What is Digg?164 Comments
- tblasko, on 10/12/2007, -44/+148No international support, no WMD's, no al queda links, no congressional support.... Now there are thousands dead, more terrorists, degraded world view of the US, lost allies, one fragmented country worse off than it was before, loss of military credibility, an occupation in which we are not wanted by the very people we are occupying, and no end in sight... it hurts my soul
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -23/+72It was a stupid bill, they weren't serious about it, and both they and Bush knew it.
Back to the drawing board, dems, and this time try to be smart. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51I know this wasn't a huge issue that everyone was talking about, but there was over 50 million dollars in there for ***** peanut storage. When the senator from Penn was asked about it he said he wasn't ashamed, and was just taking care of the people in his constituency. Are you kidding me??!?!? This is why i hate people that side with one party, neither are honest, and they'll both ***** you if you aren't paying close attention.
- vemerge, on 10/12/2007, -49/+89@dasgehtnicht: He broke many laws and many international treaties and agreements. You can't seriously think he did this whole thing by the book, can you?
- jdbeast00, on 10/12/2007, -22/+58@senorcool
By withdrawing the troops immediately, do you think that less people will die? Less American solders might die...true. I guess that all anyone here cares about.
dugg down in 3...2...1... - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -29/+62Yes this will get Dugg down, but it has to be said. All said here today, bad war, wrong reason(s), etc are true...
However...
The Democrats are playing a high level game of ***** with this bill. They know its a bad bill, they know the President HAS to Veto it, they simply put it forth to make a statement, nothing more, nothing less.
Imagine its 1 month after a new Democrat has been sworn into office. The House and Senate are owned by the Democrats, the power is unmistakable. Now, do the Democrats do what they SAY should be done and pull the plug and remove all the troops immediately? Leave Iraq to become a state of Iran? ***** right they don't, but you won't hear the truth until after the next President is elected.
Its a ***** shame too, both sides should acknowledge the problem and admit the solution must be something that stands a chance of being sustainable. That won't happen, as its time to pick teams and buy more votes. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Wow, if America goes cold turkey on the war, Iraq will have some major withdrawels. Shooting up heroin is a stupid idea, but immedeatly stopping it three or four years later isn't going to do you very much good. We've got to gradually ease our troops out of Iraq, not just put them on C-130s and ship them home.
- dasilva333, on 10/12/2007, -14/+33can they just override the veto with 2/3 majority from each chamber in congress?
- cyclingbum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@ dasilva333
yea but the dems don't have the requisite votes in either chamber to get 2/3 - luther70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Actually there was never a deceleration of war. Authorization for use of military force but not war.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16There's a picture and a quote from Pelosi, along with links to sources. Except for the article's title, every bit of content comes from speaker.gov .
How the HELL is that biased? - otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@Thacker
Of course, I forgot, we're living in a dictatorship. :)
Are you ***** serious? The President shouldn't have to compromise? Wow... - HiggsBoson, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21@craigb12
So you're suggesting that it was vetoed for the peanut storage pork? Right.
I suggest the Dems resubmit the bill with all pork intact, only removing the withdrawal language. Bush will sign it so fast your head will spin. - otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10They CANNOT override the veto, because THEY DO NOT have the 2/3 majority.
You have to remember, this is still D.C., and everyone votes as a party.
Anyways, they're going to keep sending the bill again and again, though it'll probably get the same treatment.
The U.S. public wants this war to end, hundreds of ex-military and current military officials want it to end, hundreds of politicians want it to end, but one man is in the way. That's not democracy, I know that much. (don't give me that "it's a republic" nonsense, i know it is)
Also, you guys really need to study your history. Pundits all across the nation predicted the demise of the U.S. if they were to leave Vietnam, but nothing happened. Now, they're saying the same thing about Iraq. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9that is EXACTLY what this bill was about.. compromise!
For starts the president can't collect taxes...if he wants more money, he's gottta deal! Congress wants results to go with their money... what Republican can't respect THAT!! Congress is under no legal or moral obligation to pay more money. They've already granted over 200 Billion dollars. Congress only gave him PERMISSION to go to war. They didn't ORDER him to. He needed to think thru the cost and time table better so he won't run out of money and troops... that's what military commanders do. Oh, wait, Rumsfield fired all THOSE commanders and put in "yes-men" who agreed to follow orders over running a good fight.
I think there's an agenda going on... keep making reasonable (but tough) compromises and alienate the White House more and more.. The investigations, the criminal activity, the spending/end of war bills. The goal is to get the President to paint himself into a corner with his own arrogance.. much like Nixon. It's a matter of getting him to reject ALL of Congress.. so even his own party is legally required to deal with him. - TheFederalist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7they can override him with enough votes. they just don't have them.
- rezist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Are you at all aware of America's founding fathers? Stop criticizing our commander in chief? lol. Wow, the day I stop critically monitoring what the elected officials are doing, someone please put me out of my misery! You sound as if you'd be right at home in N. Korea. Quick question that I hope you choose to answer, what exactly has this president, or administration done for you specifically?
- billmccartney, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11WOW... you don't really understand what this bill says.. It essentially cut off funding after a deadline....
So yes... it was defeated by a presidential veto, but that is not to say that they didn't try!! - PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13@dasilva333
They won't though. Most of them did this knowing bush would veto it, since he said he would for months. They wanted to do this to show the people that they are against the war and now they'll give up because they are getting their pockets lined by lobbying agencies that want the war to continue. Congress and the senate are secretly in support of the war because it lines their pockets as well, its just publicly they denounce it. If they were truly against the war they would try to override his veto. - biuku, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I think withdrawing is wrong:
a) it only benefits the U.S. in the short run. If Iraq devolves into an Al-Qaeda state, the U.S. will have to re-engage = Gulf War III. If Iran crosses the border, the U.S. will have to re-engage = Gulf War III. They will get no help from any other nation. There will be no coalition of the willing.
b) it allows hundreds or thousands of innocents (like children and babies) to be slaughtered in a growing anarchy that did not exist before. If you're a robot, this destroys U.S. credibility and fuels rage. If you're not, you should cry.
c) it forevermore shifts blame for the Iraq debacle away from Bush. The Democrats will lose the next 11 elections.
I despise W almost as much as RATM, but I respect logic. - newsheatdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13@dylansbeard
Apparently you haven't been listening to any of the investigations going on about the WMDs and the intelligence supporting that claim. It has been shown that the intelligence that George Tenet of the CIA pushed to backup the invasion of Iraq was very politically motivated and not very factual. Intelligence needs a firewall between it and the political community, as politics should not interfere with facts.
I suggest you listen to a few news stories about the ongoing investigations and then get back to us.
Here is one you can start with from NPR: http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/330/510053/9928028/WBUR_9928028.mp3 - lynnallan, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19We won the war, congress voted to go there, get your facts straight
- rezist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The country will address issues like education, health care, immigration, our nations food supply, and pollution as well as attempting hopefully to repair the damage done to our constitution soon, when the current administration is removed. But your right with this bill out of the way our president can go on limiting scientific progress, limiting the rights of citizens, and lining the pockets of his cronies.
- mrbeagle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Your WWII comparison is insulting. That war was fought against wanton aggressors whose actions shattered countries and slaughtered millions. In that war we had strong resolve and clear objectives. In Iraq, we have only doubt, uncertainty, and the vague promises of a lunatic. We need to get out of there.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Biased to the truth, maybe.
The reason people hate ThinkProgress is they have sources, and credible ones at that. They report on everything. They link to said sources. People then cry because it's not what they wanna read/hear. Give me a break.
If other sites could learn a lesson from them, we'd have a more open and honest press in this country. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Right now they're smarter than that!!! The President is stopping funding right now because he won't sign the bill to get more money right now!! Of course to get the money, he'll have to agree to get the job done on time, but there's money right now, on the table but the president doesn't want to agree to Congress' terms... who's executing the power play? And who's trying to use the troops as pawns for ever and ever?
- sgglynn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Alternate title: how to continue bumping the same damn articles on digg over and over. It's been said already, this wasn't a serious bill and everyone knew it. Stop trying to make this seem like a huge deal, it isnt, everyone knew and expecting this was going to happen. And for everyone who just keeps blaming bush over and over, stop. It's the whole administration, the presidents decision power is a joke, everything they do comes from advisers and such, to think one man actually has this huge amount of power is embarrassing.
Ok, so maybe that's a bit long for an alternate title - omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6And no safe way to stay. Which hell is worse?
- freebird, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@antifederalist
Curious to know your definition of a war criminal.
To me Sherman during the Civil War on his march through Georgia bringing war to homes of women and children, using confederate prisoners to sweep for mines on the roads, bombarding and burning cities without giving citizens notice and time to evacuate is a true war criminal.
Hitler and his cronies were war criminals for a large number of reasons including executing captured soldiers on the spot.
I'm curious to know how our government acting on the best intelligence available qualify as war criminals?
As far as I know we go out of our way to avoid killing innocent civilians to the point of jeopardizing the lives of our own troops.
We are also not executing any prisoners captured on the battlefield that I'm aware of so calling our government war criminals is insulting to those that actually suffered from real war crimes and those serving in the field. - whiteboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Was this document written using a typewriter?
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Stupid bill? They weren't serious about it?
It contained the funding for the surge. It contained the desire of the American public.
Maybe in your mind, America is a twisted, dictatorship, but the America I know is a republic.
The President MUST act in the interest of the people. Now, you guys can blame the democrats, because well, that's what you always do, or you can blame the man who's possibly one of the most corrupt presidents in American history - take your pick. - d34f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How many other people out there realize the only reason this mutant bill got through Congress was the president's intent to veto.
- Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4HiggsBoson,
I think it would be better if they stripped the pork, but left the timelines in. Of course, reporters have already asked if it would still get vetoed if that happened, and the answer was "yes". But, then the Bush apologists would have one less talking point.
Giving him the bill with pork but without timelines would prove your point, but then this crappy occupation would go on that much longer. - loki440, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@cliffzdude
You're godammn right! The U.S. has sunk billions of dollars into building "enduring" (i.e. permanent bases) in Iraq. Does anyone think we're just going to up and leave them if a Democrat is elected? The answer is "Of course not!"
The top tier Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton, have all but stated that they'll leave some American forces in Iraq---even in a pullout situation--- to protect our national interests. Americans need to wake up, we're going to be in Iraq for a long, long time. - luther70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@tituspullo71 thank god we have at least one unemployed conservative to share their wisdom during business hours.
- plash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Override (a veto):
The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the President's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes. - tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13For the US, this isn't a war, its an occupation. And with occupations, it is never a question of winning or losing. It is only ever a question of when will it end.
Me, I think it should end when the Iraqi Parliament stops trying to solve their problems and goes on a two month vacation. That is to say, June 30th. - otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@analyze
Hah!
Wow, the comments here are absolutely ridiculous. - rezist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's curious how many comments I've read on Digg about this topic that have been buried even though they contain pertinent information that seems well researched. Yet ridiculous comments in support of the war like, "we have a job to do" or that we are fighting the war on terrorism, remain dugg. When did so many rednecks get computers?
- gingerbreadcat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ rezist
I'm guessing some site somewhere is feeding people in to encourage them to post pro-war or pro-Bush stories and comments on digg. Either that or they're all leaving Fark. ;)
To address the issue at hand: Yes, this bill was largely symbolic, but it also seems clear to me that many Republicans and Democrats were hopeful that Bush would see reason and turn this war around. Iraq is a quagmire, but instituting a timetable for withdrawl (along with other solutions) is the right thing to do. - swrostmore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4absurd statements like that really need to be sourced.
- HPSauce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Veto says otherwise.
- infotourist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
- luther70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I'm sure you have never Dugg a biased or partisan site.
- rezist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This is amazing, we lost the war. When it become official in another year or so all you ignorant asses simply keep your mouths and votes to yourselves for a awhile (until the democrats ***** up :P) If you really think that this "war" is a necessity get your fat ass down to your local recruitment office today and serve your country proudly by killing! George Bush couldn't give a crabs ass about any one of you politically brain dead presidential supporters on Digg. @ thcobbs, What are you typing about? Are you truly convinced we are in Iraq to stop terrorism, and do you believe we can stop it? Bush has a backbone because he's got several hands shoved up his jacket making his eyes and mouth move while he sits on the lap of multi-national corporations.
- tituspullo71, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8and you point is what? he can't do that because it's not nice? sorry that's his job , he can do that just like congress can overturn a veto. they just didn't have the votes.
- plash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If Iraq fails to become a democracy will not be the failure of its people, but the politics of the land. The pressure to make something good come out of this is so large, that failure is on outcome that we have to accept will rise in one form or another. The outcome will not happen within a week, a year , a single moment but in the time it takes to recover from the results of a nation torn by war.
- mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7They have dug themselves a hole from which there is no exit. They stay, people die, the leave, people die, the US has no valid resolution to this anymore, other than to invent a new definition of success, meet it, then leave the Iraqis to their bloody fate.
- elmoslemur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So let me get this straight they knew he would reject/veto it...And...They knew they could not override the veto...How much of my tax dollars went to this waste of time? Hmmmm,maybe the smart thing would have been to try to come to an agreement earlier that both sides would agree upon. I love the constant "he this", "he that"....the government and the presidency is not an island. You(people who cry about this) simply feel powerless because you have done nothing to fix this issue. You need to be telling your Representatives to get off their collective a$$ and actually do something logical. Heres an idea...Instead of taking off this weekend and not representing us.....Maybe just maybe they should do their jobs and come up with something both sides will accept. Nah who am I kidding....Have a good weekend reps.
- Bhatch514, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You were given the right to bare arms in the constitutions to allow a revolt of the citizens against the government, to with hold the power of the people over the military.
Use it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is