraqis, but we should leave a garrison behind (out of harm's way). He used the 100 years comment to illustrate the difference, Americans could care less if we spent 100 years in Germany, Japan, Korea, or Kuwait... if we have a base out in the desert the average American could care less how long it stays there as long as troops aren't dying.
But of course you believe that he actually wants to keep the war going for another 100 years, because of the previously mentioned spin from Crooks andLiars.
Honestly, (R) or (D) or (I)... learn to think on your own and cut yourself off from ridiculous blogs from CrooksandLiars, it's really refreshing to not have idiots do your political thinking for you. - manicmarvin, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Exactly. He is just saying we must continue our policy of extending our nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. You know, an empire!? Every God-fearing Republican knows that that was the Founding Fathers' dream. Sheesh!
- stillanovice, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Our presence keeps the peace? Where did you get that Idea from? Where do we get the authority to mess with other nations lives? I don't remember reading that part of the constitution. I would like other nations to take care of their own problems and for the US to only get involved when we are directly threatened. We could save some money if we didn't have to support more then 130 different bases around the world either.
- bunit03057, on 02/26/2008, -5/+8Oh hey, another straw man argument. I do not want them here so we should not be there. You are making a parallel where there isn't one.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 221 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is