digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

John McCain's Never-Ending War In Iraq

huffingtonpost.com — Jed Lewison of the JedReport has compiled an extremely comprehensive collection of McCain clips (never-before-seen for most people) which chart the Arizona Senator's position on Iraq over the last several years, and puncture one of the candidates central contentions. Much of the materials will likely be new to you...and devastating to McCain.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • marabout40, on 07/23/2008, -15/+60We are not at war with the Iraqis. We never were. They never attacked or threatened us. This is not a war. It's an illegal invasion and occupation of a country that was unable to defend itself against a super power. John McCain has been the biggest cheerleader and proponent of this war. MSM shills are now complaining that Senator Obama has never admitted that the surge has worked and given McCain credit for the surge. Has McCain admitted that he was wrong to take this country into an illegal war? Has he admitted that he's caused the deaths of thousands of American boys and girls? Has he admitted that he's caused the now more than 30,000 boys and girls who will forever be maimed and disfigured? Has he ever admitted that he's caused the continuing and ever increasing suicides of thousands more? Has John McCain ever admitted that he's caused the deaths of by some estimates - one million Iraqis and the displacement of millions more? Has John McCain ever admitted that he has contributed - by way of looting America of it's treasure - the destruction of our economy? Hmmm? Has he?

    You know what, Americans are beyond looking for an admission of guilt. We're ready to hold these criminals accountable. McCain, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice...Impeach the lot!
    • jetboyterp, on 07/23/2008, -13/+3Oh, goodie. Another cheerleader for Saddam Hussein.
    • flink405, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6We are not at war with the people of Afghanistan either, but Obama wants to shift the U.S. troops out of Iraq and move them to war in Afghanistan and expand it into Pakistan.
      You think the war in Iraq would take a long time to win, you have not seen anything yet when Obama leads us deeper and deeper into the "good war" in Afghanistan.

      The Democrats have been the majority in Congress since 2004 (when Obama became a Senator), they could have cut off funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan at any time, but they did not.
      • johnhummel, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3"We are not at war with the people of Afghanistan either"

        Sure - right until they allowed safe haven for Osama bin Laden, who's activities kill 3,000 people. And, when asked to extradite him, the Afghanistan government at the time basically said "Well, he's a guest, so you can't have him. And if you want him, then come get him."

        So - the US went after him. Now, there are plenty of pockets of those who supported bin Laden left, and sadly by dropping the focus on the real battle - Afghanistan and where bin Laden was, resources were squandered in Iraq on false philosophies and to make companies very, very rich.

        But don't delude yourself that "we're not at war with the people of Afghanistan." Guess what - we're at war against the former leaders of Afghanistan (aka the Taliban) and bin Laden, wherever he goes. So if Pakistan wants to give him safe haven there, I guess that's a legitimate target as well.

        I'm no fan of the "war on terror" nonsense, but I do believe in the "war on bin Laden, his followers, and any government that offers them safe haven."
      • flink405, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1@johnhummel:
        Osama has been out of Afghanistan since 2001, there are not al Queda training camps in Afghanistan - Osama and his boys moved to Pakistan. So Obama should take the U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and invade Pakistan? A country with many capable nuclear long-range weapons?

        To quote from an editorial from the Washington Post newspaper today:
        "Yet Mr. Obama’s account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is “the central front” for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country’s strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world’s largest oil reserves."
      • rpgmaker, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2@john: You're a tool. For more info digg the ties between the Bush family and Bin Laden.
    • Judasmac, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2 ...
      "Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power."
      This isn't "Iraq" being unable to defend itself. "Iraq" was the brutal suppression by Sunni Arabs (15% of the population) of the Shia and Kurds, who were unable to defend themselves against Saddam. Can you only think simplistically in black and white?
      • threat42, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1But this was never the original rationale for Bush's initial invasion. The occupation of Iraq was initiated on false claims - namely, weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's imminent threat to the American people on their own soil. If you're going to start spouting off reasons why Saddam was a bad guy, start your own thread somewhere else. But be sure you think of the other heinous dictators that America either ignores or endorses.
      • Judasmac, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Did I say anything about Bush's rationale? Or even if I supported the war? No. I happen to have mixed feelings about it, because it's actually a morally complicated question. I was simply responding to a very stupid comment with 44 diggs. Why do you want me to go away to another thread? Does facing Saddam's inhuman cruelty disrupt the moral clarity you desperately want about this war? Not looking at those mass graves won't make them go away.
  • Luvlacie, on 07/23/2008, -10/+14Maraabout40 - I like what you're saying because it's true. Let's talk about an admission from John McCain. Was the war needed?
  • Luvlacie, on 07/23/2008, -8/+14John McCain - is Phil Gramm still advising you or not?
  • 7Mystery, on 07/23/2008, -8/+17Now that we all know that there were no WMD, McINSANE said he's still invade Iraq if he had to redo it. This man MUST be stopped!
    • thcobbs, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1And Obama said that he still wouldn't support for the Surge knowing what he does now.

      Stupidity works both ways.
      • Cuchanu, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1The surge has been partially responsible for the reduction in the number of casualties in Iraq. Obama admits that. But it hasn't been successful because that would require a definition of "success" which neither Bush or McCain will provide. Could it be that if they gave definition of "success" in Iraq we'd have to pull out at some point and possibly risk losing the oil contracts? No, it couldn't be that.

        And there are nearly the same amount of troops in Iraq as there were when the surge began. If it was so successful why are we not sending more people home? Because as soon as we leave Iraq will be in a civil war with or without us.

        It goes back to us having no reason to be there in the first place.
  • PulentoMAC, on 07/23/2008, -9/+5Marabout40: Spot on mate!
    "You know what, Americans are beyond looking for an admission of guilt. We're ready to hold these criminals accountable. McCain, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice...Impeach the lot!"

    Justice has a long reach, History is already judging them.
    And it goes well beyond the USA, let's also remember the other key enabling WAR CRIMINALS:
    Blair (UK), Asnar (Spain), and HoWARd (Australia).
  • V3n0M, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4@Luvlacie and PulentoMAC

    See the reply button? Learn it. Know it. Live it.
    • NickPet, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1You see what's ironic here is that you aren't practicing what you preach.

      @V3n0M... in case you couldn't work it out
  • TheInformer, on 07/23/2008, -12/+11Spam. Buried.
  • LukasSmith, on 07/23/2008, -6/+8Did they move the November election to tomorrow? The propaganda seems pretty thick.
  • reesespc, on 07/23/2008, -6/+10go to jedreport.com
    Jed's got all the goodies!
  • xsecretfiles, on 07/23/2008, -8/+6In other news Obama says that it will take him a bit longer than he expected to get our troops out of Iraq.
    He said and I quote "It will take 24 months, we will take out one soldier at a time by random drawing"
    • Pittance, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3Dumbest idea ever. How does a unit work when its officers and sergs are removed randomly?
      • thcobbs, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2He doesn't expect it to work. Basically hes betting things will go into the ***** and then hen can pull them all out at once, take credit for the withdrawal and hang the fallout on bush.
    • quandrum, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4Wow, you are just making things up now. Source?
  • zelig, on 07/23/2008, -6/+12A McCain hit piece on the huffpost? It must be [insert time of day].
    • thcobbs, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6They're having to step up the rhetoric against McCain cause of the love-fest trip to Iraq with all the major anchors and Obama. Everyone is finally starting to see just how coddled Obama is by the media and he's getting worried.
    • christor, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2How exactly is it a hit piece? McCain supported the war from the beginning. He was critical of its conduct at times, but when it counted, see especially Repub Nat'l Convention in 2004, he urged support for Bush and Bush's war. That's all the video aims to illustrate, and it is absolutely true.
  • iamthearm, on 07/23/2008, -6/+4Between the main stream media and the internet, McCain should not win. Obama is like the golden calf (even though he is not fit to be president). He is the better choice between the two though. It's sooo sad this is all we have to choose from. But then again, who is crazy enough to run for president anyway.
    • christor, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3I just don't see how Obama is not fit to be president. How is he less "fit" than Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or W? Disagree with him on some things, fine. But I just don't get why he's not "fit" for the job.
  • CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -7/+9Half of this is BS taken out of context. Besides you fools think Obama is better? "We need to get out of Iraq, I will get us out of iraq," even though i've never been there and have no idea what i'm talking about.

    Then he visits

    "we need more troops in iraq, pulling out would be inadvisable."

    Brilliant.
    • Myko, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5This isn't Obama's first trip to Iraq. His plan is and always was to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. The difference between him and McCain here is that McCain would like permanent bases in the region. Strategically this is a good idea, but PR-wise it is terrible. The choice between McCain and Obama is military might and using force to get what is best for America, or to use diplomacy and good will to get what is best for America.
      • Myko, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I don't mind being dugg down but please respond to let me know where I'm factually incorrect, or why you disagree with me. Thanks.
      • CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Keeping troops in Iraq is good diplomacy. We have trained iraqi's in the past to overthrow their government, supplied them with weapons, then got the hell out of there and let them do it on their own. It was the kind of ***** that made several iraqi's HATE america, we left them out to dry.

        I agree that we should just mind our own business, but unfortunately we made the mistake of getting our noses where they don't belong over 20 years ago. Now that we're in it, theres no getting out of it without several Iraqi's hating us again.

        We need a permenant base in Iraq, and are now obliged to help them whenever they see fit. Its the best we can do. If we completely pull out and leave them in the middle of a war that we instigated they'll hate us. If we keep policing/trying to control them, they'll hate us. Best we can do is set up a base or a few, and only help when we are specifically asked to do so.

        Either way, there will be a long conflict in Iraq and we are not going to be out of there anytime soon.

        I feel that keeping some forces there will be the best option we have. Train the iraqi's to take care of themselves, but let them know if they're ever in deep *****, we'll have their backs.
      • thcobbs, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2False dichotomy Myko. There are MANY more issues than just foreign policy. Not only do I disagree with Obama's "Lets all be friends" diplomacy, but I also disagree with his domestic policies. In essence, I'm not going to be voting FOR McCain, but rather AGAINST Obama.

        Just a quick history lesson about the "lets just be friends" diplomacy. Kennedy did that at a summit with the USSR over Nulcear Weapons. Khrushchev saw him as weak, and this precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. Therefore, being seen as weak is a lot worse than being seen as arrogant.
    • quandrum, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5I'm not familiar with this quote. Could you please point me to where it was reported?
      • christor, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I'll second that request. I'm surprised by it, to say the least. But given the fact that even actual elected representatives (like an idiot state senator from S.C.) have been spreading the meme that Obama is in league with Osama Bin Laden, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of random quotes attributed to Obama but which seem out of character for him.
  • 2matrix, on 07/23/2008, -7/+3The only difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama is the better liar between the two.
    • sumokitty, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3maybe you should look up the policies that obama has endorsed and supported before making a stupid comment like that. Obama has much better reputation than McCain in almost every category
    • christor, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3"Obama is the better liar between the two."

      Name one. (FISA reversal is a reversal to be sure, and sorely disappointing, but not a lie.)
  • pa1ntball56, on 07/23/2008, -8/+8I wish the huffington post would not write bull ***** articles with miss quotes and things taken out of context, that way we never have to see them again on the digg front page. buried.
    • byronm, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Obviously you didn't even watch the video because its not from the Huffington Post, they just reported on it.
    • christor, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1I didn't see much that was unfair about this video. At most some of the quotes could have been taken partially out of context - but of course, it would be difficult for a video to feature a "misquote." The fact is that McCain supported the war from the beginning and urged support for Bush's policies. He had his chance to be a maverick but chose to support Bush strongly in 2004. That summer was when I lost a lot of respect for him. He had the chance to help our nation, and he chose to help his party.

      This video only makes McCain look bad if you disagree, as I and the majority of the nation do, with what he says.
  • Babazoz, on 07/23/2008, -7/+9Is it becoming clear to anyone else that blogs like HuffPo, thinkprogress and the like are going out of their minds to discredit McCain? Are they that scared?
    • christor, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Let's put things in perspective. An important presidential election looms and a liberal website puts out videos of McCain's own speeches that tend, in aggregate, to suggest that he exercised poor judgment with respect to the Iraq War. That's a fair point.

      Republicans, in contrast, have done things like falsely discredit the military service of opposing candidates (Swift Boat), call into question the patriotism of a man (Max Cleland) who lost three limbs on the battlefield, start whispering campaigns that their opponent is a child molestor (Rove and the 1996 Alabama Supreme Court race), and run ads meant to scare voters by suggesting their opponent lets scary black people out of prison (Willy Horton).

      Which side goes "out of their minds" to discredit their opponents? Here's the difference: one side is typically, though obviously not uniformly, passionately advocates on the issues. The other runs ads that have ***** to do with anything except scaring enough relatively dumb people into voting for them that it sways the results of the election.

      Again, there are those on both sides who behave less than honorably in elections. But there is a pattern here, and I believe you'd have to be a fool to deny it.
      • Babazoz, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1You're right, it can't be denied. However, consider current mindsets:

        Obama is looking like the overwhelmingly popular candidate here. Many people dismiss McCain as a senile old fart, and the media coverage is HORRIBLY slanted to Obama's favor. That's just a fact. The comments I've read on several message boards are very dismissive of McCain as if he were a non-factor into delaying the inevitable.

        Now ask yourself this, if the above is true of McCain, shouldn't Obama be able to just cruise right into victory with no problems and no real help from blogs that jump on anything McCain related and magnify it into a ***** in order to discredit?

        Take Digg, for example. This place is slanted so far left, it's almost cyclically reminiscent of right-wing blind lunacy. Any time one of these articles is posted, it's basically preaching to the choir. I can safely say that most people here will vote for Obama, so why all the discrediting articles towards his opponent if there's nothing to be scared about? Do they really need to drive him even further down if Obama's being speculated as that much of a lock for the presidency?
      • christor, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Babazoz - I think the reason people are so motivated is because of how deeply they dislike what has occurred in the US over the past eight years. Many were optimistic that we would not *possibly* elect Bush for *another* four years back in 2004. And yet, that's exactly what happened. We can't afford to make that same mistake yet again. I'm not willing to let up on (honest and relevant) politicking until the votes are counted. Many others feel the same way.

        (Also, the manner in which a candidate is elected, and the tone of the electoral environment matters a lot in terms of setting policy immediately after an election.)
  • tpearl, on 07/23/2008, -12/+6McCain > Obama
  • drqshadow, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4Why does digg have a duplicate submission detector again?
  • IslandDog, on 07/23/2008, -6/+12Huffington Post BS. Lets see some stories on Digg criticizing the Obamessiah instead of the instant access that the HP gets.
  • JJ2K1, on 07/23/2008, -5/+5John McCain is in the pockets of the war profiteers industry and wants his turn to pocket millions of dollars, simple as that. The only terrorist I see is McInsane himself.
  • bobangitanov2, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3Next time make a shorter video so that dumb americans have the patient of following. If you want to change America, you gotta be smart and realize this, at least.
    • CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Oh yea, attack American intelligence. That takes some real ingenuity. Stop rehashing the same old stereotype.
      Hell if anything we Americans watch more Television than anyone, its one of the many things we do damned good.

      Also if you think we're dumb now, just wait until Obama becomes president and has all of our kids learning Spanish, instead of math and science.

      "I'm embarassed of us when we go to another country and only know how to say 'Merci Beaucoup.' Your kids need to learn to speak spanish!"

      No, what we need to do is focus on math and science. That is the future, not some third world language, which will never be used in business transactions, or a major power in the world. Once we are the best educated country in the world (again,) we can begin learning other languages. However as is, our children can barely figure out math and science.

      And when we do start learning other languages, how about we learn something useful like Japanese, Chinese... something that will be a major political, and financial player.
      • byronm, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1You just proved how stupid you are. Thanks!
  • Spure, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1Another McCain article for the top 10?
    • thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2Yea. Crazy left wing lunatics took over digg to so they can all jerk off on each other, follow each other, not think for themselves. Typical.
  • thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3Buried. Spam. Typical ***** from crazy crazy left wing freaks. I seriously didn't know left wingers were this ***** loony. Scary. And for you crazy lunatics wondering my political stance, I'm a moderate independent.
    • bobangitanov2, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5great argument!
      not. And if you think you're a moderate independent, then you have no idea what you're talking about. I checked your diggs, and you're basically a republican.
      • thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Ha......there is no way you got that i'm "basically a republican" off my comments. Just because I make fun of crazy liberals doesn't make me a republican. Sorry.
      • CharliesRevenge, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1@thedogfatherX

        We're still waiting on your argument as to why this "*****" is "crazy crazy."

        Why not throw in some logic and truisms in there, just for kicks?
    • OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6You can't accuse someone of being crazy for compiling video evidence of a warhawk spouting war rhetoric that ended up being very wrong. Crazy people just go on about how crazy everyone is without evidence to back it up.
    • stinkymonkey, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a true republican: A person that doesn't like facts and lives in a world of lies and fear.
      • thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Hahaha....your funny. Sucks to be wrong though.
      • stinkymonkey, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Prove it. Prove that the video you watched of McCain was in any was inaccurate.

        Why am i wrong? Give me facts!!!!!

        I'm waiting......
    • thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1@Charlie

      I'm talking about it being more ***** from the huffington post. The article starts with "One of the key components of the McCain hagiography, besides the downed planes and the wife-swapping" just ***** erks me. Thats what i'm talking about. As towards the whole article, a politician changes his stance. Whats new.
      • stinkymonkey, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Ahhh...welll I 100% agree with that, they do lay it on very thick and really need to back off and just stick to the facts. It cheapens their point with their low-blows. So agreed.
  • jaykeating, on 07/23/2008, -8/+4Have we forgotten about Saddam Hussein? One of the worst dictators since Hitler. Rarely if ever are you at war with the people of a nation. We went to war against the dictator and Al Queda. He supported terrorism and Al Queda and his sons were the worst torturers of the citizens of Iraq. From day one President Bush said this would be a long war. John McCain and many Dems supported this stand against the brutality of the dictator not the people of the nation.
    • OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Did the Iraqi equivalent of Benjamin Franklin come to our country and ask us if we would help support an Iraqi revolution? Did we not find that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Queda, and wasn't he very harsh on terrorists in his country? When did Bush say this was a long war? I recall them saying that this would be a quick war, that we would shock and awe them and they would be so grateful to us and that they would train their military and set up their government in an efficient manner. Even in the video, McCain said it was a good chance we would be done quickly and easily. I also remember many of the people in support of this war anxious to oust Saddam before he could use WMDs that (what turned out to be somewhat doctored) intelligence reports said that he maybe had? Shouldn't intelligence agencies be damned sure that their intelligence is correct before launching a war of aggression against a country?

      It seems I've forgotten about Saddam Hussein much less than you have.
    • stinkymonkey, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4First, you need to stop watching fox and get some real facts.

      Second, there is no connection between Saddam and Al Queda.

      Third, Saddam was never a threat to the USA and that is why we went to war - based on a lie. Not because we thought he was a bad guy - that talking point came years later.

      Forth, Bin Laden is still around, so look over your shoulder, he's coming to get you.

      I could go on-and-on. But I guess facts really suck for you.
    • kephas, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I remember being told it was all about "weapons of mass destruction" as well as ties to Al-Qaeda. Both of these turned out to be untrue. Whether or not they were lies is debatable, but the fact remains that this war began on false pretenses.
  • philostrato, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2why not link to the original on jed report?
  • diggit83, on 07/23/2008, -4/+9McCain is a liar, he has his own agenda and cares NOTHING for the American people or our country as a whole.
    • bbqsalad, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1No president ever will. It is a just a job.
  • Judasmac, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4A bunch of highly selective quotes cut up out of context. Nothing damning here and certainly NOTHING about a "never-ending war." This is the best you got? How about this for equal time:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE&feature ...
    • OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2How does that conclusion tie together? By the way, parties are allowed to evolve their opinions over time. One of the problems facing republicans is that they have absolutely no adaptability. There was one major shift around the Reagan time (maybe earlier) that turned conservatism from a fiscal, state's rights ideal, to a heavy defense, heavy spending war machine supporting big government and corporate interests. There's been no effort on the republican side to bend to the will of the people who in theory own the government. Instead they just spout their rhetoric for people who don't have enough common sense to at least look at the issues.
      Oh, and democrats may have voted for the war, but they have every right to be pissed about being mislead with faulty intelligence.
  • ramiro, on 07/23/2008, -8/+4BURIED: Obamington Post.
  • CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -5/+5if you think we're dumb now, just wait until Obama becomes president and has all of our kids learning Spanish, instead of math and science.

    "I'm embarassed of us when we go to another country and only know how to say 'Merci Beaucoup.' Your kids need to learn to speak spanish!"

    No, what we need to do is focus on math and science. That is the future, not some third world language, which will never be used in business transactions, or a major power in the world. Once we are the best educated country in the world (again,) we can begin learning other languages. However as is, our children can barely figure out math and science.

    And when we do start learning other languages, how about we learn something useful like Japanese, Chinese... something that will be a major political, and financial player.
    • bitbytebit, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2right on - mandatory spanish on every ***** package has been bad enough, but focusing education on spanish is stupid. I'm not bashing mexicans either, its just a useless language as far as future is concerned.

  • merlin5, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2Translation...Never Ending War = Strong commitment to Allies
    We really have to stop encouraging people to stand up for themselves and then abandoning them before they have a chance.
  • HasturGA, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3Rather than make a lengthy post, I'll link to my blog post about this very thing. http://talesofthefiftypercent.blogspot.com/2008/07 ...

    The short version is that we didn't invade Iraq for oil. It wasn't about Saddam, WMD's, or terrorism. It was about establishing a permanent military presence with an eye towards using it to stabilize and/or westernize the region. This is the neo-con plan for achieving peace in the Middle East and has been for some time. If you want to see my reasoning, read my blog post (no ads or at least nothing I make a cent from). If not, my post here should at least explain my basic thinking on the issue.
  • CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3if you think we're dumb now, just wait until Obama becomes president and has all of our kids learning Spanish, instead of math and science.

    "I'm embarassed of us when we go to another country and only know how to say 'Merci Beaucoup.' Your kids need to learn to speak spanish!"

    No, what we need to do is focus on math and science. That is the future, not some third world language, which will never be used in business transactions, or a major power in the world. Once we are the best educated country in the world (again,) we can begin learning other languages. However as is, our children can barely figure out math and science.

    And when we do start learning other languages, how about we learn something useful like Japanese, Chinese... something that will be a major political, and financial player.
    • OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Omae wa baka ne?

      Sometimes it helps to learn an easier more widely spoken language before learning a harder one. Also, if I tell someone to learn x, it doesn't mean I don't want them to also learn y. But you knew that, right?

      Right?
      • CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Why learn ANY language? English is the language that almost everyone wants to learn, it may as well be the universal language. All but every business person, especially international business speaks english along with other languages.

        Problem is, if we are having trouble teaching our kids the fundamentals (math and science) why should we try teaching them Spanish on top of that? How about we wait until we've got math and science down, then you can learn whatever the hell you want.

        I refuse to allow my tax dollars to be spent teaching kids who can't even learn math and/or science, spanish. Or any language

        Only use of knowing Spanish in this country is to serve the crImmigrants who come to our country not trying to learn english, and to live off of all the free services and education we provide. I'm all for immigrants, but only LEGAL immigrants, as to be legal you must have a basic understanding of the English language.

        You know the United States Education system has been falling more and more behind the rest of the world every year in EVERY category, including United States history? Partly because we are catering to crImmigrants, and forcing children who have no desire to get an education attend our public schools.

        "But you knew that, right?

        Right?"

        Donkey (and I don't mean republican, obviously.)
      • OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Actually, quite a few people in international business and interested in doing international business do not speak English.

        The company I work for has an office in Japan, and one of our consultants has to spend extra time on every project doubling as our translator because he's the only one who can speak Japanese to our customers in Japan. Clearly everyone who is involved in international business does not speak English.

        I'm guessing that you think all Spanish speaking people are inherently poor, illegal immigrants, but that simply is not true. While the economies of the Spanish speaking countries are not as large as ours, they still have a good potential dollar value in international business opportunities, particularly in Europe.

        On to education: Studies show that children who learn languages tend to fair better in the logical reasoning skills; they learn math and science more easily than other children (much like students who practice music). The problem has nothing to do with a heavy workload, even though some parents like to whine about it. I barely did any of my school work (maybe 1 hour a week during high school) and I still passed with a high GPA.

        In the university system, same story. This time, I didn't even go to class and still pulled a C or (almost always) better through two semesters of Calculus, 3 years of Computer Science, 3 years of Japanese and all the liberal arts crap that I was expected to take. Without going to class. I'm not trying to brag, my point is that our education system sucks because a retarded child could pass it.

        I can also 100% guarantee that we aren't losing in education due to immigrants. I live in Montana, and for anyone who's ever been to Montana, there aren't a whole lot of non-white people. We're like the Norway of the US. How can you explain my success (assume that I am not a gifted individual), if you are so sure immigration causes poor education?

        I would assert that a large reason why the US is falling behind in education is because Republicans have a war on intellectualism and would rather teach us that god magically created us on this tiny speck of rock in an infinite cosmos than teach about the possibilities that are truly out there. I assert that students attack one another over their intelligence. 'Nerdy' kids lose confidence and ambition because dum-dum jocko insists they are inferior and school administration turns a blind eye. The glorification of athleticism and the defamation of intelligence needs to end immediately for a noticeable change in the US education to occur (That said, nerdy kids do need to stop whining and go exercise a bit). I insist that schools are not difficult enough to cause a real development in critical thinking. The education system is broken for a lot more reasons (and a lot more *true* reasons) than "oh noes, immigrants!11!!1".

        But you keep on being a bigot and grasping at justification.
    • SexyFarts, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2That's an asinine assumption. As if all your life in school you're only allowed to study 1 subject, EITHER a foreign language OR math or science? All Obama is saying is that we DO look stupid not knowing the cultures and languages of people from other countries. And as an American I agree. He said NOTHING about replacing maths and sciences with foreign languages, where the hell do you even get that connection?

      As if the Republican's intentions to replace real science with "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" is a better alternative? Please...
      • CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1your right we do look stupid not knowing about other cultures/languages. However not only do we look stupid, we are stupid and will suffer GREATLY for not knowing math and sciences. Math and Science is what has made our country a super power. Learning about other cultures will not help us in any way. If you want to learn another language, do it on your dime and time. BUT at our public schools, we need to teach our kids whats most important, what is going to save our country, and keep us a super power, not some damned useless language.

        Obama doesn't have to say anything about cutting math and sciences to replace them with foriegn languages. Anyone with half a brain knows that our school systems are dirt poor as is, do not have up to date text books, and our kids are falling behind. how are the schools going to make space/money/time for learning SPANISH? They'll take money out of other areas of education, therefore cutting the budgets for math and science. I make the connection using my brain.

        And theres several democrats who believe in "Intelligent design" as well, it has nothing to do with politics, but religion.

        Anyone who is ashamed to be an American, I'll show you the door. You are more than welcome, in fact you are encouraged to get the hell out. Yes we do need to consider our public image, but we should NEVER sacrifice ourselves to make the rest of the world like us.

        Obama, and his wife were never proud to be an American until he got so far in the presidential race. Doesn't that seem a bit wrong to anyone? Its okay to question your country, but Obama is embarassed of the people he wants to lead.

        I'm embarassed of Obama.
  • SexyFarts, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5Besides that, another disturbing admission he's made several times is that given the hindsight of everything we found out to be false after invading Iraq, he said he'd do it all again. He still thinks invading Iraq was the right choice even after the false allegations of WMDs and all the other lies they (the Bush Administration) mislead us into believing.

    Voting for McCain is voting for a neverending "war" that never should have taken place.
    • byronm, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I smell ya!
    • rewinn, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1"Knowing what you know now, would you still put the housecat in the microwave?"

      "Yes I would. Vote McCain!"
  • iamthearm, on 07/23/2008, -2/+0Out of 500,000,000 people in America, I don't think he the one to run our country. I don't think he has enough experience for one. Then again, I didn't have any experience when I first started this job, but now, I have a hell of alot of experience. So, I could be wrong. He also went back on his word with FISA which is really bad but everyone is forgiving that for some reason. He IS bigoted given his comment about his mother being a "typical white person" ( I did hear that interview in context btw). He has zero international experience or experience with war which is critical. There are other reasons to but you and everyone else knows them but ignore them. He is a puppet like most everyone else in the government.
  • vrbanabanana, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4You know the funny thing is that everyone thinks a WMD is a nuke. Yes, a nuke is one form of WMD, but some of the most devastating weapons are germ and chemical weapons. If you really want to know the truth behind some of this stuff you should go to: http://www.foia.cia.gov/ There you can find thousands of documents that have been released under the freedom of information act. This stuff isn't media hoopla or campaign crap. Most of the documents are internal memos or reports.

    If you start reading some of them, you can find out why we went into Iraq back in 1991. To get a better idea what Saddam was like and what was about to do. Page 56 of one of the documents is a transcript of a high-level meeting that Saddam held with his senior personal that took place early Jan. 1991. His men informed him that they they already had germ and chemical weapons. Saddam also orders that the bombs to be ready by the 15th of Jan. He even outlines the targets to be the two largest Saudi cities (Riyadh and Jeddah) and all of the Israeli cities; focusing on Tel Aviv. For those too young to remember, we launched our attack on Iraq on the 17th of Jan.

    Saddam was about to launch attacks that would have killed millions the first time around. That is the kind of man he was. We know before we when into Iraq in 2003 that he was trying to get WMDs (Germ, Chemical, and Nuke) again. What makes y'all think he wouldn't use them the moment he got them?

    You know these documents were only declassified a few years ago. I would guarantee a good percent of Americans have no clue what Saddam was about to do in 1991. This is partly due to media bias, but also partly because people don't really want to know the truth. While I'm not a fan of some of the things that Bush has done, I also know that we won't know the real picture for another 10 or so years when some of the documents are declassified.

    So here is the important question, would I've ordered the attack on Iraq? Even there was even a little evidence that he was trying to obtain WMDs again... Absolutely, I would rather look like a fool to the world than risk millions dying because of I failed to act. Would you?

    • rewinn, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Confusing nukes and chemical weapons is rather foolish. Any industrial nation can make chemical weapons, using technology from 1908. Germ warfare is even older. The term "WMD" was coined in part to confuse people, and it succeeded.
  • qXdc, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6 Buried due to source being Huffinton Post.
  • silicongat, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Hey McCain, I have a nice little curb stomp waiting for you... Hope to see you soon!
  • Spoomeister, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1"Much of the materials will likely be new to you...and devastating to McCain."

    Pfft. Several years of torture was devastating to McCain. Losing a loved one, would be devastating to McCain. These 'materials'... are just words. I love how much effect journalists and bloggers actually think they have on the world, as they spend their days boldly typing.

    I say 'just words'... granted, they are his words... but taken out of context, collected over a long period of time, spliced together to pick apart every phrase he's every uttered in public, as if no other candidate ever contradicts themselves on any issue, ever. Oh, and to top it off, it's only available on and linked from sites that are already anti-McCain. It's preaching to the choir.

    In any case. This word 'devastating'. I don't think it means what you think it means.
  • HasturGA, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Fine, linking to my blog to avoid a long post here is a bad idea, I get it. So I'll just hit the high points...

    Bush and other neo-cons who at this point includes McCain, have long held that the way to resolve the Middle East situation was not through peace talks but through establishing an American military presence in the Middle East in the same form as we have in Germany and South Korea. That by doing so we would be able to intimidate and if need be project force throughout the region. McCain's reference to 100 years is remarkably similar to the 99-year leases that we arrange on our military bases present on foreign soil. Look at the countries which border Iraq (Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait) and tell me it's not a neo-con wet dream to maintain an essentially permanent military presence that would allow us to apply pressure on these nations.

    Oil, WMD's, terrorism, and Saddam are all secondary items to the fevered hope of the neo-cons that they can at last succeed in diplomacy through projection of military force. This is the cornerstone of their entire foreign policy and it's the first time since Reagan and the neo-con's rise to power that they've had the opportunity to try it out. So of course McCain is going to go along with it.

    What I love is hearing McCain say that removing the troops is surrendering and disrespectful of the troops that have died. Ok... so the dead troops would want us to keep troops there so they can be dead too? The reasons for being there have become so flimsy that the only reason to be there is because we're already there?
  • diggenerate, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Um? video redacted?
  • pcfirestorm, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0(Well, I just know that I need to put on my fire suit but here goes)
    The way this country works is Congress and ONLY congress can declare war in doing so they have to agree to PAY for said WAR. The funding for ANY and all military action is voted on my congress every year (or every 6 months) So, there is NO WAY any President can keep ANY WAR going if there is no money to pay for it (how do you think Vietnam ended) (we had to pull all troops out due to congress cutting off all funding)
    SO if you really want to end this war, don't protest, don't comment on digg posts call your rep's and demand they stop paying for it. And stop blaming Mccain for something he has 0 control over. (on and btw if congress says the troops stay Obahma can do a damn thing)
  •  

    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.