What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
269 Comments
- mvanhorn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+160Suprise suprise...
- johnwyles, on 10/12/2007, -32/+129Now can we please move on to the impeachment process?
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -21/+97Breaking -- The Military -- By George Bush
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -10/+84Aw damn, you broke it. I prefer my news in one piece.
- dahuf, on 10/12/2007, -43/+115Wow challenge congress with a 27% approval rating. As if republicans weren't already on the fence. I'm a liberal, but i can't help but stand in shock at his continued BLATANT stupidity!!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE IMPEACH! - fhornplayer, on 10/12/2007, -14/+78BREAKING- Putting BREAKING in front of the title is annoying.
And of course Bush would veto this. Pulling troops out would mean the war will end eventually. That's crazy talk. - SonicAD, on 10/12/2007, -17/+71***** Bush.
- mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -15/+68And NOW, the kicker.
The House re-approves the VERY SAME BILL Bush just vetoed.
The Senate re-approves the VERY SAME BILL Bush just vetoed.
BUSH can then either accept the ACCOUNTABILITY, or he can then be seen to be like a 3 year old throwing an "I DON'T WANNA" tantrum.
( Considering that Bush got ALL THE MONEY HE'S ASKED FOR THIS YEAR, he should be glad he's getting any more money. What, he can't follow a budget and wasted all that money? Or did he lie about the amount he needed earlier? )
-----
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." -- George W. Bush, 6/5/99 - HullCrushDepth, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50Yes, you're absolutely right, shame on you Congress for listening to and fighting for what your constituents want.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40George Bush won't pull out! Abstinence only policy in shambles.
/facetious - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40That's a key point. Bush claims Democrats are trying to make the troops run around naked and hungry. But this bill gives all the money Bush ever asked for. The only reason he vetoed it is because it ties his hands from escalating and avoiding the end to the war that the American people demanded end last November.
Bush claims Congress is trying to "micro-manage" the war. Micro-managing means telling General X to go to this and that map coordinate.
Rather, I'd call this "Macro-Managing," and congress clearly has the constitutional power to start and stop wars. That's exactly what they're trying to do. - Coven, on 10/12/2007, -10/+39Bush would rather leave the troops there unfunded and then blame Congress for doing it.
- pixelguru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Don't discount the many MANY voices who opposed this doomed campaign from the start. We said Iraq wasn't a real threat to the USA. We said that we were rushing to war at a pace that didn't fit the danger. We said that it wasn't going to be an easy 3 month operation, and that we faced the possibility of it lasting years (a comment for which I was personally laughed at). We even said the "Q" word 4 years ago while Bush was giving his infamous speech on the aircraft carrier... Now that we've got both feet and both hands stuck in this Quagmire, Bush wants our support for a plan to use his head to free our stuck limbs. "Just hold your breath and we'll be free in no time... failure is not an option... we're making great progress... just wait a little longer and pay no attention to the fact that we're suffocating while sinking deeper and deeper."
If you served our country with 3 tours, you have my sincere and heartfelt thanks. I hope against hope that you made it home with all your limbs, organs and faculties intact. Just remember though that if I had had my way, you wouldn't have been sent to Iraq (or anywhere else) in the first place without a real need, and without a real plan.
Peace. - bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30Yeah Breaking seems a little out of place. Granted it's for the breaking news, but honestly what did we all expect? The President has verbally confirmed that he will Veto any bill that has an exit strategy tagged onto it under any circumstance.
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28Yet another big Fu#@ you to the hard working poor and our soldiers. The only group Bush and Co. cares about is the rich, elite.
If you're a middle class Republican and think they care about you then you are delusional. You're a tool to make the rich richer and your sons and daughters are disposable for their cause. - xmuzik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Mission Accomplished !
- StormTrooperVII, on 10/12/2007, -25/+43Breaking News: After years of rhetoric, Bush denies his own talking points and refuses to support the troops by denying them funding.
- HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20They should just keep pushing the bill through verbatim without changes and keep making Bush veto it, compounding his ***** each time. *****.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22actually, I'm burying down because you HD DVD Key posters are annoying *****
- seneyr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Breaking? How about obvious?
- roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29regardless of reasoning, the veto is the president's privilege...if the bill was strong enough in the house and senate, he couldn't have vetoed it, so he doesn't stand alone.,..
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@DirkBelig:
Steven Colbert? Is that you? - mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22And the House and Senate can just send him the same bill again.
He doesn't need to TAKE the money. We've already given him this years appropriation, anyway.
It ain't OUR FAULT he's fiscally irresponsible. - Marku$, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18I liked the dailykos's page about this...
"Bush To Cut-Off Funding For Troops Today
Later today, ignoring the will of the American people, George W. Bush will veto the supplemental spending bill, cutting off funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for healthcare for veterans and for Homeland Security." - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18bush just doesn't want to close the all you can profit buffet. the contractors aren't done feeding yet.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Come on mr. President? Don't you support the troops? I thought supporting the troops was your big beef with everyone. Supporting the troops should be our most important consideration no? Support the troops Support the troops Support the troops Support the troops Support the troops Support the troops Support the troops Support the troops.
Hey, if Fox News can do it, so can I. - motbob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Unlike most of digg, I'm kind of torn as to whether we should leave Iraq or not. At first, I was solidly with the withdrawal crowd, but then I read a couple of really good books on Iraq ("Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks is a masterpiece) and had to start thinking hard about my position.
Rumsfeld and Bremer are the top reasons why Iraq went wrong in the first place. There were three reasons why:
1. Rumsfeld and his subordinates in DoD believed that Iraq would be a cakewalk for the U.S. military to handle (a good assumption) and that because of that fact, Gen. Franks didn't need the full force package (a very, very bad assumption.) We went into Iraq severely undermanned. People often cite the fact that we did not secure the arms depots on the road to Baghdad as an example as to why Rumsfeld was a poor decision maker; in fact, the mistake that led to the lack of security around those arms had come weeks before the war began.
2. Because DoD held the assumption that Iraq would be a cakewalk, they did not draw up a Phase IV (post-war) plan. Most generals on local levels were left to their own devices as to how to best deal with the insurgency. Many generals used strategy and tactics that were counterintuitive and only strengthened the enemy.
3. Paul Bremer instituted the policies of de-Baathification and the dissolving of the Iraqi Army. He left thousands of military aged, military trained men without a job and without a stake in the rebuilding of Iraq. The Iraqis that were once in the army are now in the insurgency. The Iraqis that were Baathists are the leaders of the military opposition.
Petraeus was the best commander when it came to keeping down the insurgency in the small part of Iraq that was under his command. He is now the top general in Iraq.
Petraeus has a pretty good chance of getting it together and winning. He completely revamped the Army's strategy in Iraq. He has a background in counterinsurgency warfare that no other American general has. If anyone can get this war won, it's Petraeus.
But on the other hand, the President is presenting the worst case scenario (civil war in Iraq, war in the middle east, kitten deaths up 300% etc.) as a prediction for what will happen if we withdraw. I can't really take him seriously since he presented the absolute best case scenario as a prediction for what would happen before we went into Iraq in the first place.
So I say wait until making a decision. If in three months there is no visible progress, then Petraeus has failed and we should withdraw immediately. Fortunately, the troops are not coming home before October at the earliest, so we will be able to evaluate Pertaeus's progress no matter what goes on in Washington. - slimbooty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The name of the bill depends on the political slant of the news organization:
Left = Troop Withdrawal Bill
Neutral = Iraq Bill
Right = War Spending Bill - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Clearly, we must fight to the last non-politically-connected American left standing.
- pixelguru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Sad as it sounds, at this point, deadlock is an improvement.
All of the taxes I will pay in my lifetime are but a drop in the ocean of money wasted in this fiasco. - thetaco82, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15mercerman54, nobody is turning on the troops. Those of us who support a withdrawal want our men and women to come home to their families as soon as possible. Why risk your life in a fight that can not be won? Why risk your life for a cause that isn't just?
The real insult to our troops lost in battle would be allowing more to die. The Iraqi people do not want us there. The American people do not want us there. The people of the world do not want us there. Why should we continue to sacrifice ourselves only to be scorned by the global community? - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15"escalating" means the reason to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely is Iran. Bush still wants his war with Iran, and it's still "on the table." We should never forget that.
And our presence does not help if we're not wanted. We simply provide more targets and more body bags. - sleepwalkers, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@Dirk: They don't totally cut funding because what's worse than having troops in Iraq? Having underfunded troops in Iraq. They're already starved for supplies, armor and weapons, you might as well make sure those who were unfortunate enough to be caught in the middle in Iraq have what they need to defend themselves.
And Dirk, did you ever think they might finally be listening to the popular opinion in the country? Bush's approval rating isn't so sparkling, the percentage of people who approve of his job in Iraq is dwindling, and it's been four years now and we're no closer to "securing democracy."
Maybe it's time for a ***** change. Maybe "stay the course" isn't the best option here. Maybe someone needs to admit they ***** up. Maybe we should stop sacrificing troops in a war Bush and the administration can't ***** win.
No, you know what? It's not "maybe" time for a change, it IS time for a change, and stopping this war is step number one. - Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Congrats on making a backhanded threat to the president, that clicking sound is your phones being tapped
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14The bill was to fund the troops. The other portion was supplemental to the bill.
- draebor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I think when they impeach Bush they should fire him out of one of those circus cannons. Into Chaney.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12..FTL :(
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Erm, Did you miss something?... You realize that is what's happening now, but without the "bringing them home" part, right?...
The entire reason this story is significant is it is the only bill that has been passed that would allow extended funding for the Iraq war, in other words, he vetos it, and they don't have funding passed a certain date, and he blames it on congress when they run out of money. - ff89, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Seriously, what's wrong with you?
Actually, I don't care, just please, please don't ever breed. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Excactly. We are now far too entrenched in the War on Bush to back out now.
- Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"You can make the same argument for Congress. Whah, I don't wanna change it. This deadlock is the fault of both sides, neither of whom has a solution to stop the bloodshed in Iraq."
Theres a difference between 450ish congress members who represent the entire nation and a single man who unfortunately hasn't had to go through an election process in the past few years. - penguinshome, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Wow this is a COMPLETE surprise.
/sarcasm - gyronic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1250 year war ftw!!
- johnwyles, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16...and don't pull out!
Now that's a sure way to end up with an unplanned mess. - draebor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I guess the nice thing about being a president with less than 30% public opinion is that you can be a complete dick and not really change public opinion. I don't think I can hate the guy any more than I already do!
- kismac, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17bush = douche bag
american public = responsible for douche bag - ff89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Did your mom forget to give you your ritalin today?
- LoveWidescreen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Let's see.
- Bush does exactly what he says he was going to do -- check
- People act like Bush doing what he said he was going to do is shocking -- check
- The anti-Bush rhetoric comes out in unbelievable numbers --- check
- People call for the impeachment of someone who will be out of office in 21 months anyway -- check
- More calls for impeachment with total disregard for what an impeachment would entail -- check
- Venom galore from non-U.S. citizens blaming the U.S. public for Bush even though he apparently doesn't listen to the will of the people anyway -- check
- At least one "***** Bush" post -- check
- Extra: At least one indirect call for assassination or death -- check
Yep. We're on Digg. - JayTee44, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I agree with dmo145, good points.
Actually we should leave iraq right now, if we are announcing withdrawal. All the insurgents have to do is wait till the withdrawal if we announce one. I say fight until they give up.
Even the NYTimes has admitted that in some provices there is considerable progress, especially where they have gotten the local sunni leaders on their side.
The whole thing stinks, it clearly should not have been started, but we ought to finish it now.
The guys on the front line are volunteers- and they are mostly re-enlisting.
I refuse to say give up just because bush is so unpopular. A lot of you are guilty of group think! - byelobog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@motbob
A well thought out response on digg..... for that alone you should get dugg down whether or not the diggers agree with you or not.
The audacity of posting statements on digg that have some thought behind them rather than an illogical knee-jerk response....
I call it BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!! -
Show 51 - 100 of 271 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is