What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
108 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+74I'm *sure* it's just a concedence, cuz Bush would NEVER try to link the war in Iraq to September 11th...
- KnightCrawler, on 10/10/2007, -11/+51Petraeus: It's all going well and we need to stay for another 15 years so Helliburton can reap more profit.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26Yeah, about Reid scheduling the date: FTA: "The timing of Petraeus’ testimony was first revealed this morning by Sen.McCain. McCain said he had “been told” Petraeus would testify on the 11th:" "White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe confirmed the testimony date during a press briefing on Air Force One today." This "event" is 100% controlled by the white house, even the content of the report is controlled. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24Oh awesome you've linked to a blog instead of the news source. That's cool.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26First this: http://digg.com/politics/Petraeus_Report_will_be_written_by_the_White_House_2
Now this? You've got to be ***** kidding me. - jstohler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Prediction: Anyone who challenges or questions Patraeus on that day will be be called a terrorist sympathizer.
- diggtomanjeri, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17No Bush does not do scheduling for the Senate, but guaranteed he handles Patraeus' availability to the Senate.
- laasch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13"The lesson of September 11th is that we can never have another 9/11, as we did on September the 11th." It's nice to see that Karl Rove is taking care of wrapping up all of the loose ends before he leaves, orchestrating "testimony" on a day given to so many other things.
I don't need to watch Petraeus execute his orders to lie to "agents of Congress" and read verbatim from the report written for him. My plan is to curl up in a corner with a bottle of tequila and see if I can just get through that ***** day. - LoopyChew, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11"The lesson of September 11th is that we can never have another 9/11, as we did on September the 11th."
That reminds me of the old SNL GHWB sketch where Dana Carvey says something along the likes of, "We will not have another Vietnam. We've learned our lesson from Vietnam, and it is: Stay out of Vietnam." - Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Golly, I wonder what the report will say! I wonder if it will suggest that we pull our troops out of Iraq, or if it will in any way undermine the Bush administration and its neocon advisors' strategy for the middle east? Or perhaps it will suggest that we have lost our focus--that we're worried more about Iran than al Qaeda? I can't wait to find out! Oh the anticipation!
[/sarcasm] - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7the tactic of lying to congress without repercussion?
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12another reason to strike that day.
- fossilnews, on 10/10/2007, -12/+18It's Harry Reid who scheduled the date. First, the Senate will have limited dates available for Petraeus, on account of tight schedules for both Petraeus and Congress. The fiscal year runs out at the end of the month, and budget appropriations will go down to the wire and beyond. Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to keep as much floor time available as possible for those fights, including the war supplemental debate, which has to have the input from Petraeus first. The previous week will consist mostly of organizing motions as the members return from their summer hiatus. The 11th is probably the first clear legislative date Reid will have.
Bush does not do scheduling for the Senate. - Egoist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You must be 12 years old and completely unaware of history if you think Gonzales pioneered that tactic.
- DiscoLando, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6EXPECTUM PETRAEUS!
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hey, Congress, any time you can slot him in that'd be great, we don't care about a specific date, but unfortunately he'll be unavailable Jan 1-Sept 10, and Sept 12-Dec 31, so if you could just avoid those blocks of time...
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7How do you come up with this *****? The White House scheduled the hearing, it says so in the article and in my comment that you buried.
- CheckPlease, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7So, that's when my BS Detector is going to go haywire? Thanx for the warning.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I think "not caring" is a reasonable response, considering the White House is writing the report, and we all already know the White House's stance on the war.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"your tales of impeachment (no grounds)"
So how long have you been living with your mouth between two sets of cheeks? There are a ***** of examples. My favorite one is where a US citizen is secretively arrested on US soil and held for *years* in solitary confinement in a military brig without access to a lawyer, any sort of court representation, or any official charges, all the while Bush claiming he has the dictatorial power to do it to anyone he chooses because he is president.
Of course, if you don't believe that using the Constitution as toilet paper is impeachable... I guess that only goes for lying about blowjobs. - bwhancock, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So the President is setting the schedule for Congressional meetings or does Congress set those dates?
I would think Congress would be in charge of their own timetables. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9True, the Reagan Mob used that same lie when they got away with murder in Central America.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13no but it gives the wingnuts an excuse to whine about it.
- UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I'm not even sure what you are really saying here, Iaasch, so I didn't bury you like everyone else.
I Dugg you up because I will be hiding in a corner that day too. It looks like the GOP has brought in a ringer and people are going to go right back to the "let's shoot some brown skinned heathens" mentality that ran rampant not too long ago. - ZornO, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6it's just dumb blogging, but legit info. crooksandliars linked to another blog, instead of the latimes.com article. (LA newspaper...?)
So it is legit, but when people link to stuff here, bypass the blogs (if your only point is to show the facts, not the bloggers opinion on it) and link to the 'reliable' news source. Reliable is debatable these days, but whatever. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They aren't perfect, but 90% of the time they're a damn sight better than Anonymous Internet Poster Man.
- pb4upoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5 Why how could you even suggest that the dear lad might have a mouth remotely controlled by the White House? How could the cream of the crop, a general, be nothing more than a cowardly political puppet. I mean, after all George Bush, of renowned military ability and sobriety, is the shining example of what a military man can be.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Its a non-event. No matter what is said, the war will continue. Even if Congress voted to defund or otherwise end the war (very, very unlikely in my estimation), Bush would find a way around it.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Need I enumerate for you all the occasions where Mr. Bush has disregarded the Constitution?
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7It must be hard to know that in te last 6 years it has been those slacktivists liberals that have seen and pegged each and every cluster *****, while the usual suspects are busy trying to put out the last fire and lie about the next one...
It is a real shame when the war mongering understand the war less than those peacenik hippies...
Life must not be too good for neo-cons... - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't have a good answer to your questions. According to polls, Bush's support among the American people is somewhere between 25-30%. Based on what has transpired to date, I think that number ought to be zero. I do not know what else the guy could do, or would have to do, for that 25-30% to see the light and realise what this guy's been doing is raping our country, pillaging its treasury, and destroying the fabric of our nation. The fact that 25-30% of the people do still support him after everything that's happened is extremily demoralizing. One almost feels despondant at that fact. As for the other 70-75% of us, our options are limitted before the next round of elections. Within the Constitution, we basically have to rely on Congress. From what I can see, Congress at this point does not represent the American people, it represents special interests and the desire of its members to be re-elected and/or advance their own political careers. So on one side we have the Republicans who have had their political futures tied to the war and will never vote against it, and will never vote against the President on pretty much anything as they demonstrated for 6 years when they controlled Congress. On the other hand we have the Democrats, who are afraid to vote to end the war and cannot seem to unite and vote as a block against the President on anything meaningful. They seem paralyzed by Bush's scare tactics (the whole "you hate America", "you don't support the troops" BS) even when they have overwhelming public support to stand up to the President and stop him. Of course, even the people themselves are also incapable of uniting, apparently. There could be massive protests, massive letter writing campaigns, ways of demostrating to our Congressmen and Senators that the people are united and that if you continue to support the war, you will not only not be re-elected, but you will be recalled or impeached based on the laws in your respective states. But none of this has happened and none of it seems likely to happen.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Last I heard most of the *Bush Administration totally optional nonbinding goals* were not being met. Link?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"There could be massive protests, massive letter writing campaigns, ways of demostrating to our Congressmen and Senators that the people are united"
There have been and these are continuing. The fact that it will never be reported in the corporate media doesn't mean it isn't happening. - revo764, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hahahahaha, the mainstream media a reliable source! F*ck some people sure are really slow at working out what is going on . MSM reliable, you are friggin kidding right?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8This is pretty standard stuff for Bush Inc.
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Another equally daring prediction. The Democrats don't care what the report says. If they did, they would have bothered to show up at his previous briefings.
- mikeyeah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Oh well, I'll still be there on September 15, 2007 to march with thousands of other people. Stop the War! Start Impeachment!
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'd say it often removes bias and credibility when it comes from a blog.
- joper90, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Ahh so the shiate news will get lost in the media static of sep 11 and the mock patriotism that rules the day...
- haskinb84, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4http://digg.com/politics/Surge_in_Iraq_is_working_says_the_leaders_of_the_SASC
Thats all I have to say... - RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, that's the one. It's been around for at least 16 years.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7@fossilnews: are you a lying GOP apologist or did you just not read the article? Why does this wanker have positive diggs?
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Equivocation: "Working" and "The Surge".
Are we temporarily creating a better security situation in Baghdad? Perhaps.
But does that mean that Iraq is any closer to being stable and peaceful in the long term? There's the rub.
I mean, I suppose "Operation eat more salad" could be a stunning success, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone'll lose weight. (Hm! Lettuce in a soup of ranch dressing!) - bwhancock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Who told McCain? The White House or Harry Reid?
- UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Corrupt *****. Trying to play on the emotions of the American People. ***** THEM!!
- diptheria, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3They are not whining about Patraeus the general, they are outraged that this general is being forced to be a political tool of the republican party instead of being allowed to do his job to protect this country without political interference...
- nakani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Illegal domestic use of wiretapping ordered by President Bush. I'm a Republican, and I support an impeachment of this administration's top officials.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I hate to ask you this - but if your comment is true, how does that make you as an American(I am assuming) feel about your country?
What else will it take, if a dictator isn't enough(Ultimately what you said), what will it take for Americans to start to act like the brave people I have known? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, and they'll run BMW ads during the commercial breaks so the sheeple will go out and buy a Beamer for Todd!
- sibhod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Every Sept. 11th at midnight, Papa Guliani sneaks into your bedroom and takes a ***** in your ear!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 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