digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Why McCain's Iraq "Surge" Success Story Is A Lie

huffingtonpost.com — It really makes the Iraq debate easy for John McCain when he throws around words like "win" and "victory" and "prevail" and "success" without really defining what they mean. It is self-serving for McCain to begin all of his discussions about Iraq with the January 2007 "surge." In doing so, he is airbrushing out the inconvenient history of the war.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/23/2008, -53/+23The "surge" thingie is a "success" in the same sense a rape or murder is a success.
    • arpad, on 07/23/2008, -10/+22Take it up with Obama; he thinks the surge has resulted in success.

      Al Queda's on the run, the Sunnis are being dragged into the national government and the national army has turned out to be competent and, so far, non-partisan. I'll keep my fingers crossed on the latter but as for the rest of it you hysterical MoveOn.org types are just looking like a bunch of sore losers.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 07/23/2008, -5/+10what do you expect.. huffingtonpost == bs rag
    • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -10/+18I was gonna say the same thing.
      Even OBAMA says the surge is a success, and getting ***** for flipping his story saying he always knew more men would make a difference.

      "in the same sense a rape or murder is a success."
      You mean how raper and murder were happening in Iraq without anyone to stop it? Like in Serbia as well.
      So letting rape and murder happen unchecked... by people like you who want to ignore it, makes it all ok???

      Sorry the USA is a bit better than people like YOU.
      • Nosferotu, on 07/23/2008, -9/+3Err, you might be right about Obama saying he 'always knew' more men would make a difference, but I'd like to see a reference on that one - I haven't heard that anywhere. Unless you're saying he was saying he knew it'd make a difference, but didn't know if it'd be good or bad - which is just common sense.

        And the USA is a bit better than people like YOU too. Sick burn.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3@Nos -- double-talk lately?
      • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Nosferotu
        I think you should look on youtube.

        Though this is admittingly from Mccains camp, it does show clearly his stance today as opposed to last year.
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=t-8i-K5RkVE
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1LOL
        So you rightards bitch about every damn word out of Obama's mouth, except the ONE issue you happen to agree with him?
        How ***** pathetic.
        Well, with your newfound appreciation of Obama's intelligence maybe you'll stop being such dishonest assholes about every other issue he speaks on.

        Whoo, the surge against the Iraqi people is working!!!
        It's great that rightard cowards just judge the war by US body counts, and couldn't care less about the brown human beings involved.
        Let's ask the Iraqis how it's going, shall we?
        Oh, right. The rightards NEVER want to hear what the Iraqis think about what's happening in their own country.


      • CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Did you rightards bother to read the article before coming on here and claiming it's wrong?
        Do you have any responses to the points raised in the article, or are you falling back on the old rightard standard of "It's wrong, man! It's wrong! You're wrong, just stop! No, I won't say WHY you are wrong, you are just wrong!".

        I guess actually addressing the issues it too much for the right wing. Are you guys just burnt out for shilling for corruption and failure for years?
        Give it a shot. Read the article, and, if you can, address the points raised like real people rather than right wing parrots.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/23/2008, -4/+6You sir, yellowcakeeater, are a fool.
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Looks like the cowards of the right wing shouted to each other to come bury you.
      They can do that, because they have completely failed to man up and enlist.
      Pathetic ***** warmongering cowards LOVE to bury rational talk and facts.
      Now look at these revolting losers. They bitch about Obama all damn day, until he says ONE thing they like.
      From all the "even Obama says the surge is working" comments it looks like even the rightard shills are going to vote for him.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2CRC - you wouldn't know rational discussion if it slapped you across the face. You specialize in strawman arguments, insults, and foaming at the mouth rants, so complaints about "rational talk and facts" is the height of hypocrisy coming from you.
  • puzzle49, on 07/23/2008, -37/+36McCain and his camp are desperate. With all the blunders he makes, he has nothing left but to attach. McCain still thinks Czechoslovakia exists and that Iraq borders Aghanistan. He also doesn't know whether Al Qaeda is training in Iran or not - he has to be prompted by Lieberman - and foreign policy is supposed to be what he knows best. If this is his best, the US is in deep, deep trouble should he get elected. He says he knows how to win wars - what war has he won? He says he knows what the Iraqi's need - even though they refute that and want us out in 16 months. Doesn't this sound like King George ? No one can talk to King George because he already has the answers and that's why the world situation is in such disarray. I hope people sift through the facts and can weigh everything in an intelligent manner. Otherwise, if McCain gets in office, then I am truly afraid for my country.
    • LouiseCalabro, on 07/23/2008, -10/+4Amen, brother!
    • MadOgre, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9A lot of Democrats like to say McCain is a little Bush. No, he's not. We don't like him. I'm Conservative and McCain was the LAST of the candidates I'd want.
    • jimoase, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Seems a difficult thing to say here is the situation and even with the best efforts of our son's and daughter's, the best we can do is fail.

      What we obviously need is the superior leadership skills of Puzzle49. Given the current situation, what would Puzzle49 do? Does Puzzle49 feel America needs to help the people of Iraq stand their society up? Right or wrong we, the United States of America, toppled the government of Iraq, now what is our obligation? What is the next right thing to do? Right or wrong did we Americans, in any way, give our word to help the Iraqis? Right or wrong are we, in any way, obligated to help the Iraqi people?

      Has the United States ever helped another country to get back on their feet before? See the movie "The Mouse that Roared"
  • clak, on 07/23/2008, -25/+35I think McCain and the Republican's definition of "winning' is a situation where Iraq is less ***** than it was a year ago. Where's the weapons of mass destruction? Where's the $20 for a barrel of oil? Where's the reconstruction paying for itself? What the hell did the American people get out of this war? As Chris Rock might say, what's my Iraq prize?

    We paid the Sunnis not to shoot at us and that's our definition of progress?
    • rrife, on 07/23/2008, -13/+3We don't go to war for our own personal gain. We did it to help the people of Iraq and to rid the world of a threat....or whatever.
      • wilywondr, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4"We don't go to war for our own personal gain."

        You think bush/cheney can say that?

        "We did it to help the people of Iraq"

        You think they are better off now than they were 6 years ago? The lights are on less, there is less clean water, there are less people, there are less jobs.
        WTF are you thinking?
      • jezsik, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4"We don't go to war for our own personal gain." Wow, you are unbelievably naive!
      • JibberGeorge, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3So the Iraqi people needed our help more than the GENOCIDE victims in Darfur?

        niggaplz...
      • sodade, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I think he was being sarcastic...
      • jezsik, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1OK, looking again, it could well be sarcasm - although badly done. Jeeze I wish people would be less subtle when they attempt that.
    • tdeveny, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4The people there have been fighting for 1000's of years, we have made more progress over there in a few short years than any other president or country has ever. You should watch: “The Horrors of Hussein”, “Saddam Hussein: The Butcher of Baghdad” and “The Sons of Saddam” all on the history channel, perhaps that will give you an idea of what life was over there.
      • Naieve, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2I agree tdeveny.

        I spent a few years in Sydney, had some friends who were Iraqi Kurdish refugees, needless to say the stories I heard were somewhat unsettling.

        Of course in the eyes of most people, the fact that things are getting better is unimportant to the fact they don't care about before, only the now. And right now people don't want to be in Iraq, they would rather sit back and watch genocide on a Rwanda scale then get involved, that way they can say how sad it is and how someone should do something without having it in any way impact their own lives.
    • Naieve, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Come now, stick to legitimate criticism. Like the surge is a political stunt for the election year.

      WMD- found 500 chemical weapons and thousands of tons of precursors and empty shells.
      $20 oil???? Who said that?
      The Iraq paying for itself money is in the Iraqi banks. You see when you give control to an inherently corrupt society without fixing it, they act corruptly.
      We take away the knowledge that we aren't prepared to win a war on terrorism and that it would be smarter to just deal with 9/11's as they happen. On the plus side, terrorists have to factor in the possibility of us going ***** and hitting everything we can thus destroying their base of support. (Muslims are really not liking AQ nowadays) Not worth it though for the cost of the war.

      We mostly paid the Shia not to shoot at us. The surge operated largely by bribing 200+ warlords in Iraq with lucrative contracts to keep them silent during this election year. Petraeus told them that he could accomplish a short term lull in violence, but that to solve anything would require large numbers of troops for years on end until we demonstrated our willingness to finish the job. This is why Petraeus was given CentCom, it's his cookie for making the politicians look good during the election.
      • Terr01, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1>>> "WMD- found 500 chemical weapons and thousands of tons of precursors and empty shells."

        Uh, WTF are you talking about?

        Note that any weapons created at or prior to 1998 are obviously different from the new ones claimed as justifying the invasion.

        And the chemicals used in many of those are so far past their shelf-life they're laughable as military weapons.

        And it's deceitful to include stockpiles (e.g. yellowcake) which were sealed by inspectors since 1998 or the last war and untouched since then.
      • Naieve, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2"Note that any weapons created at or prior to 1998 are obviously different from the new ones claimed as justifying the invasion."

        Actually if you look at the text of Powells speech to the UN, it almost exactly mirrors what was found. Indeed the large stockpiles of precursors go to show Iraq would have been able to reconstitute its Chemical Weapon stockpile with some rapidity.

        The real question isn't "Where is the WMD?", it is "Why should we be scared of such a small WMD program?"

        That of course does not count the fact this war really had nothing to do with WMD. That was just one of the reasons tossed out there to make their case stronger, because in the past Saddam had used it. This war was an attempt to bring Democracy to the Middle East and turn their culture away from the tacit approval of terrorism as a viable diplomatic tool.

        If you want an even better argument, the one I originally used when opposing this war.

        What in the history of the Middle East and ours as a Democracy makes you think they would change and we had the wherewithal to do it? Democracies are historically very poor at waging this kind of long term warfare, and their culture provides the perfect antidote to our PC method of warfare.

        "And the chemicals used in many of those are so far past their shelf-life they're laughable as military weapons."

        Tell that to the two US troops attacked with Sarin in IED form. While the Sarin potency is varying, the mustard gas was still quite strong. Indeed WW1 mustard gas is still dangerous. So no, your argument holds no weight.

        Personally I think Chemical weapons are laughable in themselves with the term WMD, as to disperse them enough for that term is near impossible. Yet they are classified as WMD, and saying there was no WMD is a bald faced lie.

        "And it's deceitful to include stockpiles (e.g. yellowcake) which were sealed by inspectors since 1998 or the last war and untouched since then."

        I didn't include the yellowcake, which has been under UN supervision the entire time, that was said by the ignorant far right who are much the opposite of the ignorant far left who say there was no WMD. As far as I know the Government didn't include that specific yellowcake, but said they were attempting to obtain more. You know, the whole Plame affair and all.

        Do you see the difference between saying there was no WMD and some WMD with the ability to produce more?

        Keep your eye on the ball, by arguing against the existence of something that existed and did indeed get used to attack a pair of US troops opens the greater argument to attack.
      • Terr01, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1>>> "Actually if you look at the text of Powells speech to the UN"

        You mean the one that he himself regrets being pressured into giving due to it's many statements which have both failed to be proven and were arguably known to be unsupported at the time?

        >>> "That was just one of the reasons tossed out there to make their case stronger"

        They say that now, but that's was actually the centerpiece, and the American people certainly got that message.

        >>> "Tell that to the two US troops attacked with Sarin in IED form. While the Sarin potency is varying, the mustard gas was still quite strong. Indeed WW1 mustard gas is still dangerous. So no, your argument holds no weight."

        They were "attacked" by insurgents who'd dug up a degraded cyclosarin shell, probably a dud from some range by Saddam.

        The very fact that it's reported the two of them got a faceful of it and were back on duty the NEXT DAY... Well...
      • Naieve, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2"You mean the one that he himself regrets being pressured into giving due to it's many statements which have both failed to be proven and were arguably known to be unsupported at the time?"

        Yes that speech, the one in which he said almost the exact number of chemical warheads actually found, not to mention the stockpiles of precursors we found. This is exactly why I am telling you not to say no WMD, as the lie of it means people like you automatically dismiss the rest of the information. Like the face the actual estimate of Chemical warheads was spot on.


        "They say that now, but that's was actually the centerpiece, and the American people certainly got that message."

        The centerpiece was Democracy in the Middle East. The WMD issue was just more publicized. Needless to say, the stated number of weapons were present, the ability to increase that number was possible with the stockpiles of precursor chemicals that were found.

        Trying to fight the whole WMD issue just detracts from the actual argument. It is one side showing what was found, and the other saying its not enough or doesn't exist. Keep your eye on the ball, the WMD is meaningless.

        "The very fact that it's reported the two of them got a faceful of it and were back on duty the NEXT DAY... Well..."

        That is because they were administered Atropine which blocks the effects of Sarin.

        The shells with Mustard gas were still highly viable.

        "They were "attacked" by insurgents who'd dug up a degraded cyclosarin shell, probably a dud from some range by Saddam."

        Yeah and the other 500 were duds dug up as well right?

        You are sticking to a point on which the far left trumpeted No WMD, then when proof is shown you say, Not Much WMD, then its off to not potent WMD that requires troops to be treated for WMD and mustard gas that is still highly viable as a weapon, then the they were all duds, Saddam loved test firing WMD in the desert so much that he never used inert chemicals for the tests.

        The No WMD story changes so fast you completely lose any credibility as you progress through the myriad of qualifiers.
  • Proctor, on 07/23/2008, -19/+26We need two new candidates.
    • angryfirelord, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Don't forget, we also have Cynthia McKinney (G), Ralph Nader (I), Bob Barr (L), and Chuck Baldwin (C) running.

      But yes, Obama and McCain are really lame.
      • Proctor, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I'm writing in Ron Paul so when either Obama or McCain ***** up...I can be like "Hey, don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul"
  • whiterice0, on 07/23/2008, -38/+57Huffingtonpost.com - buried.
  • scot333, on 07/23/2008, -26/+32huffington post says the surge isn't working? Who knew? jesus dude.
    • catcher6250, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2jesus dude knew? who is jesus dude
  • destron, on 07/23/2008, -11/+40On the flip side of this, did you also hear that Obama said the surge is working as well?
    • IphtashuFitz, on 07/23/2008, -11/+10True, but his twist on it is that it only succeeded because the Iraqi's stood up at the same time and started building a successful government. He claims that if the Iraq government hadn't pulled together and the Iraqi military/police hadn't started becoming more useful then the surge would have still failed.
      • nmessick, on 07/23/2008, -4/+15of course he did. Its politics. He'd never say that our military and persistence worked.
      • toekneebullard, on 07/23/2008, -2/+13Well yeah, but isn't the Iraqi Government doing that sorta the point of the surge? The surge has made the place safer (ish) so the government can operate.

        "It worked, but it only worked because it worked."
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5He does have a point. But the "surge" seems to have helped.
      • cleverboy, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3My impression was that Obama said that the surge would "fail" because it is a military solution to a political problem. In that sense, the surge would NEVER EVER be enough to secure a lasting peace. He was right then, and he's right now. The surge has propped up the security situation in Iraq, but it is hardly anything but a hollow effort without the movements in Iraq to assist it, which it was able to be joined by. It's pretty clear to me that Obama has been giving the clearest, most accurate picture of this war, and that McCain is simply trying to "spin" the facts on the ground. It's ashame most folks have such a narrow view of history that they can't see how this has evolved over time. Obama's view of Iraq is inline with what the U.S. needs and what Iraqi's want. Our Afghan situation is falling apart, and we need to stop diverting much needed attention away from actually solving our foreign problems. The ONLY reason we're still in Iraq is because we entered Iraq. We're cleaning up what should have never been screwed up. Just because we ARE doesn't suddenly widen the mission into thinking we're actually defeating Al Quaida where we drew them to, in order to confront us. It's pretty preposterous.
    • TheUngod, on 07/23/2008, -10/+4That depends on what your definition of the word "is" is. But seriously, what is "success" in this situation? It's not exactly measurable. The fact we're still there, wasting money and having soldiers and civilians dying means we fail.
    • medfreak, on 07/23/2008, -10/+1If Obama said the "surge" didn't work, he would face chargers from right wing nutters that he is against the troops. and denying their success. It is true, the surge had nothing to do with how violence dwindled down.
      • destron, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2If Obama was a "strong" candidate like he claims, he wouldn't give a ***** about the so-called "right wing nutters". Whether he likes it or not, being criticized and ridiculed by the opposing party is part of the campaign process.
      • medfreak, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2In American politics, the only measure of "strength" is how much of the American electorate you can pander to.
  • Spure, on 07/23/2008, -8/+27and yet another McCain article that will soon rise to the top 10.
  • mediaspree, on 07/23/2008, -5/+19Are we going to fill the "Top In All Topics" section with this story?
  • overlyconcerned, on 07/23/2008, -36/+28The success story is a lie? You're right, it's completely underestimated. The surge has proven to be overly successful, and more than just a simple mission accomplished. We have brought terrorists to their knees by pumping in more brave American soldiers. And don't tell me that the American soldiers don't want to be there, because I know personally that they do. I'm tired of hearing all about the Huffington Post huffing away and blowing smoke at things it knows nothing about? Have they talked to a REAL American soldier lately about the war? I don't think so, because I have, and I KNOW that things are working and that they need more support. News outlets like this just claim to think they know the special words politicians throw out there, but who holds the outlet accountable for their own propaganda?

    Face it - if you don't support the surge, you don't support the troops, and if you don't support the troops, you hate America and Freedom. The terrorists will have already won as you casually sit in your little hybrids sipping on your lattes from your independent non-starbucks coffee shop stroking your ego as you think about that little blasphemous Darwin fish on your back bumper. Makes me sick.
    • provost, on 07/23/2008, -15/+8I'm sorry, what exactly does the Iraq war have to do with America and its citizens' freedom again?
    • typographics, on 07/23/2008, -10/+7wow...
    • noen, on 07/23/2008, -16/+7The reason the surge has failed is because the purpose of the surge was to reduce sectarian violence so that the Sunni and Shia factions in the Iraqi government could reach an agreement on how to run their country. No one ever doubted that pouring 25,000 soldiers into Baghdad would have the effect it has had in reducing violence. But that was not the goal. The goal was that when the violence was reduced that the political problems of Iraq could then be solved. In this goal the surge has failed and failed miserably.

      And yes, real American soldiers in Iraq LOVES them some Barack Obama. They have mobbed him in the thousands. You, overlyconcerned, are a coward and it is you who truly hates America and the freedoms for which we stand. So sit in your mom's basement and pee your pants in fear, it is you who are Bin Laden's bitch.
      • NEUTRINO50, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4The entire left wing "doubted" (loudly) that pouring soldiers would have any effect, let's not magically rewrite recent history.

        And the political problems will never be solved - in any country at any point in time. There will always be "political problems" be that Iraq or Alabama. The Iraqi gov't is making decent progress in coming together, it won't happen overnight but it is happening. Grow some backbone to see things through kiddo and stop being a bleeding puss.
      • KJSatz, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Are you ***** kidding me Neutrino?

        Alabama's "political problems" don't justify a Texan occupation do they?

        The Iraqi government is not "coming together." Read about sahwa tribal leaders...they're the Sunnis that we started paying to be on our side when we started the surge, and they sure don't like being bossed around by the Shia government.
      • NEUTRINO50, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0You, sir, need to buy a few books on political science, and read them. It's a struggle for power, that's how that works and always worked. If you want for things to go smoothly "stick and carrot" brings sides together, nothing wrong with that, worked for centuries. Realpolitik buddy, that's how it goes in the real world (and always will).
    • AxmxZ, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2Needs a tag.
    • toekneebullard, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6Damn...I dugg before reading that last paragraph...can I take my digg bake?
      • overlyconcerned, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1Nope. Like your nose, it's mine now. =)
      • KJSatz, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2YES you can just click the opposite thumb and it takes the digg away!
  • timewarp424, on 07/23/2008, -17/+8"Any "success" that McCain or Bush or Kenneth Pollack or Michael O'Hanlon or Michael Gordon or David Petraeus and all the rest of the war-hawks talk about is delusional because it is proclaimed by willfully ignoring the humanitarian costs" In other words, the writer doesn't accept the premise for the war or doesn't like war in general, so nothing anything McCain can say will justify its existence. Come on guys, don't set up this no win trap where if the politicians do (send more troops, reduce violence, increase stability), they're warhawks and we shouldn't be there in the first place. Or if politicians don't, we endanger the lives of those currently there (like my cousins) and the future of the nation of Iraq.

    We decided years ago, we wanted to go into Iraq. Our congress continues to fund our mission in Iraq. We need to finish the job, by stabilizing the region. We can't just leave.
  • ObamaAppleFan, on 07/23/2008, -35/+2YES WE CAN!!!
    YES WE CAN!!!
    YES WE CAN!!!

    Obama 08 / ***** McCSAME
  • krnldmp, on 07/23/2008, -26/+6If you hear the words win, victory, prevail, or success regarding the Iraq war you immediately know you're listening to an idiot.
    • inigomntoya, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8Is that what you call all optimists? You must have been really popular in organized sports...
  • cufford, on 07/23/2008, -23/+8The so-called "surge" and other war propaganda rhetoric is meaningless. We went there as part of our over all plan to take control of Middle East hydrocarbon resources. Syria and Iran will be next. Blah...blah...blah.

    It's the oil, stupids!
    • timewarp424, on 07/23/2008, -11/+4Very costly strategy, when... oh.. I don't know we could drill in those oil rich places of the shore or in Alaska. But hey, I'm not one to put down a cynic. The world needs cynics.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -4/+12So Serbia was for the oil too?
      So getting Iraq out of Kuwaiit, we should not have done?
      So actually LEAVING IRAQ the first time after desert storm - was for the oil?

      I think everyone is done listening to the liberal STUPID (idiots), that want the world to burn and let no one do anything. And if anyone does anything, criticize it and create a conspiracy theory.


      PS - stupid is an adjective not a noun you STUPID idiot.
      • AxmxZ, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3I'm sorry, remind me again which of these happened under the auspices of the Bush administration?
      • noen, on 07/23/2008, -8/+1Serbia, you may have noticed, is not in the Middle East. There was genocide taking place in Serbia. Iraq invaded Kuwaiit because Bush 41 lied to Saddam and told him it would be ok.
      • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1"Bush 41 lied to Saddam and told him it would be ok."
        Sources? ooops another conspiracy
        Also a conspiracy, with democrats, that has us leave Iraq unfinished THE FIRST TIME.
        But leaving people to die and kill one another a SECOND time is a great goal for you isnt it?

        Was pointing out that the USA doesnt always do things for oil but for stability.
        Believe it or not peace is more profitable!
  • datastorageguy, on 07/23/2008, -18/+26It's amazing how McCain was the darling of the left and the media when he was running against Bush in the primary and now he is too old, he is the same as Bush (despite the two being completely different, not even liking eachother, and having different political views on many subjects), McCain is a warmonger...the list goes on and on.

    Nonsense all of it.
    • KiSA, on 07/23/2008, -16/+7uh, yeah... that is how it was, and how it is now. Look at McCain's voting record. In 2000 he was completely different from Bush. In the last few years, he has voted (i believe the number is) 95% or more with Bush.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nNSMZKv_A

      Also, I think it's worth mentioning that McCain hasn't made a vote in the Senate since April; so much for doing the job he's paid to do.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -5/+19Does anyone realize that MCCAIN was more of a pain in the ass to Bush than Obama was?

      In fact Obama was so silent in the Senate, I doubt anyone knew who he was.
      But then it was only his 1st term in the Senate - but thats enough to be president right?
      • AxmxZ, on 07/23/2008, -9/+4He was a pain in the ass to Bush. In 2000. Were that McCain running today, Obama probably wouldn't be polling above him.
    • AxmxZ, on 07/23/2008, -10/+5Yeah, it's amazing how the media noticed both his aging to decrepitude since 2000 and his unrestrained slide towards Bush in terms of issues.
    • secrity, on 07/23/2008, -8/+4It is amazing how much McCain has changed since 2000. In about seven or eight years he went from a moderate to a right wing neo-con.
      • gumplunger, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0If you actually think McCain has changed his honest opinion about anything in the last 8 years, you're sorely mistaken. His position has consistently been that of an opportunist. Left and right have nothing to do with it.
  • AxmxZ, on 07/23/2008, -19/+8Post hoc ergo propter hoc: we made our troops stay on the ground longer, so they must've been the ones resposible for the decrease in violence. They may well have been a factor, but one can't gauge what was due to the troops' overstretched presence and what to other factors.

    Like that Anbar Awakening thingamajig that Granpa McCain seems to think was brought on by the surge? That actually started about three months before the surge was announced. I guess McCain's memory is playing tricks on him again. Not to worry: I hear they can treat that sort of thing now in Czechoslovakia.
  • tufftugg, on 07/23/2008, -13/+10 This is Digg, we will not be dragged into dealing with facts!!
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/23/2008, -22/+29Bury huffpost *****.
  • nmessick, on 07/23/2008, -7/+28Come on now... even Obama has updated his website saying that the surge was a success (it used to say it was a failure).
    • JibberGeorge, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2Define success... because I don't see our troops starting to return home and us getting out of that mess..

      You do realize it' still a mess don't you?
      • nmessick, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Do you read the news... even the left wing news? There is no question that things are dramaticly better. Troop levels are going down, we're below pre-surge levels now. Stop just listening to the spin and pay attenion to whats happening.
  • jbrand45, on 07/23/2008, -16/+3I would be pissed if I worked for Bush/McCain . . . would be afraid anything I said would be "wrong" because they had changed their minds about it in the last 20 minutes since I had talked to them.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/23/2008, -8/+23You know what's even worse? According to his profile MakiMaki is ***** Canadian. Some Canadian is getting paid to submit stories to Digg and generate traffic for those piece of ***** blogs.
  • molove920, on 07/23/2008, -11/+6You know the content on this site is user created. If you don't want it to reach the Top 10 then don't Digg it. On the same note, if you don't want a candidate to be the President, don't vote for him. Why waste your time leaving comments on a story you disapprove of. Just find another story.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/23/2008, -4/+11Oh, you naive fool. This thing is gamed to the hilt. MakiMaki, MBM, et al have a bunch of minions who will vote for anything they submit without even reading it. If these submissions were actually submitted by anyone else they would never make it to the front page.

      Don't kid yourself. Those guys get paid to submit stuff because they've got it rigged.

      EDIT: And now that I've said this what you will find is that they'll get a few of their minions to submit stories on their behalf and they will favorite those submissions so the other minions will know what to Digg without even reading the stories.
      • noen, on 07/23/2008, -11/+2Yeah!!!! It's... all... a conspiracy!!! It can't possibly be that there are other people in the universe WHO DON"T THINK EXACTLY LIKE I DO!!??? How is that possible. It's MKULTRA mind control, it must be!
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+14It's not a conspiracy, you moron. It's a business. They've even carved out niches for themselves. MakiMaki does politics, MBM does the quirky stuff for the most part, Msaleem dabbles with politics but sticks to blog and tech.

        It's gamed, man. You mean you didn't know?
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/23/2008, -10/+8True Believers have no need for facts.
  • markgl, on 07/23/2008, -6/+20Yeah well the anti war have been saying "lose" and "defeat" and "failure" without really defining what they mean as well.
    • bluesman3535, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Nation-building in Iraq has failed unless you consider success as returning the most anti-American faction, the Shiites, to majority power with increased Iranian influence. Repeat after me, failed.
  • rpfinley, on 07/23/2008, -2/+19I always welcome articles with a different viewpoint but this article mostly rehashes the history of the Iraq war and spends very little time on McCain. It does touch such favorites as WMD, KBR, John Bolten, Wall Street elites, lied this nation to war, etc. It seems to me the author found the top 20 search terms on huffingtonpost and put it into one article, its a pretty crappy article and the only explanation is that people who have dugg it haven't spent the 15 minutes to read it.
  • BuckYouFozo, on 07/23/2008, -12/+16These gasket-blowing Libbies are so much fun to read. Their Hate-O-Meters require far more battery-power than anything needed to make a Prius putz around.

    On the plus side, as a physician in a poison control center, I make sure MSNBC is on 24/7 at the clinic. This is especially effective when that birth defect Keith Olbermann is on. Seriously ill patients come in who are virulently sick; but after watching KO for just 5 minutes they puke it all out, and thus feel wonderful again!!!
  • obamayomama, on 07/23/2008, -9/+12"Post hoc ergo propter hoc..." I remember one of my leftist college professors using this and other obscure Latin phrases to lend a sense of thoughtful intellect to an otherwise hollow argument. You're not in college, are ya?

    "we made our troops stay on the ground longer, so they must've been the ones responsible for the decrease in violence. They may well have been a factor, but one can't gauge what was due to the troops' overstretched presence and what to other factors." A predictable take on things from folks who are quick to blame our military when things don't go according to plan, and very reticent to give them credit in the face of success.

    You're correct, the Anbar Awakening was already underway when Barack delivered his surrender speech in opposition to Bush's surge in Jan 2007. The generic lib talking point is that the Anbar Awakening would have spread and grown even without the US surge - is Barack now saying he didn't expect that to happen either? That is actually a semi-sensible view, since over on the right we agree that the addition of US troops supplemented and complemented the Iraqi surge. It's sort of like working with an ally. Obama's Jan 2007 withdrawal plan, with US combat troops out by March 31 2008 almost surely would have undermined the Iraqi surge, so maybe that's what he means when he says he didn't anticipate its success.

    Or maybe he was just flat wrong.
    • swrostmore, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3When "leftist college professors" use latin phrases that you don't understand, it might be a good idea to figure out what they are saying rather than assume the latin is only there to "lend a sense of thoughtful intellect."

      In fact, your "leftist college professor" was summarizing a logical fallacy - a common argument which is understood (by all who care about logic) to be proven false. The long version being:

      "Event C happened immediately prior to event E.
      Therefore, C caused E.."
    • obamayomama, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5Oh I understood it perfectly, swrostmore, but I also recognized that it was being used to prop up an argument without much merit. See, unlike you I didn't take at face value everything that my elitist professors tried to shove down my throat. If you question things once in a while, you learn something.

      What's really ironic is that when you attempt to denigrate me by suggesting that I don't understand the concept, your example is provably erroneous. You write:

      "Event C happened immediately prior to event E.
      Therefore, C caused E.."

      That's incorrect. According to Wikipedia:

      "The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:
      A occurred, then B occurred.
      Therefore, A caused B."

      Once again, I've debunked your arguments "bonum commune communitatis" (for the common good of the community.)
      • swrostmore, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3You debunked WHAT arguments? The definition of post hoc?
        I have a hard time believing I need to explain this to you.

        your version of post hoc:
        A occured *THEN* B occured. Therefore A caused B.

        "Then" means "subsequently or soon afterward." B happened "soon after" A. Therefore A caused B.

        my version:
        C *happened immediately prior to* E. Therefore C caused E.

        "Immediately prior" means "soon before." C happened "soon before" E, which means the exact same ***** thing as:

        E happened soon after C. Therefore C caused E.

        Lol.
      • obamayomama, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5You've always had a hard time admitting you're wrong, haven't you? The problem is, it's here for all to see :-)

        Cheerio!
      • swrostmore, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1SERIOUSLY? You are arguing that these two things are DIFFERENT?

        "A occurred, then B occurred.
        Therefore, A caused B."

        "Event C happened immediately prior to event E.
        Therefore, C caused E"

        I'm seriously confounded here. I'm honestly not trying to score points, I am just dying to know what the ***** you are talking about. Show me a single difference (aside from the arbitrary case letters) between the definition I posted and your identical "correct" definition that you claim "debunks my arguments" and I will not only admit my error, I will permanently retire this screen name.
      • obamayomama, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5See, it's like this... you make a statement that's incorrect, I point out your error and instead of acknowledging it, you run for semantic cover.

        "I will permanently retire this screen name." Do you really think I give a ***** whether or not you retire your screen name? Is that supposed to benefit me somehow? That really suggests some delusions of grandeur on your part that you may want to deal with at some point.

        In any case, I'm finished with this thread. Take your lumps and move on, because you're really starting to look foolish at this point.
      • swrostmore, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1The problem, you stupid *****, is that you never pointed out any error. And you are carrying on with the self-righteousness of somebody who thinks they proved a point. It is amazing that anyone with the apparent grasp of writing in the english language that you seem to have, could possibly be this retarded at reading.
      • obamayomama, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Awwww....swrostmore don't be angry because I've proven you to be less than my intellectual peer. You're outclassed, and so you resort to name-calling. Childish, really.
  • juanchopanza, on 07/23/2008, -3/+13We are leaderless. Obama is a paper tiger, a Chinese shadow lantern effect; McCain is a compromiser without an audience. What's with the USofA? We elect a circle-jerk governor with Hippy creds, then we get to choose between two, spoiled rich kid, anti-intellectuals and Yale graduates in 2000 and 2004 - all three were losers and continue to prove so. Now we have two guys who have never had a friend they won't roll under the bus. Michelle's hiding out today in my town, avoiding all press and not interacting with anyone who isn't certified or certifiable. This election sucks, and we haven't even got to the conventions. Where's Richard Pryor when you really need him? Insouciance may be the winner in November.
  • wilywondr, on 07/23/2008, -16/+6The "surge" also coincided with the US beginning to pay Iraqis not to attack us. They have been paying the 70,000 - 80,000 members of the "Awakening Councils" approx $300 each since the beginning of the year.
    The real purpose of this occupation is to ensure oil company control of Iraq's oil resources and halliburton/blackwater/kbr employment.
    • 355CJ, on 07/23/2008, -9/+1I'm sure glad that oil control thing is working to keep my fuel prices down :-/
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -8/+1Yes, and not only does this give us a such a great economy, but it allows the Shia to build some better bombs and rest awhile.
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1And by the way, has Bush actually apprehended or killed any smart and dangerous ones like the 911 types? He seems to like playing bullet tag and bomb dodge with landlocked local militias. You are not likely to find the Atta types carrying guns and IEDs, are you? Maybe he fears that Taliban have flying carpets. He is either a retard or absolutely corrupt, or some of each. Well, at least the FBI and Homeland security have kept us safe from those so far.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1Just to add, that is $300 per month and more for leaders. Do you suppose they will save up for some nice fireworks for when the US leaves? Oh, by the way, how do the Shia like the idea of the US paying Sunnis?
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1The Chinese will be glad to fill their orders just like in the good old Vietnam War days. I bet they are glad happy days are here again.
  • smacksaw, on 07/23/2008, -10/+4I wonder if this article will survive the buries. Coming at politics from an objective of a standpoint as I can, let me put this into terms that Republicans can understand and Democrats can be annoyed by: The Clinton Economy.

    From a purely rhetorical standpoint, being able to say "Vote Democrat, the economy was good under Clinton" is a true observation based upon false reasoning. The economy was good under Clinton because of the advent of the internet. The truth is that his leadership skills and legislative actions had nothing to do with the internet boom. Now, I might blame him a bit for the bubble - not adjusting budgets to compensate for a bubble burst we all KNEW was coming, but that's another story. Fact is, Democrats - if you want to say the surge failed, you ought to apply the same reasoning to the Clinton economy.

    So, Republicans. All of you who know what sort of mess Clinton left the economy in for Bush, you KNOW that he had nothing to do with making it good when it was good and everything to do with making it bad when it went south. Read this article. Understand the words. Use what you know about the Clinton economy as an analogy for the surge. The troop presence has an effect. But what? Considering all of the intimidation, ethnic cleansing, displacement of people, deaths, growing tired of the internal struggle, you can make the argument that the troop presence PROLONGED the problem as easily as it helped to lessen it.

    Just because you vote for Bill Clinton doesn't mean you get a great economy. And just because you throw a bunch of soldiers at a civil war doesn't mean you stopped it. If you look at say...Vietnam, all we did was prolong their civil war. Or the US, all France and the UK did was prolong ours. Meddling in civil wars is not a guarantee of solving them.
  • crackberri, on 07/23/2008, -6/+23Sorry Hitler lovers, buried as Huffspam……
  • irvin666, on 07/23/2008, -3/+21Alright, we GET IT! People on digg do not like McCain.
  • Mindstrike14, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3Out of Curiosity, since Digg is a neutral non partisan place... (deep with sarcasm).

    If there a respective non Liberal Blog opposite of the Huffy-Post? All I see is that 'wings' remarks, and would like to see how the other side talks.

    Proper reporting should show this.... IMHO.

    **Side note Foxnews.com doesn't count. ;P
    • TinternAbbot, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Check out National Review. Half the articles piss me off (I don't see why they have to be pro-life, anti-immigration, etc) but it's a pretty good opposite to huffington post.
  • Jamihabs, on 07/23/2008, -5/+26The surge worked. By trying to refute this fact, the left looks childish....again.
    • JibberGeorge, on 07/23/2008, -11/+3Define worked....

      A little less violent? That's what the extra BILLIONS of dollars, American lives, and deploying troops away from their homes got us?

      Is the right wing that far gone that they'll just believe anything? That they'll just latch on to ANY talking point? I mean I know you folks are losing house and senate seats left and right and are about to lose the white house but jeez, have some dignity.

      Just admit that the surge brought down violence (duh more troops will do that) but that it hasn't fixed a single one of the core problems in Iraq. Not one.

      The surge was a well played PR campaign paid for with American lives.
      • JHB800, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Uh, according to Iraq and the GAO, Iraq has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks needed for political reconciliation and for a troop drawdown to begin. So yeah, the Surge has worked. (before the surge I believe only 5 or 6 of those benchmarks had been met.)
  • beyondu, on 07/23/2008, -16/+4The situation on the ground really doesn't matter anymore when we refer to Iraq. 100 people could be killed today, but there might be a school being built somewhere in the country, so the Repubs call that success. All of this back and forth about winning and honor doesn't mean a lot to a kid who's mom or dad might not be coming home, because the Pres. or John McCain kept saying we are winning so we have to stay longer or we're winning so we have to add more troops. I don't claim to be a military expert, but I always thought that when times were good you didn't need such a large footprint. Aren't soldiers mainly used in conflict areas?

    Maybe people should start calling out John McCain's blood lust more often and then people will learn he's a one-note when it comes to the military and even that isn't particularly competent.
  • scamper22, on 07/23/2008, -13/+21. Going into Iraq was a mistake.
    2. As far as occupations go, this one is not that bad.
    3. The surge has worked.

    Yes, don't try and call it anything other than an 'occupation'. Even if you think it is a benevolent occupation.
    We're taking over their country and imposing our will on them... even if it is for their own good.

    The Brits were in india for 500 years folks. That's what it takes to transform a society.
    Now we broke the old Iraqi house down. We have to rebuild it.

    That means troops on the ground for a long time. Yes, give the people a while of security bolstered by thousands of US troops... things will and are getting better. Now if only we had enough money to support it :P

    You know... that's the same mistake the Brits made. Ventured all around the world colonizing countries... then they pulled out before the job was done. That's the root cause of Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan ...

    That's why going in was a mistake in the first place. We all knew you wouldn't finish the job....
  • qXdc, on 07/23/2008, -8/+22Buried due to source being Huffinton Post.
  • juanchopanza, on 07/23/2008, -4/+14Send her back to Greece.
  • ProUSADigger, on 07/23/2008, -7/+20Yay! More huffingtonpost spam to bury! And this article is extra-lie-filled so the pleasure
    is even greater!

    You liberals gobble this BS up don't you? I'm embarrassed for you.
  • voodoomurphy, on 07/23/2008, -15/+5I love how you wingnuts dismiss huffington as spam rather than actually debate the contents of the article, yet expect people to take Fox News and NewsMax as more than propaganda.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+14The content of the article can be summed up as follows: "Vote for Obama"

      That's all those articles are about. Therefore, it is spam.
  • JibberGeorge, on 07/23/2008, -13/+3Define "The surge worked"....

    A little less violent? That's what the extra BILLIONS of dollars, American lives, and deploying troops away from their homes got us?

    Is the right wing that far gone that they'll just believe anything? That they'll just latch on to ANY talking point? I mean I know you folks are losing house and senate seats left and right and are about to lose the white house but jeez, have some dignity.

    Just admit that the surge brought down violence (duh more troops will do that) but that it hasn't fixed a single one of the core problems in Iraq. Not one.

    The surge was a well played PR campaign paid for with American lives.
  • JibberGeorge, on 07/23/2008, -13/+4Define "The surge worked"....

    A little less violent? That's what the extra BILLIONS of dollars, American lives, and deploying troops away from their homes got us?

    Is the right wing that far gone that they'll just believe anything? That they'll just latch on to ANY talking point? I mean I know you folks are losing house and senate seats left and right and are about to lose the white house but jeez, have some dignity.

    Just admit that the surge brought down violence (duh more troops will do that) but that it hasn't fixed a single one of the core problems in Iraq. Not one.

    The surge was a well played PR campaign paid for with American lives.
  • MortalynFlux, on 07/23/2008, -10/+3I wonder how many commenters here read the entire article. Does not seem like many. The whole problem with the debate is that we have not defined "victory," as the objectives for the war have changed over time.

    By stating "the surge is working," or "the surge is not working" you are revealing that you do not understand the history of the war and its socioeconomic implications. You canott "bring terrorists to their knees" by sending more soldiers to iraq. That just adds more fuel to the fire.

    The only way to wipe out terrorism is to change the socioeconomic conditions of the middle east, and it starts by mainstreaming their culture and religion in order to cut off their extreme factions. It continues by ending our reliance on foreign oil and upgrading our transportation infrastructure to one that does not solely rely on the personal vehicle.

    To me, victory in Iraq is having an Iraq that is fully autonomous and sovereign, as opposed to being under an occupational police state. As long as there is a U.S. military presence in Iraq forcing the Iraqi government to give pres releases under its central command, then there is no victory.
    • smittie, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3From John McCain's web site:

      The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

      That is victory in Iraq.
      • MortalynFlux, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1You cannot achieve a stable, prosperous, and democratic country through a military occupation. Democracy does not come out of a barrel of a gun. As long as there is a large U.S. military presence in Iraq that answers not to Iraq but to its home country, Iraq will continue to be a colony. This is a recipe for dysfunction, for a people who are not fully free to make their own decisions and take charge of their destiny will never grow, develop, and mature into their full potential. That may mean making mistakes, that may mean some initial instability. But this is better than living under a military police state occupational force which only feeds the anger of the insurgency and serves as a tool for further recruitment. Digg me down all you want, but that is the crux of the matter, whether your national pride allows you to admit it or not.
  • TinternAbbot, on 07/23/2008, -3/+19After the surge, violence has decreased dramatically. I don't see what the problem is.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/23/2008, -1/+15The problem is that uneducated digg fackers lack any capacity to acknowledge a good thing when it comes from an opposing political ideology. Not all liberals are as ignorant as diggliberals. I for one see it as conservative policy = success = a good thing, even though most conservative policies make me sick to my stomach. It is the principle of an issue with which I agree or disagree, not the political gang who champion it, and when a policy results in less people dying, I don't see how anyone can call it a bad thing. To be *that* sort of liberal is far worse than being an ideological conservative any day of the week.
    • choochee, on 07/23/2008, -8/+2The problem is that American taxpayers are dumping trillions into Iraq in order to keep it afloat until after Bush leaves the White House. Bribing Sunnis not to attack the USA, building military bases to protect U.S. soldiers who can't leave the base without a machine gun, etc. America is destroying its standard of living by dumping our treasure down Bush's Iraqi s/hit hole. It's not surprising to see yet ANOTHER American who doesn't see a problem here. Go back to your NASCAR, moron.
      • TinternAbbot, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5America is destroying its standard of living by cutting interest rates. Also, Ivy League grads from New York City generally don't watch NASCAR. FYI.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I don’t think you get it. We are no more interested in Iraq than in any other third world backwater.
  • paulmer2003, on 07/23/2008, -4/+18Bured. Get this ***** off of the front page.
  • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/23/2008, -4/+17Buried for being submitted by MakiMaki
  • nextbgates95, on 07/23/2008, -2/+13Who remembers Dan Rather?
  • stix213, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1780% reduction in violence post surge sounds successful to me. Remember, Obama's plan at the time was to just pull out and let this whole Iraq war be settled in a good old fashioned blood bath... where civilian casualties would have likely been measured in the millions, all in the name of ending war.
  • neveroddoreven, on 07/23/2008, -2/+11You know I think these comments show an interesting trend. The republicans are gaining ground in digg. It used to be that liberals with their huffpost, dailykos, etc would flood the comments on pretty much any allegation against the right (and even hillary). But now more and more republicans, or people who are annoyed at huffspam, are countering the liberal's propensity to complain. Now people who are making reasonable comments that contradict huffspam, ie "Obama even agrees the surge is working" do not get burried but dugg. I for one welcome should I say a more even playing field. There will most likely not be a completely 40/20/40 composition between liberals/moderates/republicans. But I think it helps with discource having different views instead of one steady drone.
    • obamayomama, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8Amen... it's nice to have thought-provoking debate on here for a change, instead of the caustic misrepresentations of the left. Now if we could only get some more credible sources it may improve even further.
  • eitup, on 07/23/2008, -1/+12Doesn't Obama want a surge in Afghanistan? Does this make him a hypocrite?
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Yes, of course. Do you think that by criticizing McCain we are supporting Obama? What a media darling you must be.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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