digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at salon.com —

No Mistranslation In Maliki Interview: He Endorsed Obama

salon.com — Contrary to claims made by people trying to downplay the impact of the Iraqi prime minister's statement in support of Barack Obama's Iraq plan, it's now clear the translation was correct.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • duckyinc, on 07/23/2008, -42/+9"That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
    That's enough to say he endorses Obama? Although even if he doesn't, his vote doesn't really count.
    • jotate, on 07/24/2008, -2/+22It's not about his endorsement. It's about saying that, on this insanely critical issue, the person who actually should be making the decision is embracing Obama's plan.

      It's like God descending from on high and saying "Actually, life doesn't began until the third trimester."
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/24/2008, -15/+5You should try to not use references to God and Obama in the same sentence. It makes you look crazy.
      • Gav0510, on 07/24/2008, -6/+20You should avoid talking as if God is real. It makes you look crazy.
      • JimSwarthow, on 07/24/2008, -13/+4but aren't God and Obama the same person?
      • joseguia, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5You should run around with a bra on your head.
      • noisician, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6so you are saying that listening to what Maliki has to say is like listening to what unicorns and fairies have to say? (ie: fictional magical characters)

        not sure i really follow you
        :)
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1You should avoid talking as if Obama is real. It makes you look crazy.
    • DooM, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah he endorsed Obama's PLAN but not the man - in fact the reporter asked him a follow-up asking him directly if he was endorsing Obama and he said uncategorically no - who Americans choose as their president is none of his business. Sounds like a smart guy - right on the war, right on foreign policy.. let's hope he can hold his country together.
  • alapoet, on 07/23/2008, -8/+96Oh, right. He's opinion doesn't really count. He's only the prime minister of Iraq.

    Only *Americans* get to decide what happens in Iraq, right?

    /sarcasm

    He clearly said he supports Obama's Iraq plan. Deal with it.
  • IdigObama, on 07/23/2008, -11/+27Well said alapoet!
    • iDigg, on 07/24/2008, -8/+4Except for the "he's opinion" part...
    • IKORKYI, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2a digg would do, stop digging a digg...
  • BullSenor, on 08/31/2008, -4/+15It's no real surprise. Maliki has been calling for troop withdrawls since before the surge.
    • coyote1284, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Inaccurate, he's been calling for *planning* a withdrawl schedule since before the surge. There's a subtle difference. "Let's talk about when you're planing on moving out" taken at face value is not "GTFO!", but to anyone who can read between the lines it might as well be the same. Unfortunately, the people Maliki is dealing with right now can hardly read, so you can forget about them catching on to subtleties.
    • BullSenor, on 08/31/2008, -0/+4When Maliki became prime minister he said Iraqi security forces would take over in a year and a half.
      In Oct 2006 he said it would be a matter of months.
      In Dec 2006 he said "no" to more troops in Iraq
      In January 2007 he said three to six months.
      There is no sublety. There's a reason he hasn't been taken seriously up till this point.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Let's just ask the Iraqi people what they have to say about it.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

      So wait...Maliki is only agreeing with what most of his country has been saying for years? Imagine. Actually, it's interesting how reporters never poll Americans to see if we favor immediate withdrawal. I wonder how that wake-up call would work.
    • BullSenor, on 08/31/2008, -0/+0No wake-up call. Only 17% of Americans favor immediate withdrawal according to

      http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=3822935

      A more recent poll (March 08) of Iraqis show 62% want the US to stay longer and
      38% in favor of immediate withdrawal .

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/72995 ...

      Americans are split 50/50 on setting time tables or not:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story ...

      Maliki has always called for troop withdrawals That doesn't mean anything will come of it.





  • angeladtao, on 07/24/2008, -9/+27Bushwacko doesn't WANT to leave Iraq. If we did, who would take care of all those pretty, little oil wells? After all, they used to belong
    to his and Cheney's friends before Sadaam took over. Now Sadaam is gone. Why bother to start that darned war any way if he can't stay and play with their oil wells? It's not fair! It's just not Fair!!
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -16/+4So you think you are funny, huh? you ***** lib?
      Expect the Secret Service on your doorstep pretty soon for threatening the US president.
      we have a nice little cell waiting for you at Guantanamo, you fag traitor lib!
      • Greengoo, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2*****-meat sandwich...
      • sesstreets, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6I had to read khanneanl's comment about 5 times to really make sure that I was reading what I thought I was.

        I'm not even gonna bother with the proof that your an idiot for typing that out, it's plain as day light you don't understand half the ***** going on in this world right now.
      • corysfo, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1khanneanl, please kindly crawl back into your little hole in the ground and siltently stay there until someone comes to get you.
    • coyote1284, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Because they're still fighting us! We're big tough America, we don't back down from a fight. They won't stop because we won't leave until they stop. If we left before they stopped fighting us we'd appear weak!
  • VBDon, on 07/24/2008, -28/+4Another attempt by a liberal media chief to cover up a gaff. Any lie that supports Obama must be protected at all costs. That's the liberal mantra.
    • MonsterChaOS, on 07/24/2008, -2/+20You mean like how CBS doctored video clips of McCain to make him not sound like an idiot?

      Liberal Media my ass...
    • tufftugg, on 07/24/2008, -1/+10 Do you Republicans ever deal with reality? They want you the h*ll out of their country.
    • kh99, on 07/24/2008, -1/+10I like when people use the term "liberal media" because it immediately identifies them as a right wing nut job, and I can ignore whatever they say and not waste my time.
    • zeusthemoose, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Does Obama make mistakes? Sometimes. Does McCain make mistakes? On a daily basis. The only one who has his gaffe's covered up by your so called "liberal" media is McOld. The 70's are over, there is no longer a liberal bias in the media (unless you are listening to Air America). Just because the media reports on McGaffe does not make them "liberal".
  • ileftfark, on 07/24/2008, -14/+14"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

    He agrees with a timetable for withdrawal. How the ***** do you get an "Obama endorsement" out of that? Talk about mistranslation.
    • brandozilla, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6He doesn't even agree to a timetable. He wants to base withdrawals on conditions on the ground in iraq, just like General Petraeus. Iraq is negotiating such a plan right now in a security deal.
    • coyote1284, on 07/24/2008, -6/+3Except that Obama has no authority to enact a withdrawl timetable until he becomes President.
      • mxmj, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8I for one like to know what presidential candidates will do if and when they become elected...
      • coyote1284, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3No doubt. What I meant by my above comment is that Maliki "endorses" Obama because Maliki agrees with Obama's plan that would not be enacted until Obama takes office.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1Well, since he agrees with McCain's plan too, does that mean he endorses McCain?

        No, I thought not.
      • coyote1284, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2@tkstock
        Source please?
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2"The two men "agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," the White House said. - CNN

        What I can't figure out is he said that the 16 month timeframe sounds good, with slight changes. What are these changes? What are they based on? Are they based on conditions on the ground? How much is slight?

        Everyone agrees we should get the troops out as soon as possible. You cannot base the logistics of the withdrawal on an arbitrary timetable. What makes me mad about McCain is that he is being too realistic in an election year. Obama has embraced the Mission Accomplished flag and is running with it. Bush already made that mistake once, McCain doesn't want to repeat it.

        Obama is running with the opportunity that McCain's strategy presented him. We might be able to get the troops out in 16 months because things are going so well in Iraq, but McCain is not willing to commit to that. He's being too realistic and it will cost him votes.

      • coyote1284, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1OK, I retract "Maliki endorses", I agree now that is inaccurate. Maliki supports a withdrawal plan, any withdrawal plan.
    • tidu, on 07/24/2008, -4/+4well, he supports 16 months as opposed to eleven years...
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3OMG, now we're going to hear stupid Obamabots throw that around. A campaign adviser points to Iraqi military people who think 11 years is more realistic and says that "not all people on the ground think it's as rosy as Obama sees it" suddenly means that McCain supports an 11 year plan?

        Kool-aid, meet consumer.
  • sa9e, on 07/24/2008, -16/+8Dugg down for being a duplicate submission that has been harped upon ad nauseam.

    Pro-Obama comments also dugg down, for the selective reading. Maliki went out of his way to credit the surge for making such a withdrawal possible in the same interview. Moreover, Obama was NOT arguing for this 16 month withdrawal until WAAAY AFTER the surge to which he REMAINS strongly opposed. That's right, even after the success of the surge, Obama refuses to acknowledge that it was a good idea.
    • MonsterChaOS, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8even after 5 years, Bush still refuses to admit the Iraqi war was a bad idea.....
    • joseguia, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Surge talks:

      Gen. to Pres : Sir we are losing soldiers.
      Pres to Gen: Send more in, DUH, why do I gotta come up with all the GREAT ideas! Sheesh

    • tufftugg, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5 Success of the surge...what are you Neo-cons smoking? Read and get informed.
      • Zarchon, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2The surge is working. What are you haters smoking? Read and get informed.
    • orangefly, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1i'm tired of telling you people....the surge is not working....there are just less people to kill....and what you call a "surge", i call correcting the ***** up calculation of how many troops the war would require....STOP SPINNING....i'm getting dizzy....
    • charm803, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2You know what's so funny about the surge?

      The US created the violence in the first place.

      If we are sooooo concerned about liberating Iraq from their horrible leader who was tried for war crimes, Bush should be held to the same standard.

      Mugabe is also a bad dictator, but too bad Zimbabwe doesn't have oil or we'd be there "liberating Zimbabwe" as well.

      Iraq had Saddam, and we invaded.
      Zimbabwe has Mugabe, and so far, all Bush has done is written a "stern" letter.

      BUSH created this problem. Not Obama, and unfortunately, someone has to clean up after the bastard.

  • AgainstObama, on 07/24/2008, -15/+16Maliki had no credibility with Digg leftists until now. LOL.
    • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -7/+3In a similar vein, Scott McClellan was despised until he flapped on the Bush Administration, then suddenly he was a great guy.

      Ultimately: you're a good guy if you support our decision, otherwise you're evil.
      • WarBiscuit, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Citation needed.

        Seriously, just because some blogs quoted him,
        and said "it's about time" doesn't mean they _liked him_ after that.
        Everywhere I read still thought he was about as two-faced as any
        other press flak... it's part of the job.

        Ultimately: you're a good guy if you support the constitution
        and the laws of the United States, bad guy if you don't.

        McClellan was at best in a grey area, and he didn't get much better he recent actions.
        Nice try with the strawman though.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1"i don't think you can call mcclellan a douche anymore." -diggrnumber1

        "Saying Scotty is disgruntled or did it for the money is predictable and shallow." -Rovian

        "He's pretty much the only upstanding guy in this entire mess and attacking him is a good way for someone to prove they don't know what the heck they're talking about." -Logisti

        "I always thought he was a good natured idiot republican stooge. He gets a little respect for this book." - kingofinternet

        "I respect him for clearing his conscience with the truth as he sees it." -kemp34

        "Scott, you used to lie a lot, and you did it all the time. But,.....it's great that now you have the guts to published the truth." -fritson

        "McClellan's balls are made from chromed steel." -junkwheel

        These are the ones I could find in the first few minutes. Sorry if it isn't enough for you. And, this discussion pertains to digg leftists, in case you didn't read the OP.
    • an0nymous, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Yup. Darn those Diggers.
      Anyway, Maliki says he wants us out of the country, The Iraqi people want us out of the country. The Americans want us out of the country.
      Why, that only leaves McCain and couple of you, "won't join up to support it", chickenhawks.
      No wonder you don't want to talk about it.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Maliki says he wants us out of the country based on conditions on the ground. He says 2 years is reasonable, which appears to match Obama's plan on the surface.

        In fact, it matches McCain's plan - it's based on conditions on the ground. McCain will have the troops out in two years if conditions on the ground warrant it. But, McCain is being more of a realist. We already had one president who made the mistake of mission accomplished before it was - why would you want to install a second president who would do the same thing?

        And stop bitching about people here not "joining up to support it" because you think they're chicken. It's just that not everyone is 18 years old and without a job like you are.
    • stationwagon, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1The Left hasn't suddenly decided Maliki's credible as the leader of Iraq any more than the Right has decided he's a sham.

      Anyway, this isn't about Maliki's credibility. His government is still largely a creation of the U.S. military, with a token dash of shallow democracy for the Bush government's public relations campaign. That hasn't changed.

      It's the very fact that Maliki is so tied to Bush and the neocons that makes his agreement with Obama significant, and so ironic.

      Same with McClellan. He's still the right-wing flak he was when he disseminated propaganda for The White House. In fact it's those close ties with Bush that makes his criticisms of Bush stick out like a sore thumb.
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Actually, you ignorant *****, the leftists on digg respected Maliki as the leader of his country.
      You rightard shills are the ones who think he doesn't matter and ignore his requests for us to leave.
      Are you really so dishonest this is what you'll pretend is true?
      You are seriously going to try to pretend that the GOP has respected Maliki?

      What a pathetic piece of ***** you are.
      Hey, another rightard warmonger too ***** to actually enlist. What a shock.
      • johndavidjack, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Wow, you're tough, let me tell you. I can't believe you have the balls to insult people over the internet in every post. Only someone with the e-balls the size of yours would use the same "too chicken-***** to enlist" bit in every post.

        You sound like a very educated liberal, probably the kind that spit on my Dad and Uncles when they returned from Vietnam. Pat yourself on the back...

        Flaunt the e-penis...
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Your use of inflammatory and foul language is a credit to your viewpoint. I'm so glad you're arguing for the Left. Please keep up the good work!

        Just curious, why is anyone who comments here with a conservative viewpoint automatically categorized by you as "another rightard warmonger too ***** to actually enlist"? This is such a juvenile statement that I have a hard time believing you're 38 years old. I would guess closer to 17.
      • obamayomama, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Leftard doesn't even realize how pathetic he is... he types the same crap again and again and reveals himself to be a mental midget and yet thinks he's some noble warrior. He'd need a promotion to be an *****.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3tkstock - that's one of CRC's stock insults. He's too brainless to come up with anything new, so he has to use the same thing over and over again.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Because we complained about Maliki soooooo much.

      /sarcasm
  • CDoug03, on 07/24/2008, -9/+3Oh oh oh oh, I care about foreign nations trying to extend their political power by influencing our elections...

    /sarcasm off
    • tufftugg, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2 Maybe they are thinking the same thing. But, I doubt that will make it through the Neo-cons mind.
    • mxmj, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5The result of our elections will have a profound impact on him, his people, and his country. Why wouldn't he voice his opinion?
  • ksiaze, on 07/24/2008, -8/+0greate


  • buckchoris, on 07/24/2008, -1/+12Maliki will be forced to change his statement when Bush and Mccain make a visit to Iraq.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/24/2008, -7/+7Can someone explain to me why or how this is supposed to convince me to vote for Obama?
    • IphtashuFitz, on 07/24/2008, -5/+10Well when you consider that McCain went on record as saying he thought the US knew better than the Iraqis as to when we should pull our troops out it sounds like Obama has a much better understanding of the situation there than McCain does. Add to that the fact that McCain still thinks the invasion of Iraq was justified when all the claims of the Bush administration about WMD's, Iraq's involvement in 9/11, etc. turned out to be false and/or downright lies then it seems to me like Obama has a much better grip on the realities of Middle East politics than McCain does.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/24/2008, -8/+3How old are you? I ask because it seems you think the Iraq situation only started when Bush took office.
      • IphtashuFitz, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8No, I don't think the Iraq situation started when Bush Jr. took office. I also don't think it started when Bush Sr. took office, although Bush Sr. had a MUCH better understanding of Iraq and how to deal with Saddam. Bush Sr. attempted diplomacy but when Saddam invaded Kuwait he spanked Saddam hard but left him in control of Iraq. Bush Jr. had a burr up his ass to show daddy that he could also take on Saddam, so Bush Jr. concocted ***** stories of WMD's, a nuclear program, ties with Al Quaida, and responsibility for 9/11 to convince the American people that an invasion of Iraq was justified. You do realize that a lot of Americans still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 despite the fact that there is no evidence to back it up? At the time Bush Jr. sent in the troops Saddam may have been making a lot of noise about blowing up Israel, death to America, etc. but all that was just bluster. He may have also been attacking ethnic minorities in his own country but that had been going on for decades and certainly didn't justify a full scaled invasion to overthrow him. (If it did then why haven't we done similar things in Nigeria, the Congo, etc?) Bush Jr. was simply itching to attack Saddam and used 9/11 and bogus CIA reports to justify it. If we hadn't invaded Iraq then Saddam would still be there making a lot of noise but the region would still be relatively stable, and we'd be able to devote a lot more military to Afghanistan where we should have been focused exclusively since THAT is where the 9/11 terrorists came from.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2Here's the problem for you: none of what you wrote was what Congress used to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Unless, of course, you think the members of Congress didn't actually read the bill they were signing and went off the President's public statements?

        You need to realize there's a dog and pony show in public and then there's the actual intelligence (the actual basis of the bill to authorize force) most of which predated 2000.
      • IphtashuFitz, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6I take it you're referring to the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"? Let's see, this resolution claimed, among other things:

        -Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons. (No sign of which was ever found after the invasion)

        - Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." (Why use this to justify an invasion of Iraq when we don't use it to justify invading the Congo, Nigeria, etc?)

        - Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." (No proof of this ever surfaced prior to the invasion)

        - Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations (again, no proof until after the invasion drew terrorists to Iraq)

        It's been shown time and again that many of the compelling arguments for the invasion of Iraq were based on a house of cards. Or don't you recall the highly publicized testimony of then Secretary of State Colin Powell in front of the UN showing satellite photos of purported "portable" chemical weapon labs that turned out to be nothing more than cargo containers full of conventional equipment?
      • natsfan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4"If we hadn't invaded Iraq then Saddam would still be there making a lot of noise but the region would still be relatively stable, and we'd be able to devote a lot more military to Afghanistan where we should have been focused exclusively since THAT is where the 9/11 terrorists came from."


        Actually all of the hijackers were Egyptian and Saudi, but they are 'allies' so we can't really bomb Mecca
      • IphtashuFitz, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4"Actually all of the hijackers were Egyptian and Saudi".

        True, but they, and all the people who planned 9/11 were members of Al Quaida who trained in and were given asylum in Afghanistan by the Taliban. Even after 9/11 bin-Laden and his cronies remained in Afghanistan with the Taliban until they were overthrown. There were no ties whatsoever between any of the 9/11 planners or perpetrators and Iraq, so using 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq is completely bogus.
      • mxmj, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3The hijackers may have been Egyptian and Saudi, but the were based out of Afghanistan.
        Oh, and DAMN vexingmodstwo got beat down.
      • natsfan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2I'm just saying that the people killing American's seem to come from Allies, and if we're going after countries offering asylum, land to train, perhaps we should invade Pakistan, but they're an ally too.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/24/2008, -6/+2Yeah, I got beat down alright. Except that all he did was prove that the intelligence used predated the Bush administration. FYI.. Powell's speech to the UN was after the authorization to use force had already been signed into law.

        Again, you are falsely using the public dog and pony show to hide the fact that Congress had been seeing the intelligence on Iraq long before Bush took office.

        And I'm still waiting for an explanation of how this submission is supposed to make me vote for Obama. He wasn't around for any of the things you've outlined above.
      • IphtashuFitz, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1@natsfan - I agree entirely with what you're saying. Unfortunately the chances of us ever invading Pakistan outright are pretty slim. Pakistan has nukes, so we don't want to risk triggering a nuclear confrontation.
    • stationwagon, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0You could start with the fact that Obama's listening to the majority of Americans and the majority of Iraqis, both of whom say they want the U.S. out of Iraq.
  • tufftugg, on 07/24/2008, -5/+11 Republicanism is funny, they whine about how countries want American to fix things for everyone. And then when their ideology has them in a war, in another country they don't want to leave. What is more comical, is no one asked them in. Bad, news Neo's, your not the alter boy you think you are. I think Maliki understands what a lame duck president is. To bad Obama is going to have to deal with Bush's screw up in Iraq.
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -5/+2Traitor! That is publication of a national secret, you can be arrested for that!!!
  • TJATL, on 07/24/2008, -3/+11If you vote based on the endorsements of foreign nationals, then you are a fool. It is the candidate's stance on issues that should matter, not endorsements, including domestic ones.
    • RetlawST, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Unless, of course, the US was tied up in an incredibly stupid military conflict with that country and the lives of American soldiers were at risk every day they occupy said country.

      His endorsement might count for something, then. Maybe.
    • charm803, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5BUT-
      That foreign national is the reason why so many Americans are losing their lifes.
      Is there even a difference between Bin Laden and Bush?

      Other than Bin Laden only needed box cutters and OUR airplanes to run a muck, while we spend trillions in the weapons defense industry (which the Bush family is a big profiter of), and we still can't "win" the war with Iraq, a country who kills our troops with homemade bombs.....

      If you think that Maliki's opinion shouldn't matter (after all, it is HIS country), then you've been living under a rock.

      Why wouldn't you want Maliki to be on the same page as the US?

      Don't YOU question why the Bush wanted to turn this into a negative?

      You don't question why we haven't found Bin Laden?

      Because Bush does not care.
    • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2Based on the fact that the socialists of the world are overwhelmingly for Obama, I will definitely vote for McCain...
      • mxmj, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6If that wasn't sarcasm, you are an idiot.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1If one wants to know where a candidate stands, just look at their supporters.

        Obama has the support of ...

        Rev. Wright
        Louis Farrakhan
        Hamas
        Socialists
        William Ayres

        I'm not saying at all that he in any way supports or believes in these people/groups. But, his policies must align with the beliefs of these people/groups to garner their support (at least moreso than McCain)
      • ParanoydAndroid, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3It wasn't sarcasm, and he is an idiot.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Typical Obama supporter:

        Bad Obama fact = attack the messenger or attack Bush.
      • johnnyboy239, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Are you honestly criticizing logic while stating this "If one wants to know where a candidate stands, just look at their supporters." at the same time???

        Fallacy of association, people are not guilty of the views or actions of those who support them...

        Let's look at some of the people who would probably support McCain over Obama

        Facists
        Racists
        Nazi's
        KKK
        Murderers, Rapists (less strict gun laws)

        Does the fact that he would be supported by these people over obama make McCain a bad person? Of course it doesn't any one with a gleam of common sense could tell you that, however because you brought the attempt at logic in here first by claiming a ad hominem attack I will forward you to a link explaining why your logic is wrong.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Fascists "Fascism opposes classic political and economic liberalism, conservatism, and communism." The attributes of collectivism, populism, and economic planning would more-closely be related to democrats that republicans.

        Racists are on both sides of the isle. I won't claim that they would even out - who knows how many black versus white racists there are, or to what measure. White racists such as Nazi's and KKK would probably be more for McCain.

        Murderers and Rapists would probably support more strict gun laws - they have guns anyway and it would make their victims less likely too.

        Again, I don't attribute Obama's beliefs with those groups, just that his policies more-closely align to those groups than McCain's - that's why they support him.

        And this does not fit with either of the two association fallacies you pointed to.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Please disregard the spelling errors I made in that post. Jeez, I need to proofread my own work!

        democrats *than republicans.

        less likely *to.
  • brandozilla, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9From the Washington Post:
    But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."
    Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

    • zacharytelschow, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2But despite all the meaningful differences, its the same plan. Unity, hope, and change! /s
    • scutter, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5Look, I dislike Bush as much as most of you here, but...

      It's not fair to say that Bush wants troops in Iraq forever. Both sides have a plan of eventually removing troops from Iraq. The McCain plan is to remove them when and at the pace the military leaders say is appropriate, and the Obama plan was initially to remove them on a fixed time table. Obama has since been making noise that the timetable needs to be adjusted to suit the conditions (a very rational change).

      And in all fairness, the reason why it will likely be possible to remove troops in Obama's timetable is because the troop surge (something Obama opposed) has been successful. This reminds me a bit of those corporate backstabbers who ride in and claim credit for someone elses work at the last moment.
  • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -9/+3So, get a hint dumb ***** americans. Maliki wants the US OUT...

    ...because it's a lot more interesting for him to trade oil in a stable currency. Such as the EURO.

    Too bad murrcans, you squandered your empire with rat-bastard politicians. Shut up and go sit at the back of the classroom.
    • Joetwopointoh, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5A few words to the politically challenged who're constantly over simplifying everything. Beyond the vote (which is now as obviously rigged in the US as everywhere else) Americans have no actual control over what politicians do, so grab a handful of reality and ponder the only real alternative to allowing them their way.

      .

      • Zarchon, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Elections are only fixed if your side lost.
    • Greengoo, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Lol you have a secondlife picture as your digg pic.
    • iJessicaRabbit, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Gosh you must be fun to hang out with and have intellectual debates with.
  • Fallenshadow, on 07/24/2008, -11/+5I move to disqualify all those who voted for Bush from being able to vote this election. Additionally I would like to ban those who voted for Bush twice from ever voting again, those people just have poor judgment, people like that should not have any input into the direction of this country.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5Hmmm...it looks like the short bus has internet access now.
    • Zarchon, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5No, ***** does have a point. The point is that no matter how much the left says every vote counts, they really only want to count the votes that agree with them. No matter how much they feel our freedoms are being eroded they are perfectly willing to take away the freedom of anyone who doesn't see things their way. Right here on Digg you can read how they are against the death penalty but think Republicans should die. You can read how they are against water boarding but think everyone who is ok with it should be water boarded. The left is full of hypocrisy and they don't care. They say they love America yet their actions speak otherwise. They remind me of the guy on the news whose wife has disappeared and everyone knows he did it. Yet he is out there saying he could never hurt his wife, he loves her too much. That, to me, is the left.
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/24/2008, -11/+71) Obama has no legal standing to be having such discussions with foreign leaders. How arrogant of him.

    2) Maliki endorsed a tenative timeframe based on progess on the ground, i.e. milestones, as reported in earlier articles. Obama now wants us to leave in 16 months after saying we will leave immediately for years preceding these discussions. Not only did Obama change his position rather drastically, it still doesn't align with the Iraqi plan because his plan, as all of his stances have been, is inflexible.
    • Greengoo, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Yah because Senators can't talk to other countries. How stupid of me.
      • Magycian, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2Right.. Senators Cannot talk to other countries. Nor should past Presidents. The one person that should be talking is the one President we currently have. Love him or Hate him Bush is the Commander in Chief. He and his designated representatives are the only people that should be negotiating.

        The Facts are that Iraqis want us to remove ourselves from their country. That is perfectly acceptable. We have been there for them to give them a chance to pull Iraq out of chaos. Since violence is down and the Iraqi government has control of over 1/2 of the provinces (Al-Anbar by the end of the month), it is time for use to heed their wishes.

        Just because Maliki agrees it's time for us to leave doesn't mean he agrees with the rushed pull out of Obama. Nor does it mean he wants us to stay 10 years. The country is ready to pull itself up and we will leave at the proper time.

        I'm amazed that people think our folks WANT to be there. The troops want to come home but not until the Job is done. It's almost done now.
      • mxmj, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Almost done? AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Do you know anything about the history of Iraq? They have been fighting for centuries, Saddam actually kept them more or less in line. As soon as we leave the situation will start deteriorating. Under Saddam, they had schools, hospitals, reliable electricity, running water, now, in many places this things are no longer accessible and will not be for a long time. They are an angry people and we are NOT helping things.
      • ParanoydAndroid, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1@Magycian,
        1.) Obama has not "drastically" changed his position. If you bothered doing your own research as opposed to parroting what you hear on T.V you would find that Obama always supported immediately beginning the removal of troops, and slowly reducing our forces while handing off to the Iraqis, but we won't be fully out for some time.

        2.) You're wrong about the ability of Senators to have high level talks with foreign leaders. Senators are equal to the president, not subservient and it is common for Senators and Congressman to go on junkets (especially to the Middle-East) and have high level talks. Senators cannot negotiate treaties, compacts, or other shifts in foreign policy (that is definitely the purview of the president) but Obama was doing none of that, he was having informational and goodwill talks and was therefore well within his rights.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3I can still see your outrage over the Republicans giving weapons to Iranians to keep the hostages.

      Any one of us could talk to a foreign leader -- we just cannot negotiate a treaty. Which Bush has been doing since he has been in office -- and HE isn't authorized. Why bother with the Congress and Senate thing anyway? Oh, yeah, the Senate makes treaties and Obama is a Senator -- so he actually might be authorized to pencil in an idea for a treaty.

      I guess you aren't force to buy rugs on these trips.
      • ParanoydAndroid, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I agree with your larger point about Obama being able to speak to foreign leaders (see my above comment), but you're wrong about the treaty provision. According to the constitution the Senate has only the ability to advise (the president) and consent to treaties. The president was purposefully and historically given the sole ability to negotiate treaties.
  • charm803, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8You know what is really scary about the truth?

    That it's now more obvious than ever that we aren't supposed to be on the same page as the people we are SUPPOSED to be helping. Bush and his goons obviously do not want us to make nice with Maliki or they wouldn't have jumped on the "No, he didn't really say that."

    I mean, the oil was always obvious, but hopefully all other people who really think we are there to "liberate Iraq" can now see what we are really there for.

    Liberate, my ass!




    • scutter, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2Oh yeah? What oil have we taken from Iraq? Oil is at record prices in the US, or hadn't you noticed?

      Bush is a tool, but why would he embark on a policy that would clearly ruin his popularity if his only motive was self-interest? It's not logical.
      • mxmj, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Oil is at record prices all over the world, mostly due to China and India's increasing demand. Oil companies in the US have been recording record profits, defense contractors have made billions. Why don't you look into who owns these companies... Then tell me that self-interest had nothing to do with it.
    • brandozilla, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1They are negotiating a security pact which includes a general time "horizon" and in which withdrawal is based on the conditions on the ground. We are on the same page as the Iraqi's, because we are sitting down with them and hashing out this plan, rather then simply taking a single statement out of context and distorting for political purposes.
    • Zarchon, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Stop bending over if you want your ass to stop being attacked.

      Back on topic, yes, it's all about the oil. America needs cheap oil and the only reason we are over there is to keep our oil cheap. You can't even begin to realize how expensive gas could get to if we weren't in Iraq. I mean it could shoot up to near $5 a gallon. So be thankful that "Bush and his goons" are over there keeping our oil prices down.

      /sarcasm
      • jsmith39, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2wow.... thank you for adding the sarcasm tag. I was about to award you with my retard for life badge.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3I listened to Limbaugh's spin on it. He is saying that the left is in love with Maliki when we were dead set against him before. It really is a low threshold between love and hate, friend and foe with these jerks. I'm sure Maliki is no choir boy -- but he is the leader of Iraq and he is who we must deal with for good or bad. We didn't like the 2000 elections either ---- we certainly didn't love Mr. Bush when we called him President on the left.

      Maliki needs to seem to be aligned with his people so he can stay alive. And, for personal benefit, BushCo is going to force him to reject the withdrawal plan if it can. THIS is why Maliki is inconsistent -- because BushCo can end his life. It shows you how desperate he must be to get the US out and Obama in to see him take such a risk with the occupying force in his nation. I'd say the US, but this is really a coalition of Blackwater, BushCo and Exxon.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Why do we have to keep pretending that there are two sides to every issue and the Reichwing lies are part of a rational debate? When there was controversy over Der Spiegel, my first thought was; "Well, I don't know what they said, but I'm sure Der Spiegel was telling the truth and it was inconvenient, so the people who should be in prison (BushCo) said it was all wrong and probably from a Socialist newspaper." That is what is called a "credibility gap." My assumption was only confirmed by the usual digg bloggers calling Maliki's endorsement of Obama a conspiracy theory.

    The good news is; I used to take months to prove a lie -- and now its in the same news cycle. Rinse and repeat isn't working anymore, he 101st Chairborne Bloggers?
  • Treoinmypocket, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1I wonder if anyone has looked at what Malaki has said was possible in the past and then compared that to what actually happened.

    Also, I'm curious about this central focus on Afghanistan. Will bring more troops there under Obama (his position). How is it that a Surge in that country will work when it supposedly wouldn't in Iraq?

    Also, where exactly will these additional troops operate? Bin-Laden is supposedly in Pakistan. Certainly the trouble is largely in the Pakistan/Afghani border region where all the tribal leaders operate. The US has not been allowed in there. I would like to know what this plan is exactly.

    Lastly, Malaki's comments were originally published with this concluding statement "assuming positive developments continue". In this version we know have "with the possibility of slight changes." Which one is the correct translation?
  • s0l0s0ul, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0socialism? or military controlled dictatorship? socialism? or military controlled dictatorship? I just cant decide how to vote...
  • droo31, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Does anyone read anymore? Maliki thought that Obama's 16-month timeframe "sounded about right", "maybe with changes"...

    He did not "endorse" Obama.

    Agreeing with someone and endorsing them are two different things, no? This headline is ridiculously misleading.

  • serif69, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2So, based on actually reading, Maliki agrees with Obama's reassessment of the situation in Iraq that forced him to revise the message on his website, refute things he had said previously, and take a more open view of the situation. Obama now supports a conditional removal of troops from Iraq based on input from the Iraqi government and American military leaders. What this says to me is that Maliki agrees with what McCain has been saying for quite some time now, and what Obama has just recently come to believe because he actually visited.
  • DrBeaverhausen, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Only a matter of time before Fox News and the Neo Cons decide he's a "terrorist".
  • CrushThemTorg, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Cut to John McCain raising an eyebrow to the camera and cue Magnum P.I. "Uh oh, cut to commercial" music.
  • RogueGenius, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1He can't endorse, but I'm sure he wants an adult in the whitehouse. After all these years of skippy with his pail and shovel have him chomping at the bit for someone that can improve things. Obviously, that is Obama.
  •  

    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.