What is Digg?127 Comments
- 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. - 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." - 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!! - 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... - Echota, on 01/05/2009, -11/+27Well said alapoet!
- Gav0510, on 07/24/2008, -6/+20You should avoid talking as if God is real. It makes you look crazy.
- BullSenor, on 08/31/2008, -4/+15It's no real surprise. Maliki has been calling for troop withdrawls since before the surge.
- buckchoris, on 07/24/2008, -1/+12Maliki will be forced to change his statement when Bush and Mccain make a visit to Iraq.
- 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.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -1/+10 Do you Republicans ever deal with reality? They want you the h*ll out of their country.
- 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. - inactive, 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.
- mxmj, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8I for one like to know what presidential candidates will do if and when they become elected...
- 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.
- MonsterChaOS, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8even after 5 years, Bush still refuses to admit the Iraqi war was a bad idea.....
- 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. - inactive, 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.
- 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! - 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? - 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. - 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".
- 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. - Greengoo, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Yah because Senators can't talk to other countries. How stupid of me.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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, -2/+6If that wasn't sarcasm, you are an idiot.
- inactive, 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.
. - 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. - 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 - 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
:) - 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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.
- joseguia, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5You should run around with a bra on your head.
- 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. - 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. - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5 Success of the surge...what are you Neo-cons smoking? Read and get informed.
- 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.
- DrBeaverhausen, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Only a matter of time before Fox News and the Neo Cons decide he's a "terrorist".
- 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.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5Hmmm...it looks like the short bus has internet access now.
- 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. - ParanoydAndroid, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3It wasn't sarcasm, and he is an idiot.
- 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.
- 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. - ZenMojo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Because we complained about Maliki soooooo much.
/sarcasm -
Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is