digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

examiner.com — President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president. In an interview for the new book “The Evangelical President,” White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has “been urging candidates: ‘Don’t get yourself

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Xuvious, on 10/25/2007, -15/+71And the difference between the pseudo-cons and Democrats is what?

    They are now overtly helping the Democrats to win the White House.

    With this news and the way MSM and the RNC have been treating Ron Paul it seems plain, to me, that they fully intend to sabotage the Party.
    • futureteg, on 10/10/2007, -13/+46there is no difference. The top democrats are only using the war to get elected...deep down they are the same neocons as the Republicans. If you want our troops home...vote Ron Paul....he is the only chance.

      Yes Kucinich woudl end it too..but unlike the Republican race...the Democratic Race is already predisposed. Republican race is WIDE open, and Ron Paul actaully has a chance due to lack of a strong front runner.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Ron Paul is not our only chance,plus he's against abortion,so he won't get my vote.
        • SiNN4R, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Who gives a ***** about abortion when we're in the middle of a war?
          • boxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Women?
          • Zlaya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2abortion is nothing but a football issue that obviously works

            while you are bickering about abortion and gay marriage, these Neoconservatives, (ex-democracts), are raping you, your currency, and your future.

            go ahead, choose your vote based on gay marriage and abortion. you zarkin' idiot
        • faxxy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think abortion should be legal too.
          But here's the thing, when was the last time you agreed with a candidate like 85% or more? To me, Ron Paul, abortion issue notwithstanding, among others, is still someone I feel is very qualified to run our country.
          • fluoro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, exactly. For me, I only agree with Ron Paul basically on the issue of aggression. Otherwise, I really don't agree with that much of what he says. But to me the issue of aggression is the largest and most important issue there is, so if he were running against most Democrats I would vote for him.
            The candidate right now that I feel like I agree with ~85% is Dennis Kucinich. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree with him on the issue of aggression and with numerous other things. I agree with him on more things than I do with Ron Paul.
            I hope one of them (or BOTH!) could possibly get nominations, but that's basically impossible.
        • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Waternat, the problem is not his personal values. He votes on what is put in front of him, because that's his job. If it were up to Ron Paul, those types of decisions would not even be federal decisions, they would be state decisions, and he wouldn't have to vote on them to begin with. Same with gay marriage, etc. Those types of things should be relegated to the states, as it was intended. Then if you don't like the taxes in your state, or paying for other people to get abortions when you don't even believe in it, you can move to a state where you don't have to, or if you want to get married and you are gay, and live in a red state, you can take a trip to a blue state, and hitched right up.. That's the beauty of a constitutional republic. We're all Americans and enjoy liberty, and we should be able to enjoy it in the ways the we are most comfortable enjoying it. However, if you take someone who doesn't believe in abortion, make him a congressman, and force him to vote on it, he will vote his conscience. So, you have more rights to those things under his platform, than you do under the republicrat platform. Remember, clinton banned partial birth abortions too, before it was overturned. Now bush has. They are really no different if you look closely enough.
      • tlm2021, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I understand that Ron Paul is one of the only candidates who differs significantly from the pack. And major change is definately needed.

        But Ron Paul has stated he's against all sorts of programs that are vital to the United States essentially just so he can get attention. On his interview on The Colbert Report, he stated that he's against IRS and would dismantle it if possible. I don't like paying taxes. You don't like paying taxes, but anyone who's ever taken an Poly Sci 101 class (or thinks about it for longer than 5 minutes) would realize that not paying taxes would send this country into ruin. Public health care that that we so desperately need, roads, schools. They all get funded through taxes. I'll gladly pay taxes to keep these programs going. I just wish less or none of it was going into a country that is actively trying to keep itself at war.

        Ron Paul and Mike Gravel both stand on platforms that radically different merely to attract attention. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard Gravel answer a question and not turn it into an anti-war rant. Stop rallying behind people who are different merely because they are different. Change is in order. But we need to change by restructuring and renovating our current government organizations, not just demolishing all of them.
    • nstanosheck, on 10/10/2007, -6/+35NeoCons and NeoLibs have always worked together for the same vile goals.
      • 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15"Full government control of all activities of the individual is virtually the goal of both national parties." -- Ludwig von Mises
    • wpong, on 10/10/2007, -18/+28stop injecting ron paul into everything! it just totally desensitizes me to his actual platform, because the way he's portrayed on digg is strikingly like how junior high girls used to talk about the backstreet boys.
      • DarkPrincess74, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11That's so like something the backstreet boys would say. *sigh*
      • azprofessional, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Amen, give me the issues or give me death. Enough Fanboyism
        • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Agreed..You fanboys are as annoying as the Ubuntu Linux fanboys...Knock it off already.
      • bigfatpaulie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Doesn't really sound like coaching. He's warning them that however much they are for ending this Iraq experiment, they are the ones that will have to deal with the blowback because he'll be long gone. It's kind of goes without saying. Dugg down.
    • dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11@Xuvious

      Uhh... no. Bush knows very well that if Clinton gets the nomination, Republicans actually have a chance of winning for 2 reasons:

      1) Republicans never want to see another Clinton in the White House (re-invigorate their support)
      2) 60% of Democrats would never vote for her.

      Now, if the nomination went to ANYONE else, then Republicans basically loose. Period.
      • fluoro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What if it went to Edwards? Do people really like him? I want to vote Democrat, but only if neither Clinton nor Edwards gets the nomination. I hate both of them.
      • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you are mistaken. I think the dems will support whoever is chosen, because, let's face it. Unless there's a republican in the other chair with significantly different values than the last few have shown, and none of the current ***** in the proposed cabinet, whoever is chosen as democratic candidate will likely win. I think there are more southern dems that would never vote for Obama than for Hilliary. And I think that will be weighed heavily in the final decision of who gets the nomination.
    • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The Republican Neo-Cons are removing our freedoms under the guise of security, while the Dems, remove our liberties under the guise of social issues, and take away our guns. It's called teamwork, and It's a two part plan. The Republicrats want us socialized. The common myth is that this is a two party system. There is only 1 megaparty, with two branches, and they are running us into the ground.

      A real republican would be fighting to restore states to the autonomy they once had, and would avoid going to war on such flimsy evidence. A real republican would be doing everything possible to straighten out the economy, not buffing up the military, and squandering billions of dollars. A real democrat would be improving our foriegn relations, and working to provide people with affordable healthcare (not free), and preventing mega corporate entities from accumulating too much power.

      The checks and balances are gone folks. It's all a charade.
    • lOvOl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The first step to making things better, is for virtually everyone to drop out of the system. We need the 50% of people who actively vote to go down to something like 5-10%. At that point, everyone will realize that there is real concensus for the system to change because due to a "lack of a vote in confidence", whoever is elected will certifiably not have the support of the people, nor the military as well.

      Unfortunately, as long as people keep playing this rigged game by actively voting, then they are going to keep losing. A lot of people are sick of the Republicans and Democrats and actively registering as independents, but what good is that going to do because at the end of the day you still only have two realistic choices at the local, state, and federal level for every electable position.

      Bush is at 29% (it would be much lower, except a lot of people feel they need to support him for fear of the Democratic alternatives), and Congress is at 11%. Republicans actually rate the Democratic controlled Congress, better than actual Democrats if you can imagine that. If nobody voted, it would send a clear message, not to the elitist nutjobs of the left and right who are in power right now, but to everyone that they are in solidarity in changing the system and throwing the asswipes in Washington out by force if necessary.

      So whatever you do, just don't vote. And hey, I like Ron Paul as a lot of other people do, but lets face it, the game is rigged against him and unless he cheats big time, he has no chance in winning. We need a national "Stay Home And Don't Vote" campaign. The alternative of course is just more of the same as we slowly edge more and more towards the total collectivization of power in this country, and perhaps the world as well.
      • ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't a national write-in campaign for "none of the above" be more effective?
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you care to explain why Ron Paul is still a Republican? He does a lot of trash talking, but he still won't quit the team. What does that say about him, if his party is so bad? I have said this before, I am shocked he is not an independent in the presidential race, it would actually help his chances.
  • avengingturnip, on 10/25/2007, -5/+48"they fully intend to sabotage the Party."

    Maybe. Or maybe they just do not care about the party as it is a means to an end. They became Republicans when the Republican Party was in ascendancy and they will go back to the Democratic Party now that the Republicans are in eclipse. Kind of makes them parasites.
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Who, specifically? Name me names that I can use to verify this. Virtually all of the "neo-cons" in this Administration have been solidly Republican back through Bush Sr, Reagan, even Nixon, some even holding similar job postings. Did they suddenly become Clinton allies for eight years? Pfft.
  • cambrown99, on 10/10/2007, -7/+86There is some scary ***** going down at the upper levels of American politics.
    • dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18or something we don't know about. like dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria...
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -12/+14How is the current president providing relevant information on current events to prospective future presidents "scary".

      What scares me is the complete lack of foresight and pragmatism the anti-war crowd shows. Ignoring the threat of militant Islam will not make it go away and no, it is not American or "western" foreign policy that has caused the problem... violent, militant Muslims are killing people all across the world in places and situations that have absolutely nothing to do anything American has done.
      • donwilson2, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9Dugg up for introducing intelligence into what would've been a lackluster digg comment thread.
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10That's just ignorant. It's like you have no knowledge of history at all. 9/11 was clearly blowback from our idiotic foreign policy. And again, it had NOTHING to do with Iraq!

        If anything, we have an out-of-control wing of radical Christianity-led fascism killing tens of thousands of Muslims. It needs to stop now, and we need to start working on settling things with these people.
        • dbucky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Radical Christianity manifests itself in caring for the "least of these" and the marginalized. See for yourself, it's one of the most talked about subjects in the Bible. It's Mother Teresa, not George W. Or MLK jr, not the abortion clinic bomber. Our president just has an agenda; one that can hardly stand up to established Christian "just war doctrine." I don't blame you for thinking that way, though. Christianity's loudest voices (or at least it's most publicized ones) are unfortunately it's most selfish ones.
        • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well, I've never heard any member of the administration imply that Iraq DID have anything to do with 9/11 so what the hell is your point? And if you're going to say something like "9/11 was clearly blowback from our idiotic foreign policy" it would kind of make sense for you to give an actual example of "idiotic foreign policy". Are you going to tell me that the mere act of having troops in a country where they were invited (Saudi Arabia) is provocation for mass murder?

          Maybe there's something I have to explain to you. I find it odd that I have to spell something like this out but it may be you need it. The fact that someone like Bin Ladin cites something as provocation does not mean the act in question was wrong... certainly not idiotic. It's not possible to avoid angering mad-men.
      • FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Name me a country where militant Islamic fundamentalists are fighting that hasn't been molested by the dirty hand of US policy. Just one. I'll give you a week.
        • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'll give you two about 30 seconds after reading your post. Malaysia and Indonesia.
    • soupir, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3What are you talking about, you weirdo? Why is this scary? He's advising future candidates on how to best handle the war after he's out. At least, that's what the article says.
  • Kizilbash, on 10/10/2007, -6/+129It's just a one-party system with in-built good cop/bad cop capacity.
    • CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26and yet the prevailing "wisdom" that voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away.

      Until the voters start voting for candidates that represent them instead of the party they are less afraid of, things will never change.
      • NoStoppingUs, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5..or maybe we actually have a president who wants america to win in iraq, regardless of who is president? man, you people are fools.
        • dvbot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5The US 'won' in Iraq a few years ago, now they're just working in a nice butt groove in the chair that is Iraq.
        • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There is no "win", and we have NO BUSINESS being there in the first place.
        • wybiral, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Define "win"...
          We didn't "win" when we found no WMDs? We didn't "win" by getting rid of Saddam?
          How do you propose we "win"? Waste some more resources?
      • nicktx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5As if you or Bush actually know what "to win" is anymore. Don't kid yourself. The whole fiasco with creating a democracy in the MIddle East while letting the big oil companies to grab a huge piece of Iraq's oil revenues is over. Now it's just about not having the whole thing blow up once we leave. And even that's going to be too much to hope for because those people don't think like westerners do. They are going to have their civil war whenever we pull out.
        • FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Umm, they are already having a civil war, the US just refuses to call it that. It's called an 'insurgency' against the new government of Iraq. The king is dead, long live the king.
      • Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There is a mechanism in the system that would allow things to get fixed *without* anyone needing to vote for a third party. All that needs to happen is for a bunch of people to vote in the primaries. If we can make the final election be Kuchinich vs Paul...
    • DoobieWheel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Democrat: Well I want to give you universal health care and social reform, but my partner over there wants to draft your ass. Better do what he says
      Republican: Vote for me douchebag!
  • ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+55Honestly, no matter who the sheeple vote for we're going to get a Corporate-owned President and Congress who are there only to advance the Corporate agendas at the expense of the American People. If we weren't such lazy slobs we'd take up arms and coup.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12More like, vote in people who weren't born and raised politicians. I'd rather see any businessman in a political position than a politician
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I'd like to see an average John Q. Public run for office and win.
      • mediablitz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"I'd rather see any businessman in a political position than a politician"

        Really? You DO know that Romeny was a VERY successful businessman, don't you? Are you voting for him based on that criteria?
    • nicktx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Absolutely. But you know, things aren't bad enough for the people to get up and force a change. That's how the system works to preserve itself.
    • nicktx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Absolutely. But you know, things aren't bad enough for the people to get up and force a change. That's how the system works to preserve itself.
    • chosenjones, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Word.
    • xjadams, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8We don't need to take up arms. We need to stop putting our dollars into the pockets of corporations that are subverting our political process for their own ends. Sadly, I think it's going to be easier for Americans to take up arms than to stop spending.
    • FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You can't win unless you have already been bought. If someone that isn't bought actually wins, he will be assisnated. Pretty disgusting but American politics is about as dirty as it gets.
  • katie212, on 10/10/2007, -25/+37The Bushes and Clintons are both pushing the socialist agenda. GWB obviously is pushing for Hillary as is apparent. This should truly make the democrats stop and think. What candidates message do they try to blackout? Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. When corrupt people such as this try to stop Ron Pauls message from getting out to the american masses then this is the exact message that tells people like me to stand behind Ron Paul for our next president. Ron Paul in 2008!
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Almost snuck that one in there. Nice try.
      • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I saw a RP sign on a 880 here in California not too long ago
      • Antimatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1RP bumper sticker just this morning.
    • fulibs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Thats a great idea, lets vote for the underdog.... because they are the underdog. ID10T
    • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Socialist agenda? I didn't hear any of them pushing to put the top tax bracket back above 90% as it was in the 50's. I didn't hear any of them advocating a socialized healthcare system. Has any one of these politicians come out and stated that the government should prohibit the private ownership of utilities like electricity, natural gas, and water producers? No? Guess what Einstein, then they aren't socialist.
      • pandasonic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Damnit, you beat me to the punch. WTF did katie mean by "socialist agenda"?
        • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1 Health care reform I guess...Anyway,what we will end up with is everyone being forced to pay money to the health "care" industry,which will laugh all the way to the bank.
          In reality,she's just rootin for Ron Paul...Anytime i see that name in a post I'm going to stop reading the post.
      • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's a process. Not an event. Hilliary's health care plan, as outlined is a shortcut to socialized health care. If you read here last plan, from which this one was derived, you'd know that.. The thing is, most people will beg for it. Padme's words say it best. "So that's how a democracy dies, with thunderous applause" (paraphrase)
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13LOL...

    Just when I thought it couldn't get better...
  • mrrandom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+50I recently saw a comment about Hillary's Iraq policy being so close to current policy that she's essentially "George Bush in pants".
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Same with Rudy Guiliani, eh?
    • azprofessional, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have never seen Hillary wear anything but pants. More like George Bush with a supposed Vagina
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1She has nothing like his resolve.
  • dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -8/+41LEFT = RIGHT
  • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -25/+21A vote for ANYONE except Ron Paul is a vote for Hilary Clinton.

    Make your choice America.
    • bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5Stop with the ultimatums. He is just as much a poor choice as anyone. With RP supporters like the ones I see on Digg I'm starting to think I should vote for Giuliani.
      • wpong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30no one should vote for giuliani.
        • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16a vote for anyone except RP is a vote for a police state candidate. another 4 years of war anyone? double the size of guantanimo mitt?
        • erasedgod, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3If you don't vote for Giuliani, we'll have 9/11 times 1000!
        • Rikkochet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We'll have 818.18 repeating?
        • fulibs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0For some reason I am failing to make the connection "9/11 times 1000". Are you saying Giuliani was somehow responsible for 9/11?
          • erasedgod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Sorry, trying to mix Rudy's "the democrats will cause another 9/11" rhetoric with the line from Team America: World Police. I realize I fail. You have my apologies.
        • jdavid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2if that is true, then we will have 3 million American deaths on our hands in our own land, and RP would bring it like 1000 x Katrinas on that terrorist ass.

          There would be no bitching about weather we should be at war or not, and we would not hold back on any of our resources.

          Right now we are wasting money on politics and *****, and i will take my chances with these "terrorists" i do not fear them. Now or just after 9/11.

          If we had 3 million Americans loose their lives HELL would have no fury like an AMERICA scorned. If terrorists are so stupid to try something like that we will have every moral right to wipe them out. right now we are pussy footing around like we did in Vietnam, it did not work then and it does not work now.

          War should only be used as a last resort, and it should be carried out swiftly with the full force of your power. If you commit war without being fully committed its like entering a fight without being willing to punch. Sun Tzu, often considered the greatest military master in history would say not to enter a fight unless you are sure of victory. he would also say to leave your enemy an escape route so they do not fight like they have no other option, and to fight is their only way to survive. I really wish that more Americans understood strategic warfare and why we should not entangle ourselves of such things unless we are FULLLY committed.
          • erasedgod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You're right, but there is a huge difference between Tzu's "The Art of War" and Bush's "How a Pretzel Nearly Ended My Life... and Other Misadventures"
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4jdavid....I agree...The full might and power of the military. BUT...it must be done legally and within the framework of our Constitution!

          These "War Powers Acts" are ***** and completely unconstitutional because there is nowhere in the Constitution that give Congress the authority to delegate war making authority. This is a power that is too big for any President to have. The Congress are the People and they have the final say in war.

          Once Congress has declared war then let the military go hell bent on beating our enemies asses all the way to hell.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The only reason I really like RP is the mere fact that he is vastly different from every other candidate. Its a fact of our government system that it will slowly grow as laws are passed, and forgotten about. There is a ton of money going everywhere that nobody really knows about. The thing about a candidate like RP, is he -might- push for some downsizing, which is what is really needed, seeing the state of the legal system.
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7They're not going to let us have Ron Paul, there's too much power and money at stake. If he even starts to look viable, the CIA will find a way to neutralize him. Gotta love the PNAC/NWO.
        • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Not voting for Ron Paul and the more you fan boys yammer on about him,the less headway you will make.
        • SiNN4R, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The five jew bankers will get you.. then we'll see who is the one yammering
    • MindStalker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What about Kucinich or Gravel both are decent individuals who aren't connected to all of this.
      • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Kucinich is a socialist - no thanks
        • Qeveren, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Socialism isn't the pinko commie nightmare you seem to think it is, you know.
          • boxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Qeveren is right. When we hear socialism, we think of communism, but communist russia was *not* a form of socialism. They used socialism to soften their image, and we called it socialism to vilify an idea we didn't like. Just because both sides agreed to call it something doesn't mean that's what it was.
            We already have socialized services, such as public education, police, fire...do you think the world would be a better place if those were privatized?
        • MindStalker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1While yes Kucinich believes in social programs he is also a proponent of picking yourself up.
          He used to be homeless, and picked himself up eventually made it big. He recognized that he got a lot of help along the way through government programs. He also has seen many people fall behind because of the same programs and he wants to reform them. Now of course thinking you can reform them might be a bit naive but its not evil.
      • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Agreed, Kucinich and Gravel are decent. I especially like Gravel. But they're not likely to beat the Hilary Juggernaut. that's just a fact.
    • markgl, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2shut up with the ron paul.
  • jollyholly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14"To that end, the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008."

    Bush isn't smart enough to think of this all by himself. I smell the handiwork of Cheney or Rove..
    • nicktx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I don't think anyone is listening to this fool anyway.
    • hobbitaussie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You obviously haven't ready any of the really good books on this administration. Not only is he far smarter than people give him credit for, this sounds exactly like his type of thinking.
  • imbob, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4..........cuba anybody?
    • CanceledCzech, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Eh, I hear they have good health care.
  • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -10/+40Did anyone RTFA? There's nothing there. It's just Bush doing an "open letter" kind of unsolicited advice to everyone in general. The closest thing to the hype of the title of this submission is: "To that end, the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008." Just because he's *sending* advice doesn't mean anyone *asked for it* or *is listening to it.*

    Don't get me wrong, I'm proud to be a liberal, but this is overblown hype, which I must bury as inaccurate.
    • DisposableRob, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4It sounds more like Bush is concerned about his legacy and place in history more than anything else.
    • splatterboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Thank you... I was about to post the same - even had the same quote copied... dugg up. This read more like GOP spin than anything else.
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Did you miss the part where it said he's deliberately trying to set it up so the next president has no choice but to stay there?
      • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Didn't miss that at all. I disagree with that action, quite strongly, although others may not. I see that he's using the advice he's handing out as a tool in that direction, and I cringe at that.

        However, the way this was put forth as a Digg submission made it out like the Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton in particular, were having secret sit-down meetings with Bush, requesting and attending to his advice. This does not appear to be the case; Bush is talking out loud to whomever will hear. He has every right to do so.
  • DirtyBrowncoat, on 10/10/2007, -6/+38Why is this suprising? Hitlery was the first woman to attend Bilderburg. She is openly being endorsed by Murdoch. The Bush's and Clinton's vacation together. The elite have chosen her as the next President.

    It's either Ron Paul or I am "going to the 2nd."
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Bush-Clinton dynasty-- who's next in 8 years Jeb? Neil? Jenna?
  • dmjarrington, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16Yet more proof that President Bush sucks the same ***** that the Democrats do.
    • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Vote Libertarian, vote Green Party, vote whatever, just not Democrat or Republican.
  • BluesFan, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5It doesn't matter who is president,there all puppets.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 Yup...And the corporations are the puppet masters.
      I'd vote for Gravel..
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 Yup...And the corporations are the puppet masters.
      I'd vote for Gravel..
    • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I was hoping back when George got his colonoscopy that the doctors would find who's hand has been up there these past several years.
  • chyya, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9we snuck ron paul into the republican party and they got us back with hiliary
    • pizpot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Or, he is there to get your vote and change his mind, or find out why he was wrong, or get his followers listed as "terrorists." Don't underestimate their plans, they are long term and heavily funded.
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1we sneakded earworms into yor brain and now u have to vote hiliary clanton.
  • johnn11238, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8I know I'll get buried for this,
    but maybe he just wants the war to end well (fat chance) no matter who gets elected, and seeing as how the dems are a shoo-in, he figures he'd better try to put in his two cents now, and influence policy later?

    I know, I know, he's the antichrist, he created 9/11, he wants to take over the world, blah, blah, blah...
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You must be making an effort to not know what is going on.
  • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14"The parting on the left is now a parting on the right."

    "We won't get fooled again."
  • facereplacer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20"WTF is this crap.... Bush Senior - Bill Clinton - Bill Clinton - Bush Junior - Bush Junior - Hillary Clinton ...... I thought we fought a revolutionary war to get rid of Kings and Queens."

    Then maybe Jeb Bush, Chelsea Clinton, Jenna Bush... etc

    But I concur, they are all offering about the same thing other than Ron Paul and Kucinich. Dread Thompson scares the bajeebus outta me.
  • rupprupp29, on 10/10/2007, -10/+17Buried as inaccurate. There's no way Bush would ever use the words 'modulate' and 'rhetoric', let alone in the same sentence.
    • lasenorita, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2On the contrary, the President is quite capable of saying "mo-jul-eyt" and "re-tu-rik".
  • philathea80, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6I think that those are wise words. They can say whatever they want to be elected to president, but when you are sitting in that seat, it's a different story. You will have to make diffiicult decisions with multiple variables to factor your decision. Why isolate yourself in a difficult decision if you don't have to?
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Duh, maybe, TO GET FRIGGIN' ELECTED!

      The American public does not want the war to continue, and will vote accordingly.
  • oceanrain, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13They are all on the same team. The reality is once the media cameras are turned off, they are one big family. The election is just a con game, where no matter who wins, they all win!!!
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The real winners are the corporate media who charge a fortune for all the campaign ads.
  • nick911, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21What happens when you don't follow orders? Look to JFK's departure to find the answers.
  • jared9985, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13Stop posting ***** like this in World News. This is NOT world news. I purposely don't read the Politics section to avoid stupid submissions such as this one.

    If I actually wanted to read the latest about politics I would go to other trusted sites where the headlines are not blatantly bias (in either direction) and don't end with 20 ***** exclamation marks.

  • AmonAmarth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Rove resigned, but that's almost scarier if you think about that. He's back in the fray, looking for some candidate to latch onto. Makes me wonder what the real agenda is, if these so-called democrats are heeding Bush's advice and will continue to occupy the middle east. We need to get out and help rebuild peacefully, but for god's sakes, get the military out.
    • dalittle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1He cut and run like the coward he is. He was going to get hauled before session after session of questioning by Congress for all of his mis-deeds and he ran away like a wuss. If you have the sack to do things, then have the sack to say that you did.
  • mavedatthews85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Yet another reason I've been considering switching to the Independent Party...
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You need more reasons?
    • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Please consider registering as a Republican and voting for Ron Paul
  • Zurvan, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4I'll echo Nougat here... did you read the article?

    What Bush said actually makes sense. I know, I know, he's dumber than dirt, etc, whatever.

    The fact is, he is right. If a Democrat gets elected after backing themselves in to a corner regarding Iraq, a fast pullout could be disastrous. Whether invading Iraq was right or wrong, the US is there now, and has a responsibility to to implement a strong government. The current situation was made by Americans, and needs to be fixed by Americans. Unlike Afghanistan, it should be fixed before you jump to the next target (*cough*Iran*cough)
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Thanks for that. Moreover, he's well within bounds by making general statements of advice to those who are in the field to be the next president. I don't agree with what he's saying, but he's got every right to say it.
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Then you send your goddamn kids over there. Mine are staying here.
  • andrewgreve, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10And digg and wikipedia and myspace are still massively censoring prisonplanet. ..And this comment will get dugg down. Mmhm.
    • g00dETH3R, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2***** digg for censorship, i'm jumping ship as soon as there's an alternative.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Quick, quick! Do the exact opposite of everything he says right now before he catches on!
    The real reason he wants the Dems to sustain a presence is because he knows they'll get blamed if they don't immediately draw down for anything that happens after.
  • Sogui, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10It seems like 20% of the stories that make it to the front page were submitted by 12-year olds.

    OMGWTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • splatterboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's alright. 75% of the comments are too
      I_DIDNT_RTFA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • chosenjones, on 10/10/2007, -11/+32008 is *****.
    Ron Paul is a living, breathing, lunatic.
    Clinton and Obama are just playing the political self-interested popularity game.
    And the republican candidates are bad jokes.
    I wish Mike Gravel had deeper pockets to pick campaign money out of. :( Sorry Mike. I guess you'll have to let this election to real politicians--the ones with power-hungry hard-ons, with no real intention of making any serious changes.
  • PunkRampant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I think the title needed one more exclamation mark.
  • jaywon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Go Dems!
  • jdavid, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4This still reminds me of the simpsons episode

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVUuwqQT1A

    its still f'ing relevant.

    SPREAD THE WORD, EMAIL EVERYONE VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    lets see if there is any hope for this country yet.
  • bigp3rm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Didn't you know that we live in a Clinton and Bush royal dictatorship? All hail Queen Clinton!
  • Sithlrd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Only a dumb ass doesn't realize they're all in the same empire building boat. Dems take our guns, Repubs take our privacy.
    • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And by alternating between them, they take both. Convenient isn't it?
  • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Bush is practically endorsing Hillary. The CFR have chosen their next president and are going to make sure nothing sticks to her between now and then.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/24/bu ...
  • Lionhart, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Everything you read on the internet is true. Question nothing.
  • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Nothing will energize the republican base like Hillary getting the democratic nod. Watch
    • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Her disgusting right-wing slant will be made tolerable by watching O'Reilly and Limbaugh have strokes on election night. Not to mention all of the lunatics that will come out of the closet like when Bill was president.
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1And she'll get the swing voters that hate her, too, because they hate the war worse.
  • Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3An "Examiner Exclusive". Heh. Some Sheeple will just believe anything.
    • synik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Remember kids... using the word "sheeple" means you are enlightened, and understand things the rest of us don't. baa.
  • kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A thought occurred reading the statements. Bush seemed unusually blunt and direct about his tactics as well as intentions. This struck me as odd. Why would he reveal (even if it were mostly obvious) so much about the politics of governing and manipulation and lying in connection with democratic candidates? If I were him, or his advisers, I would have realized that confirming any of this would only make people wary of the democratic candidates. By publicly associating himself and his deceit with front running democrats, he makes them look bad. What is his true motive, doing this I wonder. Clearly, he is a managed politician, just like most the major players in both parties are, so what is the high level goal he intends to accomplish by doing this? It seems like clinton and the other major democrats are set up perfectly to play the good cop this iteration of executive government. Why rock that?
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unlike most people here, he hasn't forgotten that Americas true enemies are not in the opposing political party. He has no more elections to win so there is no reason to continue the political theater. Bush destroyed his support maintaining a strategy he believed was the correct one and he wants to give whoever is elected the ability to retreat from their rhetoric and finish what he started. If you check back a few years you will see what the leaders on the left actually think about the war instead of the extreme rhetoric used to raise money.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9 Just more evidence that the whole Republican Deocrat divide is becoming mostly show. Clinton and Bush are both globalists looking to erode America's power. They are tools of the international banking families and the various groups they control. (CFR, Bilderberg etc.)
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I would hope both sides are talking to each other. WTF is wrong with you, savetheusa1?
  • Dezik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Thousands of democrats and independents say to stop the Iraq war and get rid of gitmo, then one ***** republican says the same thing, and you guys run to him?

    God what a ***** nightmare.

    Kucinich 08.
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Not too tough to figure. Ron Paul is only candidate who is not essentially either a fascist or a socialist.
      • Dezik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not having any kind of socialistic view in some sense is not good for the country, or its people, at all. He want's to get rid of welfare, which doesn't help the people at all. I hear what he's saying, but besides the anti drug war, anti iraq war, and closing down of gitmo, he sounds like any other kind of neocon scum that's believe that anything but pulling yourself by your own boot straps is some kind of communist game.
        • MindStalker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Frankly its impossible to know if thats really true or not. People lived relatively well in the 20s with virtually no social programs at the federal level. Sure there was a lot of poverty, and there still is. In reality the advancement of US standard of living for the poorest of the poor tracks quite well to advancement in technology and industrialization. There are several negative dips when the economy collapsed, generally due to feds monetary house of cards. Sadly its impossible to prove this point because there simply isn't a society existing today that has maintained a "libertarian" style of government long enough to really know how well it works. It needs to be given a chance, but at the same time one needs to tread softly. First thing first would be the end of corporate welfare, let corporations compete on equal level.. Then we can move on from there.

          Of course the reason why a libertarian system has never existed is because people will almost always vote their rights away for protection. Maybe as education levels increase we might see things improve. Who knows.
  • roaddc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow! The commenters above did not bother to read the article. The article quoted a book that didn't mention Hillary Clinton.
    Man, a lot of Digg users don't let facts get in the way of their bashing. Reminds me of Bush.
  • metapede, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Dude. Overreact much? As much as I dislike and distrust President Bush, he just seems to be communicating some advice and opinions to Hillary Clinton and the other Dems. It's not as if they have to follow it. These people talk to each other. What's the big deal?
    Ease up on the exclamation points.
  • azprofessional, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Get Ross Perot back in business, pay down that debt! Or wait is it too late to nominate Ross Perot Jr.?
  • perish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpuCmYPQWUA

    http://bushclinton.blogspot.com/

    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/04/337782.sh ...

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=UyO_9pbBwqU

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2007/07/ ...

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00155.htm

    Aoouuggh, what's that smell?

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.