digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Iraq War is Getting Worse, MUCH Worse - Attacks Every 15 Min

cbsnews.com — Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • witte, on 10/12/2007, -124/+33Nevertheless, the psychotic islamofacist slobs that are more interested in blowing up children and shooting harmless truck drivers than building up their own country still need to be destroyed. One by one.

    Anybody got a better way? Bob certainly doesn't.
    • MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -49/+57I'm just at a lost of how idiotic that comment is. Just... wow.
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -16/+72The problem is that for every one that you kill, another three Muslim kids, with their minds poisoned by the evil whispers of radical clerics, pick up their AKs and strap on their suicide belts. Yes you need to kill the ones who have already decided to become murderers, but you need to stop others making that decision. Right now no one is doing a good enough job of that second part. Both parts need to be done together, or we cannot win.
    • dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -36/+66islamofascist is the latest buzz word for conservative psychos. :)
    • jblade, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Yes this is true, but at the same time they need to keep the new ones from coming in. I believe the weakest point in Iraq with US forces is the ability to stop people from crossing the border.
    • positron, on 10/12/2007, -26/+36The weakest point with US forces in Iraq is the fact that they are there at all.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -28/+21Though we actually are trying to "win the hearts and minds" by installing a free democratic society in place of a dictatorship in Iraq.
      That is why it is the battle ground for Al Qeada, as stated by them. They know, if a free society rises up in the middle east the minds will be won over, and then they lose. Iran funds the fighters in Iraq as does Syria, with money and ideology.
      It is too bad that the Left is opposing this strategy, using the politics of this conflict as a method of regaining power in our government. The politics of this conflict are what will force it to fail. No hearts will be won, no minds will be changed if dissent for the sake of dissent is the only strategy that the Dems use.
      It isn't about killing the people, it is about creating stability so that they can experience a free society and what it has to offer. But Al Qeada, Iran, Syria know that if that happens, they will lose control over the peoples minds. The Dems cheering its failure is not helping.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -31/+10"islamofascist is the latest buzz word for conservative psychos".

      Yeah WE just started using it today. You jumped on the bandwagon a little late. Or where you to busy talking to hear whats been going on for months?
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10That's because those "clerics" are "religious leaders" and killing them would go against all sorts of treatires.

      Perhaps the UN should revise their "religious leaders" policies to work similarly to religious organizations' tax-exempt status here -- if you're a religious organization, you're tax-exempt; but if you start politicking, you lose your tax-exempt status.
      Likewise, perhaps if the "religious leaders" are also political leaders, we can kill them?

      Of course, this would open up the door to even more American violence and even more terrorism. Ugh.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -30/+10Positron
      "The weakest point with US forces in Iraq is the fact that they are there at all"

      The weakest point in in US Forces in Iraq are Murtha, Pelosi, That guy from Arizona who doesnt know who he is (John M), Blah, blah.......
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32There are lots of better ideas than invading a country that had nothing to do with the initial attacks.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4Your comment shouldn't have been dugg down. Lunatics like that deserve to suck the pipe.

      But what do you expect? It's frickin' Ramadan for Muhammed's sake. Of course the nutbags are going to be out in full force.
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35That's right TomtheWombat, and if we pull out of Vietnam we'll be fighting the Communists on the beaches of San Diego.

      We have to just keep sending our children over there until the end of time.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27"If we pull out of the middle east, then it just brings the war back to our soil."

      No it doesn't.

      I am curious, though...what insane logic are you using?
    • 955701, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Islamofascist would be state-sponsored Islam. So what your saying is members of the middleeast theocracies need to die?

      Re-read the definition of fascism please.
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"That's because those "clerics" are "religious leaders" and killing them would go against all sorts of treatires."

      Killing someone on the basis of what they say and what they believe, is surely counter to everything the US stands for, in terms of freedom of speech.
    • sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11xGORDOx -

      "The Dems cheering its failure is not helping."

      Nah, they're not cheering. They are just hoping to win in November to correct Bush's huge mess before more Americans get killed. The NIE report even states that Bush's war is a complete failure and is actually making things worse, not better.
    • dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The NIE states that entering Iraq has made more terrorists, but leaving Iraq will gain a crucial victory for the terrorist groups and make the slight increase in terrorists from us being there a drop in the bucket.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@dancpsu
      In other words, like some of us on the left have been saying for a while in opposition to the war, were fu!@ed if we do and were f@#cked even more if we don't leave. This war was doomed to failure from the beginning and many of us knew it. And still many refuse to listen. What will it take?
    • Darkkish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I seriously thought that islamafascist was just a word that us democrats made up to make fun of the republicans, i had no idea anyone was really so ignorant as to ACTUALLY USE the word in a serious tone. Personally i think it is the most horrible thing ever, i go to school with muslims, they are just like everyone else, they eat, they sleep, they pray, in hopes to go to heaven.
      What you don't understand is that NO MUSLIMS ARE RADICALS!!!
      most radical "muslims" believe that they should get revenge for the killing of thier "muslim" relatives. and by commiting mass homicide/suicide they become a martyr and are instantly sent to heaven. Why? don't ask me, don't ask real muslims because they have no idea either. The muslim who sits next to me in history agrees that osama, and saddam are both VERY horrible people and are in no way true muslims, nor are thier radical followers, get your facts straight before spouting off about "islamafascists."
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3BigBaRay:

      "Yeah WE just started using it ['Islamofacist] today. You jumped on the bandwagon a little late. Or w[-h]ere you to[o] busy talking to hear what[']s been going on for months?"

      Sorry, had to clear up the grammar issue before addressing your 'point,' if you want to call it that. Yeah, you're absolutely right - the term "islamofacist" has been around for a while now. Months? That's a stretch.

      At any rate, the fact that it's been flung around by administrative mouthpieces doesn't make it any more true. Both Hezbullah and Hamas are democratically-elected parties. Bush has been asked repeatedly to stop using the term, by both 'liberals' (i.e. anyone who doesn't masturbate to an effigy of George Bush while listening to the Star-Spangled Banner every night) and his own party, because - get ready for this - it goes beyond ridiculous. It's an inane, inaccurate term created by spin doctors to fool saps like yourself into believing that the War on Terror is somehow equitable to the past wars we've been forced to fight in situations that truly endangered our country.

      So, if I start calling Bush's administration "Amero-fascists" because I think they're bad people, that makes it true? Words are words, BigBa, and they're often ***** meaningless - especially when they come laden with emotional and political meaning meant to shape your opinion.

      It's amazing how you people just suck up the ideological table-scraps they toss to you. Even if you believe our government to be right in this case, the least you could do is demand a better bargain from them.
    • ka2err, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 @xGORDOx
      > Though we actually are trying to "win the hearts and minds"
      > by installing a free democratic society in place of a dictatorship in Iraq.

      You have bombed a secular dictatorship into civil war and killed more than 40'000 civilians.
      You have lost all credibility concerning "installing a free democratic society" for the next 2 generations.

      k2r
  • baltimoretim, on 10/12/2007, -16/+55Well this sucks. According to Woodward, Henry Kissenger is now advising Bush on Iraq. Yes, the man who brought you years of useless, senseless killing in Southeast Asia now joins the Bush team to make the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam even more obvious. Here's the most telling chunk of the linked article:

    Says Woodward, "Now what’s Kissinger’s advice? In Iraq, he declared very simply, ‘Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.'" Woodward adds. "This is so fascinating. Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will."

    Will does not ensure victory. Will can keep us doing stupid, harmful things for a lot longer than we should.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -48/+25And Kissinger is still right today.

      We did lose Vietnam on American soil, not in the rice paddies. Americans do not lose their wars abroad, they lose them at home.

      Just because you can not understand what Kissinger is saying does not invalidate it.
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -19/+22Kissinger is an improvement, right? He took a pragmatic view on foreign affairs. That's surely better than an ideology based view. I'd rather have a guy saying "what is best for America and the West" than a guy saying "what does God want me to do".
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -13/+44"We did lose Vietnam on American soil, not in the rice paddies. Americans do not lose their wars abroad, they lose them at home"

      HMTKSteve

      Respectfully, you live in a country with people who will not kill hundreds of thousands or millions in order to "win". Seriously. We will not.

      There are soldiers who will walk off the battle lines and frag their officers first. They did that in Vietnam. Recent reports say US soldiers in Iraq are deserting or failing to show up for deployment. Over the next few years that problem will become epidemic.

      There are civilians who will make life a living hell for politicians here at home. Some through peaceful means (like me) some with growing levels of militantism. We don't want our tax dollars spent that way. We don't funding a tightly targeted search for mass murderers called "terrorists" but we aren't going to go for the torture/carpetbombing/endless occupation thing.

      So, if you want a country that will "go to the wall to win" you'll probably have to move.

    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24@nfulton

      I do not disagree with your comments one bit.

      I do often feel that many who cry out against the war effort do so without understanding what would happen if what they want were to be.

      Just look at the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. Israel was deemed the loser and Hezbollah the winner merely because it survived.

      If the war in Iraq, which the terrorists have taken as their war against America, were to end in anything other then the destruction of the terrorist elements and a stable government over a united Iraq it will be spun as a terrorist win.

      The departure from Somalia was spun as a terrorist win even though we were ignorant of those who declared it a win.

      Whether we got involved in Iraq for the right reasons or not no longer matters. All that matters is that we win.

      If you want to see the USA out of Iraq then please propose a solution that will not be spun as a terrorist win.

      The sad reality is that were are reverting to a 1930's view of the world. We see security in our oceans. Is your home any more secure if you close your shutters to the fire raging outside your window?
    • baltimoretim, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30@ HTMKSteve:

      I understand what Kissinger is saying. I disagree with it. I disagree with you.

      We did lose Vietnam in the paddies. That's where our soldiers were killed. They were dying in thousands before there was any so-called faltering of national will.

      As to how much "will" was poured into the Vietnam War, the Vietnam Vertans Memorial marks the beginning of US involvement as the year 1955. The Kent State Massacre (the most iconic war-protesting moment) didn't happen until 1970. That's 15 years of will right there.

      One cannot simply will one's preferred reality. President Bush may listen to Henry Kissinger when he says that "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy." I would propose--for their consideration and yours--that victory in Iraq would perhaps be meaningful but is also certainly impossible. These two civil servants must see through the errors of the past, put aside their egos (Kissinger is still fighting a war he lost thrty years ago), and embrace reality--where meaning exists even in loss-- instead of a willed fantasy.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Though I agree that Vietnam was a mistake, the problem of that war had more to do with those who were hamstringing the fighting of it in government.

      The goal of any war should be the destruction of your enemy, no matter where he hides.

      In Vietnam we put limits on our army. They were told to take hills and then leave.

      Part of the plan was to show the enemy we could take any hill we wanted but instead it pointed out a callous disregard for the American soldier, that he would be ordered to die on a hill that would then be given back to the enemy.

      I do not see victory in Iraq as impossible. I think it will not happen until we tell the Iraqis, "See this strip of land you call Baghdad? We are leaving it. It is now up to you to take it from your enemies. We will move to your borders and stop enemy weapons from getting in, but it is up to YOU to win back your country from the terrorist elements present. If you are not willing to shed your own blood, why should we?"
    • positron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Vietnam was not a mistake, it was a setup. Three words: Gulf of Tonkin.
    • elamr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The more you resist the greater the problem persists. True in life and in war. The enemy is still not understood. Until we understand the enemy we (America and the new Iraq govt) will lose.

      Little kids will become radicalized by what is going on now. Will they grow to hate america, terrorists, Shia's or Sunni's? Only time will tell. Only peace will heal. I pray for those who only want soverinty and to live normal lives.

      There are 3 or 4 factions their all fighting for power and/or stability: America/New Iraq govt, Sunni rebels, Shi'ite rebels, Al queda. Each has its own agenda. The biggest agression is between the Sunnis and Shia's which makes it a civil war.

      But then What the Bleep do We know?!
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"If the war in Iraq, which the terrorists have taken as their war against America, were to end in anything other then the destruction of the terrorist elements and a stable government over a united Iraq it will be spun as a terrorist win."

      What an asinine reason to keep pouring American money and lives into a ***** hole in the sand. Why should anyone in this country give two cents how the terrorists spin this?

      This thinking is related to another travesty. After the 9/11 attacks we were informed that there was nothing wrong with the air around ground zero, just go back to work and don't worry about it. Now thousands and even tens of thousands of Americans have had their health damaged because of that lie. Why was that lie told? Because the Bush administration didn't want al Quaida to take comfort in how well their attack had succeeded. So to keep them from feeling a little better thousands of Americans suffer ill health.

      And now you want more Americans to die so terrorists wont feel better? Go to hell.
    • baltimoretim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ HTMKSteve:

      Well, you just gave two different criteria for victory:

      1) total annilhilation of your enemy (which doesn't even occur in wars on the scale of 30 combatants in Papua New Guinea, much less on a scale of thousands or hundreds of thousands) and

      2) a staged withdrawal from Iraq.

      These are two very different goals. I think the second is more likely than the first, but I also don't think the second will work in a way any person living in the real world would call "victory." Iraq is currently a US protectorate, and probably will be for decades. It is a nation that has long been on the brink of civil war, not to mention actively involved in foreign war. Now its "government" faces threats from within (Shiites vs. Sunnis vs. Kurds) and without (Iran). It will take long years before anyone in Iraq consolidates a position of power equal to what's needed to defend the country from threat. And until they do, that's our job. Colin Powell warned Bush about this well ahead of "Shock and Awe," but that didn't matter, ultimately.

      I don't blame you for your confusion here--I think this administration has done a piss-poor job of educating any American on what the real causes of and goals for this war have been. But let's not pretend that there are real options for any genuine "victory." We may just end up "declaring victory and going home," as George Aiken recommended we do in Vietnam.

      Why not? We've already declared the mission "accomplished."
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@balt...

      You misunderstand my post.

      A) The GOAL of any war should be the "destruction" of your enemy, not his annihilation. You need to remove his ability (and desire) to wage war. World War One failed in that respect as the conditions of the German loss were so vengeful that World War Two HAD to occur.

      B) Victory does not require A but, A should be the goal you aim for while fighting the war.

      If you are seeing two different criteria for victory in my post then you are reading more into it then is written. Or it just fits your agenda.
    • elamr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Ironic. History repeating with the course of a half-lifetime.
    • baltimoretim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@steve (since we're friends now)

      Now you write that victory is possible without achieving your war goals. That's nonsense. Victory IS the achievement of your war goals. There is no other yardstick.

      And as to "my agenda": My agenda is to speak and write the truth about this hateful war in a clear, concise, and historically-informed manner. So yes, stylistically sodden and logically contradictory posts do conflict with my agenda.
    • Tweedy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13If 150,000 Iraqi troops were on US soil attempting to convert our government to Islamic fundmentalism would we go along peacefully?
    • elamr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@nfulton,

      "Respectfully, you live in a country with people who will not kill hundreds of thousands or millions in order to "win". Seriously. We will not."

      what about hiroshima & nagasaki?
      214,000 - killed for victory (Mostly Civilians).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10We lost Vietnam because those people weren't going to give up fighting the foreign army in their homeland no matter how many 10s of thousands they lost. The same Goddamn thing is true about Iraq.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@balt,

      Victory is achieved as soon as your enemy loses the will to fight.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Steve, They have been fighting in that part of the world for thousands of years. They have been batteling eachother and those around them before the U.S. of A was even a country. I don't have the time or patience to wait for them to lose their will. They seem to be bred to have the will to fight forever. We prefer a war that can be fought in, as Don Rumsfield said it "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months". That is why many of the American people backed the war at first (not me of course). I do not want to live in a country at war for the rest of my lifetime.

      We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia . -1984
  • ramaz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31Two things:

    1) Even the worst terrorist has a mother and a father, relatives and friends. Every time we kill one, chances are someone among that circle of people (or several) will toss their hat into the ring, out of their grief and rage, joining the "cause" to kill Americans, Britons, Israelis, etc.

    I heard it said once that this is not a war we can win simply by killing enough people. I'm afraid that is true. The reservoir out of which our enemies are recruited is far larger than our own population. We are outnumbered.

    2) Our enemies have us right where they want us: by operating in the midst of civilians, they ensure that there will be outrage every time we attack them. That strategy simply works in the world at large, and I don't know any solution.
    • witte, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1Crime and punishment.
      Crime and ... ?
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7"Crime and punishment.
      Crime and ... ?"

      Effective crime prevention is about stopping it before it happens, not just tidying up after it has happened.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The Iraq war is an ideal war. Just like the war on drugs. It's sole purpose is to enrich a few and to generate enough political FUD to keep the war going on in perpetuity. A nice gig if you're on the inside. Kind of sucks for everyone else, though.
  • fani, on 10/12/2007, -27/+12This politics war against the current administration is also getting worse..... new anti-Bush submission attacks every 15 mins

    The next-gen console war against Sony's PS3 is also getting worse..... Wii-based PS3 attacks every 15 mins.

    Aren't you tired of reading the same old ***** every day too ? What happened to the cool digg where I could get cool tech/geek related news/info without all the political arguments ?
    I guess digg is starting to go the slashdot way.
    • dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21there's a little thing you can do now, where you uncheck what you don't want to watch on digg. I recommend you uncheck everything not tech related then. k.
    • omgwut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9 Filter it out then.
    • BobMysterioso, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2But the RSS feed does not respect your choices.

      Let digg know about this, I lose hours of work reading rants on Digg from topics I unchecked! I know I could just not read them, but what fun is that?
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"What happened to the cool digg where I could get cool tech/geek related news/info without all the political arguments ?"

      That went the same way, tbh. A new Revision3 submission every 15 minutes.

      The problem is that getting a story onto the front page is this massive goal that the site encourages people to aim for. If you know a formula for what is successful, why would you deviate from it? Digg needs to develop something like Google News, ie. an algorithm for telling how similar stories are to each other, and then make it much harder for similar stories to get promoted.
    • elamr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Iraq is completely out of our hands.
      Why do people keep talking about winning it? Isn't that like France saying they want to win the American Civil War. It is a CIVIL WAR, it is not even an American war anymore. All we can do is help the side supporting American interests to win. Unfortunately, we started it by our actions and if we leave it will REALLY be in complete chaos.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5For a tech geek one would have thought you would have figured out the filters on this site already.
  • Diabolickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Mission accomplished?
  • Blizzardman, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8KEYWORD: War. Really, what did you expect there to be in war? No attacks?
    • omgwut, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23You're sidestepping the argument.

      The argument is that the war is clearly not going the way of the rhetoric that the president is using. The facts show.
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yet more digital thinking on an analogue topic. The choice is not "attacks or no attacks", a binary thing. The choice is "more attacks or fewer attacks". Stop trying to change the issue to make it easier to dismiss.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4The facts or the Dem talking points?
    • Blizzardman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Have you ever heard of keeping morale up at home? I HIGHLY doubt during the World Wars the president told the truth on numbers dead on the battlefield.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You know Gordo, some things we hold to be self evident and do not require "talking points". I don't get the talking points memos from the right or the left. I do however hear oppinions that I agree with, and if particularly well said I may be known to repeat them. Almost everything that I post here is in my own words. I belive that to be true about most people that post on digg. That is why I visit the site regularly.
  • EricCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14So you'd rather become part of the uniformed masses that make up America? Digg is a great tool to get any news story on any topic, usually ones that the mainstream news media don't report on, and give it a voice.

    Dugg.
  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21What did they expect???? You kick over an anthill...out come ants.

    If they stopped ***** with other countries all the time, things might start to stablize.
  • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9For you younger guys, Woodward was one of the Washington reporters who broke the Watergate scandal and helped to get Nixon's resignation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

    The film based on Woodward's book is also pretty good.

    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3There's a problem when every reporter wants to uncover a scandal... and be the next Bob Woodward. Not just report the news. Just to make a name for themselves.
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8That's how scandals get uncovered fella. Try and remember that it's the people causing the scandals that are the problem, not the people uncovering them.
  • donspaulding, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Thank you Al Jazeera.
  • reggiesbush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This war will never end. We will never kill every terrorist in the world. As soon as we leave, we will be called deserters by the Iraqis and the rest of the world, but as long as we are still there we are called evil invaders. We have to find a way to bring our soldiers home safely and as soon as possible if you ask me. War is to be avoided at all costs and our government was far too quick to get involved in this war, now we are left trying to figure out what to do with the current situation. We as a whole do not know what to do. I think many people in America can see what will happen if we stay, and what will happen if we leave, and both are not good. But I think, everyone would or at least should agree, that it is a ***** situation to be in. And I don't think anyone will disagree with the fact that we should not have gotten involved in the first place with this cluster *****.

    I wish I had more to offer as far as a solution goes, but I don't, and I haven't heard a good one yet.
    • Aelbric, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Take off and nuke the site from obit. It's the only way to be sure.
      - Aliens, 1986

      Always wanted an appropriate (or inappropriate) opportunity to use that.
  • MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11This news is propoganda.

    If you want the truth, don't listen to politicians, listen to the people fighting the war for you, your soldiers.

    If this propoganda is true, what does that mean? Obviously you don't pull out immediatly, now that we have this "giant new enemy threat". That would be stupid, wouldn't it.

    My problem with democrats is they have no real plan on how to handle terrorism, but they know damn sure how to criticize those who have got one.

    -Mike
    • cderagon182, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11No Democrates had a plan, the Republicans didn't listen and went about going to Iraq.

      http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/27/keith-olbermann-takes-a-look-back-at-bushs-first-months-in-office-leading-up-to-911/
    • joel3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually the Dems under Clinton had a great plan for dealing with terror: pay attention to it.

      The Bushies couldn't be bothered, too interested in missile defense.

      Note to Bushies, terrorists won't be attacking with ICBMs any time soon. You guys are supposed to be friggin' military geniuses, you ought to have known that.
    • dael, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The Republicans' plan for the "Long war" against the terrorists is only going to create more terrorists, thus making the war longer and the need for Militant Foreign policy even greater. If the USA has a excuse, real, invented, or caused by it's own malicious action, it will have enough internal support to go around knocking off unfriendly governments, and the war machine will be happy. Terrorists will thrive and commit atrocities by-the-thousand in these shattered countries, and the problems will become ever-worse.

      http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/10/news/edpfaff.php

      Thankfully, not all U.S. citizens are as blind as the Republicans would like, and ever since we realized the goals of the Neo-Cons (global hegemony), our Army Officials, civilians, politicians, activists, and ordinary folks saw thru this disastrous foreign policy, and oppose it.

      If only we had a congress with independence, foresight and the will to halt this malign administration whatever dark paths it tries to lead us. Until such a time, our country's reputation is tarnished with the torture of innocents, the war-profiteering and greed of corporations happy to steal money from our government, the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes.

      Those that refuse to consider the dangerous consequences of overthrowing governments by violence need only look to the Russian Revolution. Actions have consequences and best-wishes rarely come to fruition.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Mike

      Have spoken to soldiers. Have brought their words to others (www.backfromiraqmovie.com). Am an activist for soldiers rights (many soldiers signed up with a military that upheld the geneva convention and they _do not_ want to serve in one that does not).

      Many soldiers say that 138,000 can't pacify Iraq. 500,000 for ten years with a massive infusion of resources could. 138,000 never, ever, ever will. They do not want to shoot kids. They do not want to watch them starve. They do not want to torture. They do not want to be stop-lossed until 2031. They do not want to be in a "all-volunteer military" which has been broken down and torn apart by an administration based on endless war.

      They hate terrorists. They wonder where Bin Laden is. They wonder why we can't work with the other nations in the world to target and attack _terrorists_ and terrorist training camps. They remember that Iraq was supposed to have WMD and links to terrorism. It didn't. Their pissed.

      Truth is soldiers are as diverse as the rest of the population. And _many_ soldiers are more fed up than the activists back home. Many are very, very, very concerned that things like fragging and desertion are going to damage the US military beyond repair. Many believe it is already a broken force.

      But if you want to join my campaign to demand that CNN, FOX and MSNBC interview discharged soldiers who are back from Iraq and afghanistan instead of politicians and analysts who go there for two days a year, I'm glad to have you.

      You might want to check out www.militaryproject.org, www.ivaw.net, www.optruth.com.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Too much facts, no heart

    Mark as inaccurate. lol ..
    • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7it only took 47 mins to become "Inaccurate". ;)
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Always a liberal bias with those facts.
    • miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8those wacko repug shills marking anything that brings to light their incompetence they mark as inaccurate.. yawn.
  • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2Muslims killing Muslims.
    Seems OK to me.
    • Diabolickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9That's because you are an immoral, subhuman piece of crap.
  • gruvsf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8wait, but aren't we safer now? :)
    If Fox News and my President tells me that dispite what everyone else says, it must be the truth, rigth?
    • Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1So you trust Hillary and CNN instead? Wow, isn't that a good trade.
  • Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Could be worse, every minute.
  • jackleman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3The reality is this, invading Iraq was not about terrorism so much as it was about defending ourselves from countries that have the will and ability to do harm. Under Hussien, Iraq would have eventually attacked the United States, maby not with WMDs or by funding terrorism, but a crazy dictator like that would eventually find a way. The Bush administration said that Iraq was harboring terrorists, and maby they werent, but in the larger scheme of things, what would happen if the United States ignored all the countries that had the will to harm US? By this way of thinking we never would have entered WW2, we would have sat on the sidelines while the Axis powers grew stronger, occupied Great Britain, and eventually launch a ground invasion north up through Mexicon (which is what they were planning to do). While dealing with national threats can be a very dirty process, it has to be done to maintain the level of safety that we enjoy in the United States.
    • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Of course the numbers will be different. I understand that. The real point is the article lacks proof. These numbers are false--based on nothing but a whim or a wish. Do your homework and you will see the number of attacks has actually gone down (not up).
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7jackleman, the Soviet Union was a threat to us for 40 years and we managed to get by that without invading Russia. China is a huge threat to us now and we aren't about to go into Beijing.

      Iraq in it's best day wasn't a serious threat to America.
    • MKinSJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3do they even teach history in school anymore? we entered WWII when Japan attacked us and then Germany declared war on us. Until that point we had been involved in the war by supporting the allies with equipment and supplies. Please try to get just a little of the history right before using it to defend present actions. Oh and if you think Iraq was the biggest threat to us then you haven't really studied the current day politics either.
    • jackleman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@FlaG8r and @MKinSJ

      Hussein's foriegn policy was very clear before the war, he saw the US as an enemy to his country, China may be a threat to the United States but they do not make agreesive politics and action toward the United States. Recently our president visited China to improve relations, the previous regime in Iraq was clearly an agreesive threat. A country that openly supports violence against the US is clearly a bigger threat than a country like China that conducts diplomatic relations. Read more carefully next time.
  • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5If you believe Bob Woodward, you are smoking something. Do your math! If his numbers were true, that would account for 122,640 attacks (96/day, 35,040/year) since the Iraq war began in March 2003. Does anybody believe that? Don't believe something just because someone says it is true.
    • korbink, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3No doubt, not once did he say where he was getting his information. He's just pulling ***** out of his ass and dems are eating it up. I guess the libs believe in truthiness as well.
    • evilunleashed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8To do the math you need accurate numbers, and you are assuming that the level of attacks he says we are currently faced with in Iraq are the exact same as the day we went in. They are not. The attacks are escalating in frequency, that is the point.
  • alettieri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Man, this just puts a knot in my stomach. This affects so many peoples lives. My younger brother is heading out there tomorrow. He's not in the military he just thought it would be a good idea to go over as a contractor. I'm very close to him and hope he's going to stay safe.
    Why are we the "World Police" I still don't get that?
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Read up on your 1930's world history.
    • Alcorsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Best wishes to you and to your younger brother. We all wish him luck and a safe return.
    • evilunleashed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7People like your brother are the forgotten heroes of our activity in Iraq. Civilians who knowingly risk their lives to go there to help these people build a future deserve more credit than they are getting. One of my best friends is a boilermaker who was offered an obscene amount of money to go to Iraq and help rebuild. He didn't accept because he valued his life more than the money. I can respect that decision, he has a family to provide for, and no amount of money will give his children a new father. But I also have a great deal more respcet for people like your brother. Best wishes to him.
    • elamr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3tweedy,
      good point. but I don't think its that simple. if america was in the same state that Iraq was in: Bush would be a dictator on par with Suddam (having killed 5000 minorities with nerve gas and attempting to invade both Canada and Mexico), the country would be split in two religious sects between Catholics and Protestants each side with blood on their hands.

      But to your credit, your right even under the above scenario, Americans would breed a lot of "insurgents" if it was invaded by another country.

      alettieri,
      *Why are we the "World Police" I still don't get that?* I don't think it is as much "world police" as much as it is America govt VERY agressively protecting/securing "interests". Politicians say its for "peace", "security", "free Iraq".. total BS (at least in the case of Iraq). Seems like by "security" they mean fear and opportunity. If it is for "peace", why initiate attack? If is for "free Iraq" why not free other countries under similar tyranny: (see Axis of Evil).
    • sebnukem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"... and if your little brother dies, he did so to make your families safer..." " ...what good would he have done if he had stayed in the US anyway...." - GWB

      Not kidding. I hope your little bro makes it.
  • evilunleashed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The solution to this war was provided long ago by the sixteenth president of the United States.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" ~ Abraham Lincoln

    Coerced submission only buys time and decimation only harbors resentment and fear. The only way to defeat an enemy is to build on commonality and a desire to reach the most beneficial result for BOTH sides. As long as one side is treated as inferior, they will never be defeated, because they will never stop fighting the oppressive force demeaning them. Unless we treat people with basic human dignity, which this latest bill regarding the treatment of prisoners ensures that we will NOT do, we will not be treated with dignity in return. If we are to stand as the measure of morality and dignity in the world, we must show some.

    Part of our problem is our President's approach to this war. As Reza Aslan said, "Most moderate Muslims hear George W. Bush say 'You're either with us or you're against us' and they think 'Well, I'm not with YOU....'" So if those are the only options he is willing to offer the Muslims of the world, this will not end, regardless of whether "victory" is achieved in Iraq or not.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3So... Are you suggesting that the American Civil War was won via the hand of friendship and not the use of force?

      There were many diplomatic and economic ties prior to World War One, yet it still happened...
    • elamr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4America has made friends with most of the GOVERNMENTS of muslim nations, however the people of these nations are not sold. The reason comes back to the same issue: ISREAL. The PEOPLE are who must be won over. Many would say "*****, what those people think." But the fact of the matter is this, winning the respect of the muslim around the world would dry up the pools of resources from which Al Queda and other cells draw support from.

      Now, I'm not saying America should not stop giving millions of dollars to Isreal... o.k. I AM saying that... our governments support of Isreal is pretty one sided (IMHO). There has been a lot going on over there besides Palestinian terrorist killing Isrealis.

      I calling the baby ugly. But sometimes ugly baby grow up to be beautiful (i.e. the Olsen twins). Think about it, dude. Relax.. its just an oppinion.
    • evilunleashed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Steve

      Actually, I live in Florida, and with the number of rebel flags I see daily, I wonder if these people got the memo that the Civil War is over. Daily I hear "The South will rise again!", and the number of Civil War re-enactments that go on leads me to believe that they didn't believe the memo if they got it. The fact that there is a movement for secession in states across the country, the website of the group organizing the secession movement in New Hampshire showed up on digg not long ago http://www.republicofnh.org/platform.html, no matter how small, shows that the ideas that started the Civil War were not defeated. As I said, the coerced submission only bought time.

      Economic and democratic ties don't prevent wars. In fact, people very often fight over money and power, on the smallest and largest of scales. What would be more relevant to the point I was making is that force did not end WWI, it just caused resenment and fear that lead to WWII. And the decimation of the Nazis also failed us, as the Nazi party has existed since, and is once again gaining momentum in Germany.

      Both the American Civil War and the World Wars were examples of the point I was trying to make.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@evil,

      Your post was ambiguous on my first reading. By leading with the Lincoln quote I took it to mean you felt that economic and other relationships built on friendship rather then strength were what won the American Civil War.

      So, I'm still at a loss as to what point you are trying to make.

      Your second post refutes the statement of Lincoln by showing that World War One occurred even though diplomatic ties were in existence prior to the war.

      So, what are you trying to say?
    • evilunleashed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Steve

      I think the problem may be in what you believe friendship to be. Friendship has nothing to do with economic or political bonds. Friendship is about a relationship based on mutual respect for the dignity and human rights of one another. Very few people consider their boss a friend, but they definitely have economic ties, just as people with the same political interests don't always come together as friends. Most often this is due to some measure of disrespect one holds for the other. The in-fighting throughout any political party or economic structure makes that abundantly clear.

      Making friends of your enemies isn't about giving them a vote and $20. It's about giving them the right to live their life as the person they are, with their beliefs, with their ideas, and to respect them for being who they are, and not bending to be who you think they should be. I doubt anyone truly see anyone who kisses their ass all day, our pounds it into the ground, as their friend.
    • evilunleashed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Steve

      I notice that people are digging your comments down. I don't think that's right. There is nothing you have said that warrants it. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it." We may not agree, but we aren't behaving like flaming trolls either. I think people should support mature discussion, and bury the dregs. But that's just how I see it. I'm giving +1 to each of your comments.
  • yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3For every American you kill, ten more take their place. This article is wrong.
  • gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4even if Laura and Barney are the only ones that support him? I didnt know dogs were aware of the geopolitical climate. I guess thats just more of the fantasy-love in Bush creeping out.
    • ScionAltera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh right... Barney is his dog. I had been wondering why he thought the singing purple dinosaur supported his war effort.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12The reality of the situation is that the Iraqis want us to leave. There have been votes all through 2005 where the numbers were 77% for us getting the Hell out of their country. Now a recent poll says that 71% want us to leave in the next year, 20% want us to leave in the next two years, and 9% want us to stay indefinitely.

    The real question is, who are we staying for? If we're staying because we think it's the right thing to do, we are armed occupiers of a foreign country, not liberators. We starved millions with sanctions because their leader was an *****, now we are killing countless thousands because their leader is gone. None of this makes sense.

    If we're staying for that 9%, we have to determine what the costs are from a pragmatic perspective. Are these 9% the ones most likely to die if we don't leave or are these 9% simply afraid of what could happen while the ones most likely to die suffer while we remain?

    The truth is, the United States has created a nightmare, and we refuse to solve the problem until we can spin it as a victory for our current regime. Think about it. We have placed Shi'a in charge of the country, Shi'a are our "allies," and Iran is a Shi'a state. If anyone is being supported by Iran it's the same people we are supporting. If you step back and look at it, our own propoganda does not make sense anymore.

    Worse, does anyone remember how the United States set a DEADLINE for another country to create their Constitution and we sat in on it and told them to make revisions? No wonder everyone hates the US. We blatantly tried to create a colony in Iraq.
    • MagikHelmet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1It only doesn't make sense to people like you.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Hint: POLL != VOTE
    • RCinBigD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We're still there because NOTHING would be worse than a democratically elected government in Iraq that is unfriendly to the US (anyone remember the free election in Lebanon that put Hezbollah in power?). After all the American blood shed and rhetoric spouted for allowing the Iraqi's to freely choose their leaders, this is the last thing the Bush administration can allow to happen. It would be much too risky to allow Iraqi's that choice, so we will continue to cherry pick the people we want to run the place. But, of course, as long as this is the case the government will be seen as a puppet and will have no credibility with the Iraqi people or internationally (much like Diem in Vietnam).

      It amazes me that as educated as these folks are supposed to be, the people at the top in the administration seem to have completely forgotten their history lessons. One look at the Soviet Union's trials and tribulations in Afghanistan should make them run for the hills out of Iraq. Some argue that the fall of communism, and consequently the Soviet Union, was a direct effect of being nearly bankrupted trying to keep up with US in the arms race. A significant battlefield for that arms race was the decade long struggle of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Where did that get them? They had to run home with their tail between their legs in much the same way as the US will eventually have to. Better to get out now and spare the American lives and dollars a long (decades long?) drawn out occupation will take.
  • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Lets drop a bunch of flowers on Iraq and then everything will be better!!
    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4they were suposto do that to us! Someone got the messages confused.
  • roaddc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
    We shouldn't only think of the short-term like killing the terrorists in Iraq.

    We should also think of how to stop creating new terrorists. Killing all the terrorists does not prevent that. These people are not afraid to die anyway. Dying makes them martyrs.

    It will be a neverending cycle if we just go on the offensive.

    There should be a change in foreign policy.

    Take the case of those kids who shot people in school. I'm not trying to defend their actions but a lot of them resorted to it because they were bullied badly in school.

    • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Bush has the long term plan.

      First annihilate Iraq.
      Second annihilate Iran.
      then the rest of the middle east.

      Don't you see the logic ?

      everybody dies = no more terrorists.
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3...and it would have worked too if it wasnt for those dirty smelly hippies...
    • MagikHelmet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0So we need to think how to STOP creating new terrorists? Brilliant!
  • joel3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I couldn't believe all the ridiculous team sports analogies in the comments by the war enthusiasts on the CBS page?

    I'm rooting against my team because I don't like the coach?

    What a load of carp.

    I support the America I've knew and loved for the first 35 years of my life, an America that was not only good to me but more than 4 generations prior to me. That America was a leading light to the world. I will always be loyal to that America. The people in charge now are just politicians, they are not the real America.

    Sports team fans have a saying, "It's not the name on the back of the jersey, it's the name on the front."
  • DokWho, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2praise allah

    die bush lover moron
  • Harboggles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5 Now that's a reputable source, Woodward and Bernstein (for those of you who don't know) were the ones who exposed the Nixon Admin. in the 70's if anyone likes knowing the truth it's him.
    • sebnukem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2NO, because...
      The Content of what happened in the Past May Be Inaccurate.

      Now post a link to prove that Nixon Admin existed! And check Your Facts.
  • hwon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This trend of increasing violence really isn't that new or revealing. I guess the it finally hit one of those "benchmarks" that makes it newsworthy for the mainstream. Attacks have been slowly escalating ever since we invaded. like the number of coalition casualties I'm sure they'll only report it when it becomes sensationalist enough. From 4 attacks an hour to 6! or one attack every 10 minutes!


    it's also not a "shocking fact the administration has kept secret" considering the figures are declassified and published after a few months.
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/sigacts-051200.jpg [globalsecurity.org]
    main page: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_sigacts.htm
  • DeadLikeMe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I hate those warning stickers

    I object to the application of the sticker because there is no equivalent or offsetting sticker that the the other side can apply. If the first thing you read is that the following information is suspect, it defeats the purpose of the any article, namely to be read with an open mind (unrealistic but for the sake of argument lets let this slip by). Once you read it, you can; form an opinion, write a comment, bury it it, or move onto the next article. You the reader have made a decision based on the information in the article, not an opinion rendered by unnamed third parties .

    For example, this article is obviously an opinion piece so by default the information has not been verified and lacks truthiness (I'm a Bush hater so I believe it to be true).

    Having the sticker undermines the digg concept. One digger, one vote. If the article has enough mass appeal then it gets to the front page and if not it languishes with the other 3k+ articles that only get the submitters vote. If it makes to the front page then it can be commented on or not. End of story.

    I do find that the warning label is applied to many stories that attack the right but next month or next year it could easily be attacking the left. In either case the article should rise to the surface or remain out of site based on the entire digg community not whoever makes the decision to apply the sticker.
    • loljews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Diggers are too stupid to understand that the inaccurate label is meant to mean that the reporting itself is inaccurate, not the actual content of the article. This of course leads to diggers using the inaccurate label on opinion pieces. Opinion by its nature is never truth-functional. This is something everyone learns in like the 3rd grade. Facts are truth-functional, opinions are not.

    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dumbass... "Digging" the story is your "offset" that you want. I wish we could see the counts for "Inaccurate" "SPAM" "Lame" etc.
  • snaggletooth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6did anyone read the latest newsweek? there is a one page interview with iraqi pm talibani. he claims that the us press is painting a completely different picture than what is really going on in iraq. he claims that iraq is not having a civil war and things aren't as bad as some would has us believe.

    so who do we believe? bush and talibani or the liberal news media? hmmmm....
    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or the time when he was over here saying there was a full blown civial war. Either way , we both know neither YOU nor I are going to go waltzing down the street in any Iraqi city without being killed.

      Its a ***** disaster, what is so hard about admitting the obvious here?
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Mill was right, stupid people are generally conservative.
    • mad1stl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think Karle Rove said it best "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." - Karl Rove

  • artman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Major General John R.S. Batiste at the DPC Hearing 9/25/06

    "My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and a life-long Republican. Bottom line, our nation is in peril, our Department of Defense’s leadership is extraordinarily bad, and our Congress is only today, more than five years into this war, beginning to exercise its oversight responsibilities. This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPxZLLLb3RY

    Testimony of Col. Thomas Hammes before the DPC 9/25/06

    "Retired U.S. Marine Corps Col. Thomas X. Hammes testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Sept. 25, 2006 before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing regarding the war in Iraq. Retired military officers bluntly accused Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM4wkcQEgdo

    /these are not getting enough attention
    //don't let your ignorance fool you
  • xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ha. I knew this was going to be marked as inaccurate even before I clicked in my RSS firefox toolbar.
  • Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4All you people are arguing about short term stuff. Geraldo Rivera gets it: "We are gonna be in Iraq like we were in Korea - for the next half century. Get over it."
    • mad1stl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2LOL, didnt the Korean war end in a truce after 3 years. A truce that still holds (barely) today. Whatever the circumstance, Geraldo's an idiot. He think John Stewart does grandmas falling down jokes on CC.
  • walkman666, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Though we actually are trying to "win the hearts and minds" by installing a free democratic society in place of a dictatorship in Iraq.
    That is why it is the battle ground for Al Qeada, as stated by them. They know, if a free society rises up in the middle east the minds will be won over, and then they lose. Iran funds the fighters in Iraq as does Syria, with money and ideology.
    It is too bad that the Left is opposing this strategy, using the politics of this conflict as a method of regaining power in our government. The politics of this conflict are what will force it to fail. No hearts will be won, no minds will be changed if dissent for the sake of dissent is the only strategy that the Dems use.
    It isn't about killing the people, it is about creating stability so that they can experience a free society and what it has to offer. But Al Qeada, Iran, Syria know that if that happens, they will lose control over the peoples minds. The Dems cheering its failure is not helping."

    I dunno if dem's are dissenting for dissenting sakes, or if we have any right to invade countries to install a democratic society. In this case, as in others, a democratic society is not working, was not well planned in advance, and did not at all consider what the interim society would be like once the dictator Saddam was removed and tribal warfare ensued -- let alone the terrorist breeding ground. Further, the stability to which you speak is really about a stable region so we'd have another ready means of obtaining oil. The war was based on a false premise (WMD), poorly planned (too few troops), had no consideration for post-war security and governance, and now presents itself as a no-win situation where we cannot get out (we'd lose face; we'd leave a country worse off than it was beforehand), and we cannot stay in (thousands of civilian lives lost, wounded; our own soldiers killed/wounded; billions of dollars).

    This is not a war about principles, morality, or democracy. It's now just a quagmire. As long as its other people's lives, sons lost/hurt, then it's no big deal, right? War is the ultimate decision, and it should only be used when we are truly being attacked. Iraq was not even close, and our dumbass leaders had no clue what it would be like after the power vacuum ensued. And, they stubbornly won't admit any semblance of failure, to change course. That takes real courage.

    The dem's: they blew it by not taking a stand on having greater planning, security, and for truly making this idiotic decision a key point in 2004, and even now -- and for not providing any alternative solutions in the current situation.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I absolutely agree with almost everything that you have said. However I have heard a plan many times from Murtha and Feingold. They have even presented their plans several times each with variations ment to bring more dems and repubs on board. I have heard many dems supporting these plans, and the plans can be easily found and read with a quick search.
      I was listening to an interview with Russ Feingold where he very nicely laid out his objections to the torture bill that was passed today, the Iraq war and his plan to 'end' it, and several other topics. It struck me that Feingold has been on the right side of every issue in the last 6 years and that he is a true pillar of American values. So I call out Feingold for Pres 2008!


  • automagically, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They never mention us civilian contractors. One of our vehicles was destroyed by an IED just yesterday. I bet the numbers are higher than anything anybody reports, they are always missing some variables here and there.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep.

      And the interesting thing is that civilian contractors can choose to leave Iraq at any time. And since they are engaged in "mission critical" stuff like convoys and water purification . . . when things start to go very bad (and they will) the contractors are coming home and our soldiers will be left hanging out to dry.

      Iraq will fail in a bloody way. The terrorists trained in Iraq will go elsewhere (just as the goons we trained in Afghanistan found new uses for their skills). Some chickens come home to roost and Iraq is one of those chickens.
  • Frodo42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Whoa. We need an exit strategy. One that leaves some hope for a stable development. Perhaps a federate state with guarantees for the Sunni to take part in the oil wealth might work out.

    It's such a waste of resources, material as well as human. Could be spend in other places with much, much better results. At home or abroad. We can't afford to waste everything in this desolate, hostile area.
  • DigiRaven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Ok I guess I'm not understanding the nature as to why people are so hard on the US for taking out a dictator. My lord didn't Saddam murdered over a 100k of people in the northern region of Iraq? Isn't that justifiable to take him out? Now the country is destabilized but US is still willing to stay a bit longer to make sure it is stabilized. What is wrong with that? Should we just pack up our bags, leave, and say goodbye you *****-hole worthless country?

    Lets say you know of a person that killed 3 of your neighbors down the street he has a gang of thugs at his side to protect him.
    -- would you ignore him and try to sympathize with him? or
    -- would you get the police after him knowing that they may get hurt or die trying?

    Different country or down the street. A person controlling millions or 10 people is the same thing. Both assholes that needs to be removed from society. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.
    • WeDeserveThis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No one is arguing that Saddam was a benevolent leader. The problem is that we were lied to as a nation by our president about the reasons for going into this war.

      If he'd said: "Saddam has a long history of egregious human-rights violations; we need to take him out" which sounds like your line of reasoning, there would still be a couple of problems:

      a) The reason he had half the power he did was because of U.S. intervention.
      b) If we're going to start doing something about human rights abuses, there are other countries that would be prioritized over Iraq.
    • remotecontrol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Now the country is destabilized but US is still willing to stay a bit longer to make sure it is stabilized."
      I don't believe that is the goal. Instead, the goal is to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq (and with the current rhetoric from the White House, Iran is next). It is justification for diverting our tax dollars to military/industrial economies and the oil that supports them. It is a "win win" situation: protect oil interests and increase military/industrial investments to "fight terrorism." Our leaders and their friends are benefiting handsomely while they point the rest of us toward a mediocre future.
      That's what I think, but if you ask the White House what their exist strategy is, they won't say: Read between the lines. There is no exit strategy.

      "My lord didn't Saddam murdered over a 100k of people in the northern region of Iraq?"
      We should not forget that the Hussein regime came to power with U.S. support:
      http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
      We've known about Saddam for a *long* time (and supported him in the past). Why the invasion now?

      This article and broadcast recognizes that Iraq is a police state, but we still can't control the situation on the ground. Which leads to another question: Wasn't this campaign originally called "Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

      But the real question that never seems to get asked is "Why do these people hate the U.S. so much?" Look at history, and you'll find the answers.

      The only way peace and stability will ever be achieved is:
      Recognize and address root causes.
      Decrease our reliance on oil.
      Our leadership is not interested in investing in the above. Doing so would dismantle the industrial/military complex that gives them their power, control and money.
    • RCinBigD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What if your son or daughter was one of those police? Would that make you try just a little harder to find a peaceful solution and make the guy turn himself in?

      Or even better, what if there were SIX neighbors on your street that were murderers? And the police were only going to be able to send in your son or daughter to bring the bad guy down because all of the other police were busy keeping an eye on the other accused murderers on your block. Are you in such a hurry now?
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, first of all, we put Saddam in power, but that's another story.

      Secondly, he wasn't a terribly leader *in the context of the region*.

      Iraq had a great medical and education system. Lots of cultural value.

      Now, did he torture and kill his opponents? Yep. No doubt about that. But you do have to kind of put it in context. This is the middle east...still very much a warload based society. The concept of countries is very new to that region and completely a concept of post-war American/European/Russian intervention.

      But, yes, it's good that Saddam isn't in power.

      What you and many right-wingers fail to understand (or care to ignore) is that: *NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT*

      The point is WHAT the war was used for and how it WASN'T properly planned for.

      If Bush had originally just said 'this guy is bad, so we're going to develop a solid plan and go in and remove him' then most Americans would be fine with it.

      Instead, though, he claimed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (which it didn't) and that this was critical to the 'war on terror' (which it wasn't) and that the mission was accomplished (ha ha!).
    • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"The only way peace and stability will ever be achieved is:
      Recognize and address root causes."

      I think democrats really need to capitilize on that difference.

      Republicans want to 'fix' problems but not actually address root causes.

      They don't like abortions, so want to pass pointless laws instead of addressing root causes of abortion.

      They don't like drugs so what to fight fake wars rather than address root causes of drug related crime.

      They don't like terrorism so want to give haliburton money instead of addressing root causes.

      Of course, the reason they don't want to address root causes is two-fold:

      - root causes are complex, and they prefer to attrack the voter base that thinks in black and white

      - they don't TRULY want to solve any of these issues. Instead, they like to give the impression they are solving them, when really they are just funneling tax-payer money into good-ol-boy bank accounts.
  • minimaximus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Conservative no like story, conservative moron marks as inaccurate. Conservative sheep win.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Conservative sheep can be ignored. It's not like they do much . . . they're sheep.
  • mad1stl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ Raven - Lets say you know of a person(George W.) killed 3(3000) of your neighbors down the street and he has a gang of thugs at his side to protect him.
    -- would you ignore him and try to sympathize with him? or
    -- would you get the police after him knowing that they may get hurt or die trying?

    Different country or down the street. A person(GW again) controlling millions or 10 people is the same thing. Both assholes that needs to be removed from society. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.
    • bs101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3IDIOT!! Do you have any grasp of the actual numbers of people that were killed in past wars. This thing is small potatoes compared to others and the 3000+ civilians that have died inadvertently in this war is nothing compared to past wars. It probably wouldn't be such an issue if we were fighting a war where we had a legitimite army to fight, but this one hides among the civilians like cowards and uses them as shields. They don't give a rats ass about anyone, even their fellow muslims and neighbors, its all about killing Americans and trying to disrupt what America is trying to do there. If these cowards would stand up and fight like men and be proud of who they are and what they fight for instead of fighting amongs the civilians then this war would be over, but they don't want to fight like real men fight, they instead hide amongs innocents.

      I am getting so sick of people defending terrorists on this website and other liberal based sites. What part of they want to kill us and they will do anything to do it. Bush and the generals controlling the military are keeping the war over there instead of on our soil. I take it you would rather the terrorists be allowed to come over here and blow up our families and children. Personally, if it keeps innocent Americans alive that is my main concern and it should be yours to, otherwise get the hell out of this country and go live in France, or I suppose you could join those others down in Venuzuela that love Chavez so much.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1BS101 . . . the problem is . . . we are killing more than terrorists.

      Why are we allowing terrorists to make us kill innocent people in a country that never attacked us? Doesn't that mean they have the initative because they are setting the agenda?

      Regarding the "we've killed more" justification. As it happens, I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. So was the fire bombing of Dresden. I had no part in the "we" that did that. Nor in the "we" that went to Vietnam or Korea. I also wasn't one of the "we" that gassed Jews in camps, or the "we" that massacred indians. Mass murder is not an inherent part of the USA.

      Kiilling innocent people when we need their help to find other people who kill innocent people is kind of faulty reasoning. If you want to get the "terrorists in Iraq" the non-terrorists have to help you. Right now they don't want to.

      Maybe this is a "new kind of war" where the mass murder solution won't work.
  • sadecrvn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The real purpose of war is to control opposition of the government and maintain total authority by cultivating fear and hatred. - George Orwell

    Bush has used war to win 3 elections. Preparations are being made to attack Iran. Figure it out.
    • witte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The real purpose of Orwell quotes are to maintain total opposition of the government by cultivating fear and hatred."

      BTW, it's the preparations that are being made in Iran to attack that worry most.
  • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate"

    May be, but isn't.

    Unless you've got your head buried in the corporate-run infotainment that is the mainstream U.S. news media. Then everything is just peachy and keen.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I think if an article gets tagged as "inaccurate" the guy that tagged it should have to post his biography (detailing special expertise) or ten articles from "reputable sources". Cause its crap that people can do it from the shadows.
  • bs101, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Oh, goody, I see this is another one of those fine threads that the libs and anti war crowd bury's anything pro Bush and pro what is being done in Iraq. And I see some of them are getting buried pretty deep too. What is funny about that is in other threads these same people complain when they are getting buried for giving their opinion.

    TWO FACED!!!!!!
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2BS101

      Oh Goody, here is a guy who posts no facts, no articles, and doesn't want to talk about the topics the rest of us want to talk about but posts on the page anyway.
    • bs101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1See the problem is nfulton, none of you are posting any facts either, you are just spouting your opinion and burying those that go against yours, I am so glad you are the minority in this country.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oh boy. Another discussion about getting burried. If you have something good to say, I will digg it up. It does not matter what side you are speaking for. If you post whiny rants about getting burried and how digg is so liberal. I will digg you down. Simple.
  • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I posted links to sites that support my position.

    But, it was a stupid comment to post and I apologize.
  • TroyBenedict, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Whether or not this is true isn't the point of my comment.

    I just wanted to comment on the sensationlist headline that was posted by the Digger.

    This is just as bad as my local Fox News channel teasing that "Something in your house MAY KILL YOU! Find out at 10."
  • Breakdown05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg needs to hire a moderation team to confirm whether these stories are inaccurate or not. I am tired of republican fanbois (nah I know they are being paid) marking everything inaccurate.
    • Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not really, it's just a handy way of knowing which stories really get to them.
      I always read stories marked as inaccurate to see what's pissed off the Republicans so much.
  • videoCT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

    My life is now complete!
  • jscro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Once again, inaccurate! The morons of Digg have spoken!

    Digg World News: No commentary allowed
  • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why are so many people happy to see the team fail because they do not like the captain?
  •  

    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.