What is Digg?75 Comments
- mihan77, on 10/12/2007, -8/+50You're always to be referred to by the rank you last held, so calling them Generals is correct. Gotta look for that liberal bias wherever you think you can, huh? I'm sure that their not being in the Army anymore means their opinions are no longer valid.
- ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -16/+41Quit nitpicking. Inaccuracies are in every statement, if you're picky enough.
There's no need to bury the article based on something that trivial. The inaccurate flag is for things that are TRULY inaccurate. Like "Apple to unveil the iCar next week!" - venir, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26FTA:
"The best thing that can happen right now is for one or both of our houses to go Democratic so we can have some oversight," Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, told Salon. Batiste describes himself as a "lifelong Republican." But now, he said, "It is time for a change."
I couldn't agree more with this statement. - hoyaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Active duty Generals can't take a political position within U.S. politics.
Look up the Hatch Act.
No federal employee, especially the military, can be involved in the American political system.
If you know of one who is, like Gen. Pace, be sure to follow the proper reporting channels... - isage, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18There is nothing inaccurate about it. The description clearly states that they are retired Generals. As others have pointed out, once a General, always a General. Just as President Ford, Carter, and Clinton are still referred to as President.
- greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12November 8th is gonna be a fun day on Digg... no matter who wins....
- kcpwnsgman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@antoniojvr:
currently there are 22 genrals in the US army:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army
(under Major Commands of the United States Army) - tech10171968, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13LarianLeQuella:"Add up all the active duty and retired generals, and guess what? They will have a demographic distribution just like any other selective population."
I had to give you a Digg just for that statement alone. This is true of most of the military, not just senior officers. A lot of people see us in uniform and just assume we automatcally worship at the altar of Bush. The reality is this: while it is true that soldiers as a whole tend to lean toward conservative ideology, the truth is that we also have brains and (contrary to what civilians think about us) are actually quite capable of making up our own minds about certain things. Wearing the same uniform doesn't mean we all think alike - it just means we have to follow the same orders. You might be surprised to find that most soldiers would much rather be anywhere else other than Afghanistan, Guantanamo, or especially Iraq. We're really not that fond of wars - after all, it's OUR asses getting shot at, not the protester on campus.
Don't take it out on the soldier, take it out on the lunatic that sent him to an ill-advised war in the first place. Yes, I'm talking about you, Mr. Bush. - deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Like Bush said, "You got to listen to your generals".
Get these Republican bums out office. They had their time and messed it all up. America needs a change and not the same old "stay the course" crap. - randycandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I haven't read the article but I think you had ASSUMED that they were active.
- CobaltBlue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There are up to 302 generals in the United States Army at any one time. The ones listed in the Wikipedia article are just the ones with major commands.
- steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Richard Clarke-smeared. Dick Lugar-smeared. John McCain-smeared
- LarianLeQuella, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Don't forget that the Air Force and Marines also have Generals (The Navy has Admirals). Add up all the active duty and retired generals, and guess what? They will have a demographic distribution just like any other selective population. Why does the fact that these guys are generals make their opinion more or less valuable than anyone elses? Are you going to shape your life just by what these two guys tell you to think? What if it was Bruce Willis or Martin Sheen telling you what to think?
Seriously, people get rank or visibility and all of a sudden they think that what they have to say is so much more important than letting people figure things out for themselves.
BTW, I am active duty military, and I sent in my absentee ballot. Guess what, it wasn't a party tiket. I voted by researching each of the candidates thouroughly and voted on the ones I thought would represent my interests and ideals best. Some were republican, and some were democrat. Imagine that! - relizon69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Once a soldier, always a soldier... regardless of rank your all missing the point when you argue their current duty status. Some of you must know or have an ex-(any military service) friend or family member and they all have an opinion of how leadership is doing... We all know that President Bush is not popular with the American people, the free world ( nor the oppressed world) are own military which has seen their forces slaughtered (recent cnn sniper video) , their honor questioned (torture..) and their leaders overwhelmed by an idiot (rumsfeld) ... This is a good article and YES the men dying have an opinion and they are free to express it!
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Why does the fact that these guys are generals make their opinion more or less valuable than anyone elses?"
Seriously? The war in Iraq is one of the most important issues facing our country and a major plank of the Republican platform which claims Democrats are unable to handle the situation. Generals who have served in Iraq have a unique and valuable insight into the war.
While opinions may not be facts some opinions ARE more valuable than others, and that's a big problem I have with the current administration. If you want to know about global warming you ask scientists. If you want to know how to conduct a war, you ask generals. If you want to reform the educational system you ask teachers.
Actually knowing something about a subject is a good thing. - tthomas1529, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion"
"what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Smith
Great read. Jefferson believed there should be a rebellion every 20 years.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl64.htm - AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ya know, the only reason i don't block killinger777 is because it just feels so damned good every time i get to bury one of his comments. Oh yeah... that's the spot.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Later that day, Rumsfeld was invited onto Bill O'Reilly, where he reportedly said, after a orgasmic blowjob from O'Reilly, that U.S. Generals were slowly being infected by freedom-hating viruses, secretly developed by Al-Queda in their fight to kill Americans
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11"this is like saying "scientists now believe...". When i can find you a "scientist" who believes anything you want."
Amazing how saint killinger finds another opportunity to insert deceptive anti-intellectual anti-science crap.
Political opinions are not at all like scientific consensus. Science is the process of developing logically consistent, peer-reviewed explanations for natural laws based on reproducible observations of natural phenomena. When a scientific explanation rises to the level of scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity, theory of conservation of mass-energy or theory of evolution, that means that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and the overwhelming consensus of legitimate scientist experts in relevant fields make it the layperson's equivalent of "fact".
Furthermore, your (ironically self-refuting) use of "scientist" in quotations implies that these generals are somehow not legitimate generals. You know that is not the case.
You are incapable of arguing on the merits - of this issue or any other you ever comment on. Therefore, you resort to cheap shots, hit-and-run tactics, and outright lies.
I know you constantly assault the scientific consensus and overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change, because it violates your faith-based ideology, and any evidence that contradicts your dogmatic beliefs must be discarded. Hence your disparagement of scientific consensus, even on a thread completely unrelated to science. You will resort to any deception, any lie, any tomfoolery to get your point across, because you believe that your righteous end justifies your immoral and unethical means.
With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan, you, sir, are the very model of a modern major zealot. - gabaus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you've ever been in the military you would know that a General is a General even in retirement. Just like the President will always be Mr. President even if his term is over.
The most outstanding retired Colonel of all time is of course "Colonel Angus!" - Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Screw the Democrats. We need a Libertarian takeover.
Seriously, I doubt the Dems will change much at this point in the game. - Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5One good coup deserves another?
- 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'd be down for a coup d'etat if they gave the order.
Congress, the Senate, President... they all need to be expelled so we can start from scratch. - gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The military, especially among generals, isn’t some hippie, liberal free speech rally on a college campus in the 60’s. They are trained their whole careers to do precisely what the officers appointed over them say, without question. When two high ranking officers who have actually been in command in the theatre in question, feel compelled to speak out, we should listen.
- tthomas1529, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4did you even bother to read the letter?
- fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Republicans everywhere are Flip FLOPPEN!
- relizon69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Do you remember a time when we were the hope of the oppressed? When our own News channels showed our beliefs as the the basis of hope for the oppressed of the people under unpopular control? I remember and now see the "other side" taking the lead in that view and it is not right.. we are a good people and we should show the world we can take care of this issue as long as the constitution stands...Rally!
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If they didn't have a plan for winning, they should have told Bush up front."
There *WERE* generals who told Bush they couldn't win with the resources and objectives they were given up front. Bush and Rumsfeld just chose not to listen to them.
Even if these two thought they could win in the beginning it doesn't mean anything. Changing your plan when what you're doing isn't working is a sign of intelligence, not weakness.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
--Albert Einstein - steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Amen to that!! Although if the GOP come out on top, I will really ask wtf!? I'm glad that at least somebody in the know is asking for more government oversight! I mean how long do we just follow this emporer with no clothes?
- mihan77, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You mean all the active duty generals who work for Donald Rumsfeld? Yeah, I wonder why none of them have come out against the war yet. Maybe because they'd wind up in Leavenworth? No, I'm sure that all the active duty generals are just fine and dandy with the way things are going.
- Luv5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't know about this story. This morning I was listening to NPR and the analysis was that Republicans will retain both the houses. With the following factors, Dow Jones is in record territory, house market is not as bad as they predicted, President Bush is aggressively campaigning, why do people have to vote for Democrats? Is there any incentive? Paraphrasing from the NPR analysis.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16Not only Ex-Generals, but 2. 2 Ex Generals. How many Generals do you think actively serve in the military?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i think i'll probably be packing my bags that day if the republicans retain control. XD
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That’s because most are Americans first Republicans second.
- davemeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's interesting how Conservative diggers consistently bury articles that shed their policies in a bad light, no matter how accurate the article might be. Liberal diggers, on the other hand, have no problem letting articles that shed their policies in a bad light stand on their own, even when they're clearly fallacious and distorted. Progressive people realize that the truth has a tendency to bubble up to the top and BS finds its way to the bottom of the pile. The buried articles on digg make it clear that Conservatives don't digg the truth:
http://progressivezone.blogspot.com/2006/10/conservatives-dont-digg-truth.html - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3hey, your terrorist is my freedom fighter.
Under all of these terror bills anyone in us command should be arrested in the UK... - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2LarianLeQuella wrote: "Don't parrot, research!"
Not many of us can go to Iraq, interview world leaders, and "research" ourselves. We have to rely on the expertise of others for information. The trick is to identify a number of reliable sources of information and then form your own opinion.
I find your suggestion that Generals with first hand knowledge of the situation and a lifetime of experience aren't valuable sources of information. In fact I can't think of a BETTER source of information, and I bet you can't either. - steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4carapi- actually there have been alot of experts in the military go against our current administration. Unfortunately, some have lost their jobs or been demoted because of it. Either that or they have had to endure smear campaigns against them. Currently, there are no checks and balances in this administration. If you try to ask logical and valid questions you are called unpatriotic. I believe questioning our government is the most patriotic thing Americans can do. Our congress has only worked 93 out of the last 365 days. I have a right to question why.
- JoshuaLaskin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@vvvv
Yeah, anarchy is the way to go! I mean, if nobody has anybody to protect them, everything will be just fine and dandy right!? Rapists, murderers and drug dealers would clearly give up their immoral behavior if there were no government to lock them up.
/sarcasm
Anarchy would only ever work in small communities in which all the people that lived in them were good, moral people. Which will never ever happen. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>> while I think dems in congress and senate may actually be
>> better than having conservatives in general
in fact, im pretty certain about this, judging from since the Clinton era up to present - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I read about that broadcast... Here's an article about it: (includes full transcript)
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rove_dukes_it_out_with_NPR_1025.html - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Well, I have no doubt he will say something to that effect soon. He's already made worse accusations.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2no, in fact many here support the idea that presidents need checks and balances, so they support dems taking over congress and the senate
This is not my position, however. while I think dems in congress and senate may actually be better than having conservatives in general, because of their more progressive nature, the only meaningful change would be a change in president and administration. and I don't believe just about any democrat would be good, when it comes down to it, political party loyalty shouldn't matter when deciding a president. we should be more open to anyone and base it on their policies rather than be blinded by whether they are republican, democrat, green, etc... because, thats really the problem with America and why only two political parties have been allowed to dominate the scene - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LVD, I'm disappointed. Have we forgotten about Shinseki so soon?
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2At most they could be fired. It's no small matter when your general officers believe you to be incompetent. These are not the only generals who aren't happy with politicians with no military background getting their troops killed with their meddling.
- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Its too bad they killed off Patton, and MacArthur didn't come back a-la Caesar. At least those were respectable leaders unlike say the shrubs.
- JoshuaLaskin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Edit.
Drug dealing isn't really an immoral crime because it is a victimless one, so forget I said it. - LarianLeQuella, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@EtherGnat,
Use them as a source of information to form your own opinions. All too often though, I see and hear people just parroting what some celebrity/authority says without doing their own critical thinking. Just because he's a retired general doesn't necessarially mean he DOES know what he's talking about. Granted, these two particular guys probably do know a great deal of what they are talking about, but still, each person needs to exhibit their own intellectual curriosity and really get into their own studies. That's what I was getting at with that comment.
Don't parrot, research! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I see your point, and I am extreme leftist.
- tharju, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IMO, Americans public or at least the gov't doesn't care anymore. How many articles we've read about credential ppl spoke against this war in Iraq in the past. Over time, it's just another anti war story we keep hearing time and time again. if the public or gov't officials really believe Iraq war is a mistake, we'd be seeing government officials resigning left and right, ppl protesting during weekdays (Not weekends).
Instead of blaming the gov't, the American public is also responsible of this war. -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is