Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Active-Duty Generals Will 'Revolt' Against Bush If Surge Continues Into '08
thinkprogress.org — Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show this morning, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker revealed that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into ‘08."
mcorleyTP- 1220 diggs
- digg it
- lifeandtimes, on 10/11/2007, -12/+61What kind of revolt? A military coup revolt? Or a "We disagree with you, but you're the president" revolt? The former has zero chance of ever happening.
- Paroparo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+118I'm guessing more like a "We refuse to take orders, publicly claim you are an idiot, and resign all at once" kind of revolt.
- DavidBGie, on 10/11/2007, -33/+13They will be jailed for treason and then some fresh faced eager generals will gladly take their places. So much for the 'Revolt' ....
- lifeandtimes, on 10/11/2007, -23/+6That won't happen either if the generals care about their troops. If they actually do disagree with Bush so much that they would entertain an idea like that, I would imagine them going to congress before just resigning. How can they help the troops they command if they say "Hey, we disagree with our boss, so we're leaving. You guys figure out what to do on your own. Good luck!".
- abburdlen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+35More along the lines of publicly resigning rather than follow President Cuckoo Bananas orders.
- comm87, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18Revolts by the military happen, just look at the rest of the capitalist world.
- TexMurphy, on 10/11/2007, -10/+45You will not see US Generals refuse to take orders.
You will not see US Generals publicly resigning.
.
The US Generals will hit Bush were it hurts, in the public media.
.
Imagine a US Division commander going on "meet the press" and calling President Bush and the Neocons incompetent.
.
Imagine a US Division commander going on "meet the press" and calling Iraq a lost cause because of Bushes leadership..
.
I hope the Republicans get punished in the 2008 elections for there incompetence in running the Iraq war. - bsteng0147, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2It will be worse than the time Jeb stole George's G.I. Joes
- fauxXenophanes, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Bush is out in 2008 anyway. No way the new Pres. would stick with that PR disaster, Dem or Republican.
- moman, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25@texmurphy
"You will not see US Generals refuse to take orders.
You will not see US Generals publicly resigning."
Actually I believe they will do both and I wish them all the luck in doing so. The Bush administration has the uncanny ability to f**k up everything it does then blame it on the peons. Thats why there are no takers for the "war czar" position, and thats why everyone (including Tony Blair himself and now the US military generals) are jumping ship now to avoid the heated confrontation/impeachments which is (hopefully) coming soon.
Is it just me or do I see this as the US generals crying out to congress to hold Bush and his cronies responsible for the trangedy and the genocide that they have caused. Contrary to what the Bush administration is trying to brainwash everyone with, I do not support the war but I do support the troops, and believe that most wan't to be home with their loved ones. I believe they are all crying out (maybe not literally but in heart) for the American people to get off our lazy asses and do something about our corrupt government inorder to bring them home. Afterall while we are here (myself included) commenting on digg about our freedoms and how the gov. is taking them away, they are out there getting themselves blown up and missing their families very much.
Support the troops by holding those accountible for the slaughter going on in Iraq and other places around the world, and by bringing the troops home. - th3heretic, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3THEY WON'T
- otep, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14they obviously hate america.
woooo, the sarcasm is just flowing from me today. niiice. - TheKidd, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5What a bunch of pussies. Revolting 2 months before his final term is up? I'm sure Bush is really worried. BAH!
- SwordOfShannara, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1It never ceases to amaze me how many people make claims about the future as if they know what is going to happen. What crystal ball are you looking through? I don't care about precedent in a time where Bush breaks precedent daily. You are not the generals and you don't know jack. Stop talking like you know what will happen. Idiots!
- nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3I'm going to ignore the obvious bias (ThinkProgress sure is turning out this crap fast!)
Honestly, this doesn't tell anyone anything. There were articles saying almost the exact thing on this website several months ago and if they are so convinced that Bush will continue to send troops to Iraq in 08, someone needs to give me the number of whatever telephone psychic they're calling because that's like knowing if I might fail a class in the school year after next. - bobburn, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2agreed, cynthia tucker is obviously on some type of powerful opiate if she believes her 'sources.'
- nils, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Well, the US military *is* sworn to protect the country from internal enemies as well.
Cheney and Bush *definitely* count as such. They have raped the US democracy more than any other administration ever has.
And congress and the senate have played into their hands.
An actual military coup in the US, with a restoration of all the freedoms that have been taken away from people would not be a bad thing. - mdhauke, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4It's fun to read articles and read statements from liberal who understand very little how the military works (or the Government for that matter).
- VoXman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm with you on that. Unless they plan to resign their commissions in protest. In which case, they will go down in history as the first mutineers in US ARMY history. Even the Generals in the Civil War, and the Vietnam War never threatened this type of action, and they were far bloodier and saw more antiwar rallies.
- razor150, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ texmurphy
Unless those Generals want to risk a court martial or a sizable portion of them are willing to end their careers to speak out publicly while in uniform they won't say anything until they resign under protest. Even when they resign under protest Generals rarely say anything publicly. No matter what their rank our men and women in uniform can not publicly speak out against the president. Once they become private citizens they can say whatever they want about him if they so choose to do so. - stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ mdhauke,
And it's obvious that you know less than any of them. That's what's truly humourous. Yes, those "damned libruls" bring out the best in idiots like you, yet you just don't even know it. Funny indeed, but in a very sad way.
- blablaman, on 10/11/2007, -25/+3Won't Bush be gone in 2008...?
- roho76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+26The elections are in Nov. '08' but GDub don't leave till Jan. '09'.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Someone needs to heavily medicate him until then. I don't want him going "Nixon meets Dr. Strangelove" on our asses.
- Rhino2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8
"Someone needs to heavily medicate him until then. I don't want him going "Nixon meets Dr. Strangelove" on our asses."
/Quote:
"Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is still as drunk and stupid as ever. The only thing that's changed is me. I've become bitter and, lets face it, crazy over the years, an if I'm still in office after all this, then I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat, and I'll break into people's houses at night and wreck up the place! Mwahahahahahaha!!" - Gw Bush. - blablaman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Oh ok thanks for clarifying.
- hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -23/+10"unnamed sources" say this is true. To ThinkProgress.
In other words...*****.- bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22No, NOT to ThinkProgress. To Cythia Tucker's "Atlanta Journal-Constitution colleague Jay Bookman." What so many people fail to understand is that, just because you saw something on a particular website, it does not mean that it originated there.
- OneHine, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@bupublue
You're dealing with hdtvdust, a guy who makes Ann Cpulter look rational and ethical by comparison. I wouldn't expect much understanding. - jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5What a "special" person you are, hdtv (in the special olympics kind of way). *block*
- Akajl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1hdtv sure is a moron.
- froglars, on 10/11/2007, -16/+7They can be jailed for treason for doing this, then?
- pimpdown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9On what gounds? If they resign and declare him the ass clown most people already know him to be. Except the only racial demographic that ever supported him in the first place.
- Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5If they are active-duty generals and disobey an order from their Commanding Officer, it's a court-martial and probably prison time for them.
- jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10But they can pretty much resign whenever they choose. If they all say, "Bush is an idiot" and resign they haven't committed a crime.
- m2313, on 10/11/2007, -24/+11I call BS. The most they will do is say "I resign" and if they do speak out against Bush or his administration they would probably be jailed for treason. I actually doubt anything will happen at all.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20That's not treason. They may be relieved of command for insubordination. But it's in no way treason.
But let's say that they did try to prosecute the generals. How far do you think that would go with a hostile congress nipping at Dumbya's heals and impeachment looming on the horizon? It would go nowhere. - Comatose51, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13You ever seen an army operate with no generals? All they need to do is resign to revolt. And please look up the definition of treason.
- moman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Yea them resigning and then being charged with treason makes perfect sense. After that who do you think is going to take the position? Its like a job recruiter saying, "you know the last person who held your job was put in jail just because he tried to quit; so when do you want to start???!!!"
- Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3They could be jailed for treason on the grounds that they refused a direct order from the CIC during a time of war and by doing so compromised National Security and/or the safety and security of their command. There's a lot of ways to spin this one.
- jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Jammer, you are an idiot and your death will be your greatest contribution to humanity. Now go sit in the corner while people who know what the ***** they're talking about discuss.
- Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1@jm9206755
Well then you had better make room in that corner, because you sure don't know what the ***** you are talking about, douchebag. - Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6"They could be jailed for treason on the grounds that they refused a direct order from the CIC during a time of war..."
I'm no military expert, but could you call this a "time of war" for a courtroom trial when no war has been officially declared?
I mean, this is currently as much a declared war as "the war on drugs" and "the war on poverty."
- InetRoadkill, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20That's not treason. They may be relieved of command for insubordination. But it's in no way treason.
- OffPiste, on 10/11/2007, -18/+8BS flag, 15 yard penalty for stupid fiction.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+274 years too late
- brister, on 10/11/2007, -16/+6I hope it doesn't come to that. The American public in general are just to complacent, everyone should be protesting in the streets for the damage this administration has done to the country and continues to do. Instead we just sit on our hands groaning our displeasure and waiting for him to leave.
- ohmar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yeah, kinda like you are doing right no.
- brister, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9I didnt say i was different, i was commenting on how complacent we all are. No one wants to hear it, but its true. We take so much crap and don't do anything because it would mean gettting off the couch or whatever.
- mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9John Stewart put it really well when he said that we're fairly affluent and few of us are actively suffering so it is hard to spur people on to action. And that is why a draft is not on the horizon because that would actually hit people where they live and force them to look at how this "war" is being run.
Paraphrased, of course. - wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3If they're going to fire rubber bullets at baby carriages, as they seem perfectly fine with doing, or herding people into "free speech zones" in a total rape of the Constitution, then I'd rather stay home and wait for reform - or revolution.
- EpilepticPuppy, on 10/11/2007, -17/+2BS, Generals are usually smarter than to disobey orders....
- Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2"People who spend their entire lives blindly following orders are typically not very smart."
Only a moron and a douchebag would state that. - stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually "moron and douchebag" applies well to those who want absolute loyalty from those who are supposed to serve and protect "We the People" from such morons and douchebags in the White House.
moron=mindless followers
douchebag=a bag of douches used to clean a women's private parts (Bush wipes himself with people like you everyday)
- Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2"People who spend their entire lives blindly following orders are typically not very smart."
- NickSpinner, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4dont believe the govt when they stage another attack to justify war wit iran. ron paul 08
- lifeandtimes, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2You have said that in every article you've posted in that I've seen. Shut up already.
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17Is it really a "surge" when it goes on for this long? Isn't it really more like an "occupation"?
- dave932932, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Escalation
- lifeandtimes, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4The "surge" just happened, and its not done yet as all the troops are not supposed to be there until June. Whether or not it will work is another question, but I would wait to judge it at least until all the troops requested are there.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Yes, since we installed a friendly puppet govt in Iraq, it's no longer a war. It's more properly called a military occupation.
- wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8It's an escalation of force, undertaken during a military occupation. "Surge" is a ***** weasleword, made up by pasty-faced Wahington DC ass-pirates. It sounds like a ***** laundry soap. And you bought it.
- wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Same goes for "pre-emptive warfare." It's called *invasion.*
Christ this country needs an enema.
- roho76, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15This is getting old already. This administration ***** up and never gets in trouble. I'm moving to Antarctica. Nobody wants to kill each other there and at least I'll survive an extra couple of days after the radioactive fallout begins when W pushes the button. And all the nay Sayers can eat a dick. You know who you are, you W dick suckin *****. You're so used to the smell of your own ***** that you think it's hamburgers.
Peace - geekee, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3 U.S. general wants more troops for bloody Iraq province
http://digg.com/world_news/U_S_General_Wants_More_Troops_for_Bloody_Iraq_Province - caution, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7never happen. not in a million years.
within the civilian (and military to some extent) workforce at medium and medium high levels you have agenda driven egomaniacs who get off on leaking their theories and partisan ideas to the press.
i've actually seen them drooling over the early bird when stories like this get play
normally they are leftovers from previous eras or 1-2 stars (sometimes as low as COLs, or GS 13-14s) who got passed over and know they lost all upward mobility
nothing burns me up more than these habitual leakers - abitarecatania, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2Totally Ridiculus! The US generals and Col are as self serving as US politcans, the exceptions are extremely rare.
Those who are suffering are the enlisted troops and they are the ones, who may revolt or start going "Mi Lai Massacre" on Iraqis and Afghanies
Where is CENTCOM head quaters? Tampa, Florida!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is where most General etc... are "fighting the war on terror" if they really have to suffer they can go to Qatar, Bahrain or Bagdad for a couple of days before returning to Tampa, FL
How many Generals or Col or LtCol have been injured or killed? (not including pilots)
FYI - you can look it up:
CENTCOM is one of two regional unified commands whose headquarters are not within its area of operations. It is at MacDill AFB, in Tampa, Florida, although a forward headquarters has been established at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar to serve American strategic interests of the Iraq region.
http://www.mangoparchia.blogspot.com/- lifeandtimes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Guess what? The people you choose to lead your troops at the highest level shouldn't be where they can get killed. That's how generals and (lt)colonels are supposed to act...you don't actually know much about how the military works, do you?
- Comatose51, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10To paraphrase a professor: "A soldier charging into battle is bravery. An officer charging into battle is mass murder." No military unit can operate effectively without its officers and to deprive them of their officers is to endanger the entire unit. That's just not how modern warfare operates. Warfare has always been about strategy and tactics, not banzai charges. There have been exceptions to this rule, such as Rommel, but modern communication equipment has eliminated the need for that. Rommel was nearly killed once when he was out scouting by himself.
- Mithrandir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11As far as I can research, 17 Lieutenant Colonels and 5 full Colonels have been killed in Iraq so far. This is emblematic of a force that fights from the front, and doesn't lead from a cushy base in Florida...
- abitarecatania, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Actually, I just finished up as a Navy LT, nine years of active duty (Separated in July 06).
FYI - I have done two CENTCOM deployments (as a pilot, mission instructor and watch & exercise officer), a PACOM deployment (as a pilot), I have spent 11 months in Africa (joint tour with Army, AF, Marines and "others"), three years in EUCOM broken up by deployments.
You guys?
If you think good operational Commanders hide in staff quarters ie "Green zones", Tampa, Qatar or Bahrain, what can I say... it is ridiculous and part of the problem. People making the decisions are not impacted by them… ie the ridiculous “Rule of engagement” rules the US troops have to follow, having to account for all ammo, why are the troops not allowed to buy better body armor? NOMEX? Why not wear NOMEX in the field?
Because the people making the decisions rarely have their own skin on the roads in Baghdad!
I think you should pick up some books on General Patton, Col Hackworth, etc....
The situation awareness gained in "the field" is extremely important. You rarely get the full picture or complete truth unless you are there engaged in country with the units.
Again of the Col and LtCol killed, how many were aircraft related accidents? My guess is all of them were killed in Helos, possibly an occasional IED, VIED.
How many were killed fighting or working with the troops? Probably none.
How many were killed in "the field" to find out what is going on?
Here is a great lesson in Situation Awareness:
Senator McCain in Washington DC vs Michael Ware in Baghdad:
Senator McCain like the Generals and Cols outside of Baghdad are likely receiving the same emails, power points briefs, and Intel.
Who do you believe? I believe Michael Ware, he has been in Baghdad outside of the Green Zone, since the war started and was there when Senator McCain providing his assessment from DC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6kzCR07PQ
- abitarecatania, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Comatose51,
What in the world are you talking about?
To paraphrase a professor: "A soldier charging into battle is bravery. An officer charging into battle is mass murder."
The professor is a Moron or he is living in a previous war.
An American soldier rarely “charges” anywhere there is a known bad guy.
You call in artillery, sniper, gunship, 50 Cal, tank or an air strike and take them out. Officers that are in units and not out with the troops in the field are worthless or cowards (although sometimes Officers have to write reports or are building briefs etc).
1. We are not at war with Iraq. Remember we captured, hung Sadam, forced the Bath party from government positions and disband the Iraqi military? We are an occupation force in a third world, Muslim, Arab and Kurdish country.
A region, which Bremmer, Bush, Gen Franks and others knew little about when they invaded.
Bush when told about the Sunni and Shiite population reportedly said "I thought they were all Muslims"
2. We are not doing any "bonsai charges". It is a guerilla war against the US and a BONUS civil war between, Sunni vs Shiites and eventually Kurds, Turkey maybe Iran will become more engaged in the future.
There are people in Iraq and in the region, who want the US and other "infidels" out of the region.
They are using suicide bombers. IEDS, VIED, mortars, snipers, mines, chlorine bombs, to undermine the US and those that support us. They are using most insurgent tactics. Similar tactics, to what was used to wear down the Russians in Afghanistan.
We typically respond with Firepower and "search and destroy" tactics. Which alienate and anger the people in the region and help to build the insurgency.
THERE ARE ACCEPTIONS some Iraqi do like us, most hate us. Most of the Iraqis that would have supported us (the educated and secular Muslims) fled to Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Iran or Saudi.
The war in Iraqi is becoming a complete debacle for many reasons. One reason was the COL and above were hiding in the Green Zone or Tampa or Qatar or Bahrain.
You can only learn so much from Power Point, emails and second hand stories.
Ask Senator John McCain:
Comatose51,
What in the world are you talking about?
To paraphrase a professor: "A soldier charging into battle is bravery. An officer charging into battle is mass murder."
The professor is a Moron or he is living in a previous war.
An American soldier rarely “charges” anywhere there is a known bad guy.
You call in artillery, sniper, gunship, 50 Cal, tank or an air strike and take them out. Officers that are in units and not out with the troops in the field are worthless or cowards (although sometimes Officers have to write reports or are building briefs etc).
1. We are not at war with Iraq. Remember we captured, hung Sadam, forced the Bath party from government positions and disband the Iraqi military? We are an occupation force in a third world, Muslim, Arab and Kurdish country.
A region, which Bremmer, Bush, Gen Franks and others knew little about when they invaded.
Bush when told about the Sunni and Shiite population reportedly said "I thought they were all Muslims"
2. We are not doing any "bonsai charges". It is a guerilla war against the US and a BONUS civil war between, Sunni vs Shiites and eventually Kurds, Turkey maybe Iran will become more engaged in the future.
There are people in Iraq and in the region, who want the US and other "infidels" out of the region.
They are using suicide bombers. IEDS, VIED, mortars, snipers, mines, chlorine bombs, to undermine the US and those that support us. They are using most insurgent tactics. Similar tactics, to what was used to wear down the Russians in Afghanistan.
We typically respond with Firepower and "search and destroy" tactics. Which alienate and anger the people in the region and help to build the insurgency.
THERE ARE ACCEPTIONS some Iraqi do like us, most hate us. Most of the Iraqis that would have supported us (the educated and secular Muslims) fled to Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Iran or Saudi.
The war in Iraqi is becoming a complete debacle for many reasons. One reason was the COL and above were hiding in the Green Zone or Tampa or Qatar or Bahrain.
You can only learn so much from Power Point, emails and second hand stories.
Ask Senator John McCain:
Comatose51,
What in the world are you talking about?
To paraphrase a professor: "A soldier charging into battle is bravery. An officer charging into battle is mass murder."
The professor is a Moron or he is living in a previous war.
An American soldier rarely “charges” anywhere there is a known bad guy.
You call in artillery, sniper, gunship, 50 Cal, tank or an air strike and take them out. Officers that are in units and not out with the troops in the field are worthless or cowards (although sometimes Officers have to write reports or are building briefs etc).
1. We are not at war with Iraq. Remember we captured, hung Sadam, forced the Bath party from government positions and disband the Iraqi military? We are an occupation force in a third world, Muslim, Arab and Kurdish country.
A region, which Bremmer, Bush, Gen Franks and others knew little about when they invaded.
Bush when told about the Sunni and Shiite population reportedly said "I thought they were all Muslims"
2. We are not doing any "bonsai charges". It is a guerilla war against the US and a BONUS civil war between, Sunni vs Shiites and eventually Kurds, Turkey maybe Iran will become more engaged in the future.
There are people in Iraq and in the region, who want the US and other "infidels" out of the region.
They are using suicide bombers. IEDS, VIED, mortars, snipers, mines, chlorine bombs, to undermine the US and those that support us. They are using most insurgent tactics. Similar tactics, to what was used to wear down the Russians in Afghanistan.
We typically respond with Firepower and "search and destroy" tactics. Which alienate and anger the people in the region and help to build the insurgency.
THERE ARE ACCEPTIONS some Iraqi do like us, most hate us. Most of the Iraqis that would have supported us (the educated and secular Muslims) fled to Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Iran or Saudi.
The war in Iraqi is becoming a complete debacle for many reasons. One reason was the COL and above were hiding in the Green Zone or Tampa or Qatar or Bahrain.
You can only learn so much from Power Point, emails and second hand stories.
Ask Senator John McCain:
Comatose51,
What in the world are you talking about?
To paraphrase a professor: "A soldier charging into battle is bravery. An officer charging into battle is mass murder."
The professor is a Moron or he is living in a previous war.
An American soldier rarely “charges” anywhere there is a known bad guy.
You call in artillery, sniper, gunship, 50 Cal, tank or an air strike and take them out. Officers that are in units and not out with the troops in the field are worthless or cowards (although sometimes Officers have to write reports or are building briefs etc).
1. We are not at war with Iraq. Remember we captured, hung Sadam, forced the Bath party from government positions and disband the Iraqi military? We are an occupation force in a third world, Muslim, Arab and Kurdish country.
A region, which Bremmer, Bush, Gen Franks and others knew little about when they invaded.
Bush when told about the Sunni and Shiite population reportedly said "I thought they were all Muslims"
2. We are not doing any "bonsai charges". It is a guerilla war against the US and a BONUS civil war between, Sunni vs Shiites and eventually Kurds, Turkey maybe Iran will become more engaged in the future.
There are people in Iraq and in the region, who want the US and other "infidels" out of the region.
They are using suicide bombers. IEDS, VIED, mortars, snipers, mines, chlorine bombs, to undermine the US and those that support us. They are using most insurgent tactics. Similar tactics, to what was used to wear down the Russians in Afghanistan.
We typically respond with Firepower and "search and destroy" tactics. Which alienate and anger the people in the region and help to build the insurgency.
THERE ARE ACCEPTIONS some Iraqi do like us, most hate us. Most of the Iraqis that would have supported us (the educated and secular Muslims) fled to Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Iran or Saudi.
The war in Iraqi is becoming a complete debacle for many reasons. One reason was the COL and above were hiding in the Green Zone or Tampa or Qatar or Bahrain.
You can only learn so much from Power Point, emails and second hand stories.
Ask Senator John McCain:
Comatose51,
What in the world are you talking about?
To paraphrase a professor: "A soldier charging into battle is bravery. An officer charging into battle is mass murder."
The professor is a Moron or he is living in a previous war.
An American soldier rarely “charges” anywhere there is a known bad guy.
You call in artillery, sniper, gunship, 50 Cal, tank or an air strike and take them out. Officers that are in units and not out with the troops in the field are worthless or cowards (although sometimes Officers have to write reports or are building briefs etc).
1. We are not at war with Iraq. Remember we captured, hung Sadam, forced the Bath party from government positions and disband the Iraqi military? We are an occupation force in a third world, Muslim, Arab and Kurdish country.
A region, which Bremmer, Bush, Gen Franks and others knew little about when they invaded.
Bush when told about the Sunni and Shiite population reportedly said "I thought they were all Muslims"
2. We are not doing any "bonsai charges". It is a guerilla war against the US and a BONUS civil war between, Sunni vs Shiites and eventually Kurds, Turkey maybe Iran will become more engaged in the future.
There are people in Iraq and in the region, who want the US and other "infidels" out of the region.
They are using suicide bombers. IEDS, VIED, mortars, snipers, mines, chlorine bombs, to undermine the US and those that support us. They are using most insurgent tactics. Similar tactics, to what was used to wear down the Russians in Afghanistan.
We typically respond with Firepower and "search and destroy" tactics. Which alienate and anger the people in the region and help to build the insurgency.
THERE ARE ACCEPTIONS some Iraqi do like us, most hate us. Most of the Iraqis that would have supported us (the educated and secular Muslims) fled to Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Iran or Saudi.
The war in Iraqi is becoming a complete debacle for many reasons. One reason was the COL and above were hiding in the Green Zone or Tampa or Qatar or Bahrain.
You can only learn so much from Power Point briefs, emails and second hand stories.
Ask Senator John McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6kzCR07PQ - abitarecatania, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Very sorry for the double post. I timed out trying to fix it.
- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2By 2008 we will have already nuked Iran and Iraq will no longer be a concern.
http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687360.ece - geekee, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn
http://digg.com/political_opinion/No_Safe_Way_for_U_S_to_Leave_Iraq_Experts_Warn - Brandoskey, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6time to go with plan B, change of guard, time to overthrow the current government, purge the riff raff and start fresh.
no government is perfect, so the best option is to start a new one every so often, our forefathers knew this so they gave us the bill of rights, if things keep going as they are unchecked, somethings gotta give- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7That should have already happened. The Democrats have proven not to take any action once they got the power to do so. These "investigations' are too little and too late. They are just buying time for the next "catalyzing" event. The Globalists are winning.
- SD929, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Hahahah Never ***** happen. Revolt. Hahaha , god can't stop laughing. Nobody will be doing *****, but fighting some more. period. Buried, as inaccurate.
- kristov, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9I guess it would be good if they grew some balls and tried to save some of these young men we are sending to their deaths based on our President's lies and propaganda.
- gquaglia, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Not going to happen. It falls under treason and I'm pretty sure they shoot you for that.
- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Apparently, treason isn't a big deal anymore. Just ask Valerie Plame.
- extreme01, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Could we be seeing the start of a larger revolt against the power base in America.
- gquaglia, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Nope, most Americans are apathetic when it comes to politics.
- Nico_, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9What a mess.
USA should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. Did any Americans actually believe that invading Iraq would have any other outcome than chaos and civil war? I have a hard time believing that anyone is so stupid that they actually believed in what the current administration told them.. Or is it that some people in the USA are so egoistic that they did not care if their military invaded another country again and caused mass casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
What happened to the WMDs or the Al Qaeda connection? What happened to the big banner that said Mission Accomplished? The USA has made total fools om themselves with this war. Just look at that embarrassing conference that the Bush administration held at the UN trying to convince other countries to join in on this war. Claiming that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, laboratories in trucks, it was a total insult to believe that other countries would not see right through these simple and stupid lies...
Anyway, now that the USA had its invasion and killed lots of people they suddenly figure out that this war thingy isn't going so well. So what do they decide to do? Pull out.... Think of the troops they say, we are loosing our kids, Americans are dying! Well what about all those people that have died because of your actions? What about all those people that are still there after you leave? What will they do when there is no one around to help finance and keep the country secure?
If you ask me the USA made its own bed and now its time to sleep in it. The USA should help finance Iraq security for decades to come. Since they are so big cowards that they mess up an entire country and when they feel "this isn't going our way" they just leave... And the Iraqi people are left to pick up the pieces. Great job.....
You would think people would learn after Vietnam, all the other shady regime changes and financing of wars. You failed over and over. Stop your invading, stop your torturing and stop sticking your noses in other peoples business..- Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Let me guess: If we decided to go into Darfur and break up that party, it would be ok with you then, right?
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I guess that comes with the territory when you are the world's most powerful nation.
What a douchebag. - jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10The whole war can be summed up in one word: hubris.
- wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Ask yourself: "who benefits?" The price of oil is sky high. Record profits for oil companies. How oil-connected is the Bush administration? They are all oilmen. They don't want it to end. They want to keep the price up.
- EbowUK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@ jammer
"I guess that comes with the territory when you are the world's most powerful nation."
If only the people with that power had seen that comic book movie:
"With great power comes great responsibility"
- Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Let me guess: If we decided to go into Darfur and break up that party, it would be ok with you then, right?
- clistpaypal, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Kucinich is my choice for prez, but I think Joe Biden has the Iraq situation figured out the best as of now. Either way, a dem is taking the white house in '08; the right wing has had one F up after another. Of course, most of them are due to corruption and not only incompetence.
- historybuff, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Cynthia Tucker...... who the hell is she? Why should she have "inside" information? Why the f should I believe anything said in this story? Come on folks. This is just more talking heads. Your opinion is as good as hers about what's going on. This is just another political junk piece.
P.S. I heard chicken little say the sky was falling. Pass it on. - Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Refusing a command from the CIC is career suicide and free room and board at military prison; no active general is going to risk that.
Tucker is full of *****. Marked as Inaccurate. If there was a bury label named "Hack Journalist Full of Self and Spewing *****" I'd choose that one as well. - Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -12/+1Thinkprogress.org = buried as inaccurate
it's automatic- thepompano, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3It's intellectually dishonest to yourself to bury a story just because it's from ThinkProgress. When you purposely make yourself ignorant of the political views of Americans other than yours, you make this country a terrible place to live. Politics is the art of compromise. If you want to isolate yourself from the rest of the America that you are SHARING with people who don't agree with you - then PLEASE don't vote in 2008.
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's automatic as is your closeminded response to inconvenient information backed by fact. Let me guess..... you listen to Frat Boy Rush Limpballs?
- medieval, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2cynthia tucker needs to lay off the botox and plastic surgery. damn, she looks scary!
- Mu99ins, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Another ***** story from the leftist press.
- wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I guess one of the orcs called his friends about this story.
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ok Archie Bnker.....Just because it isn't Faux News, doesn't mean it's "leftist". "Leftist"....lol. Did you just crawl out of a nuclear bunker built in the 1950's, hiding from those "red" commies or what?
Frank Luntz needs to be more original.
- knownskr, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Just another example of wishful thinking by "White Flag" democrats as part of a way to claim cover for their unconditional surrender. As one commenter put it "didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?" Well, I guess the answer to that is that the
democrats did not. After we left Vietnam, over 6 million people died. (Please note the AFTER.) Once again democrats
are doing their best to surrender and let some one else worry about the consequences.
No matter what you think about the decision to invade Iraq, we are there now. The best option is to win. The option
the democrats are offering is surrender to Al Queda. You might want to think about the implications of that before jumping
on the "surrender wagon" out of Iraq.- pimpdown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I love the surrender talk. How can you surrender something that does not belong to you in the first place(Iraq)? All the deaths after the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam are all ways brought up. But do you notice no one ever says I wish my Dad had died trying to stop it. We are now supposed to believe the invaders care so much about the lives of Iraqis that they can't leave. I guess that's why they call them rag heads, sand ***** and other derogatory names. If we cared that much about there lives we would not have sent Chemical Rumsfled over there to shake Saddam's hand in 1984. Did you hypocrites forget that? Nice try pretending you care about there lives. You just destroyed there country and killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Not to mention the rape and torture.
- akirksey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Surrender?
Funny buzz word your using there, since the term applies only in war. We won the battle of Iraq four years ago, receding an occupation is not surrender, and no matter how much neo-con ***** Cheney sucks, it never will be. Furthermore, if we've surrendered anything because of this war and 9/11 it's our civil rights and the concept of 'servant government'. So no matter what you Nazi loving neo-cons think surrender is or isn't, we've already surrendered everything that mattered you ass hat. And no doubt thanks to people like you who like to make believe that your pundits carry the weight and authority of Jesus Christ.
- knownskr, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2pimpdown,
The only one using derogatory terms so far in these comments is you..
As far as surrendering, if you don't want to call it that please explain what you would call giving up in the middle of a fight.
That seems a lot like surrender to me and by the way al Qaeda is boasting about fighting the U.S. in Iraq. So please
enlighten all of us how ending our fight against al Qaeda and its supporters in Iraq is just the thing to ensure a more
peaceful world. After all it worked so well for us in Mogadishu.- pimpdown, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5First I did not say people in the forum used those terms. Our dear soldiers use those terms. It did work well in Mogadishu because the U.S. got off land that did not belong to them. ( A theme that runs Through history where colonial invaders show up on land they have no right to be on.) Once again check the usual racial demographic and you will see a clear pattern. Or you can ask Native Americans for a second opinion. Same goes for the people of Southeast Asia, The Philippines, Latin America, The Middle and Far East. Not to mention Africa. Al Qaeda makes up a very small minority of the resistance.( According to the CIA and Department of Defense). Of course if you were to question there intelligence gathering abilities I would not blame you. The majority of Iraqis don't want the Occupation forces there. They have a right to resist an invading army that rapes people( men and women). Stacks them in naked pyramids and degrades them on there own land. Not to mention the massacre at Haditha as well as the ones that can't compete with Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith for the media's attention. American media I mean. Peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- MaceSoul, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3
Great primary source. She's on top of it. - knownskr, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2akirksey,
Thanks for once again demonstrating the usual well reasoned and thoughtful debating style of "White Flag" democrats.
I noted however that you failed to answer any of the issues I raised. So much for thoughtful debate.- akirksey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I actually gave it some thought. I admit that my response was pure venom. But I'm tired of being complacent and kicked around by opinions, like yours, that are not very well thought out,
Warring against al Qaeda is something that if done militarily has to be enforced through a multitude of nations and their police authority. Diplomatic efforts to put pressure on countries that are aiding terrorist cells was always the purist form of action. Violating any other nation's sovereignty gives the right to any other nation to do the same to us. Sovereignty is kind of an unspoken rule between nations. Going in there in the first place was wrong. Staying now is wrong. The Iraqi people have a responsibility for themselves to decide if they want to continue committing acts of violence against each other, and if allowing terrorists to remain in their new Democratic state is really something they want. We however have made the decision for them.
Saddam was already fighting al Qaeda without any encouragement from the United States. So to say that we need to stay in Iraq to fight al Qaeda seems suspect. In theory it sounds right, given present circumstances and the fear that the middle east will turn into a slaughtering ground, but whether or not that will come to pass cannot be really known until after we do leave. The fallacy presented in your argument contends that battling a global terror organization means concentrating the entire bulk of the United States military in one country. The approach to battling civilians attempting to kill others through violent means to bring about their own political agenda is far to expensive both to our troops and to the country which is accumulating the most serious national debt of all time implementing a security strategy that is flawed from the start.
Hope that's a bit more civil for you. Sorry for being kind of a punk ass earlier.
- akirksey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I actually gave it some thought. I admit that my response was pure venom. But I'm tired of being complacent and kicked around by opinions, like yours, that are not very well thought out,
- empirefalling, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5The US is no longer capable of forcing it's Jackboot on other countries in the 21st century. It has lost it's war of aggression against the Iraqi peoples. The Iraqis have fought back against the immoral US invaders and have won. The military of the United States does not back it's illegally elected leader.
Hoorah for the the few who stand against the US and it's war of genocide!- jamima69z, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6your comment would be better with that high pitched uulation thingie at the end of it.
- pimpdown, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6I love that. I hate the empire but would love to restore the Republic. How did those red staters in Kansas feel when all of there resources were sent to subjugate complete strangers and then the Tornado hit? They must have hated it more than evolution.
- knownskr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6akirksey,
It's understandable that people get emotional about these issues and in some sense it is a good thing. However, too many
people are allowing emotionalism to dominate all other considerations and are not rationally considering the real choices
that must be made.
In part you are correct that the long term struggle with al Qaeda will involve police action on the part of many nations.
The point you are missing is that we can not allow nation state support of al Qaeda that would allow them to train or
conduct operations. This is the mistake that we originally made with Afghanistan.
To the best of my knowledge Saddam was not fighting al Qaeda. He was at best turning a blind eye toward their operations
as long as they did not attack him and at worst was providing more active material support. (Reports on how much or
how little support he provided are inconclusive.)
From a purely legal prospective you are incorrect concerning the Iraq invasion. The short story is that to end Gulf War 1 (this
occurred after Iraq invaded Kuwait), Iraq (Saddam) agreed to terms of surrender. Implicit in any terms of surrender is the
threat that violation of the terms will lead to renewed conflict. There was dancing around and various amounts of
hand wringing, but no honest observer would contend that Saddam lived up to the original terms of surrender. We had
every right (some would say a moral obligation) to go back into Iraq as soon as he violated the terms. The fact that we
took years to do so can be ascribed to either patience or fecklessness, but it does not change the fact that the invasion was
legal and founded in international law. Again what really matters is that we are there now and al Qaeda refers to Iraq as
a central part of their war against the U.S.
What you may also not be aware of is a new movement in Anabar province called the Anabar Awakening. This is a new
political/military organization composed of most of the tribes in that province (approximately 18 out of 21 tribes). Many of
the tribes were originally in support of al Qaeda or at least indifferent to its operations. These tribes are now co-operating
with the coalition forces and the Iraq government in fighting al Qaeda. What makes this important is that these are Sunni
tribes working with Shia central government. The movement seems to be spreading and appears to have the seeds of a
national political movement that is not based on Sunni versus Shia, but instead on support for Iraq as a nation. In short
this appears to be just the type of political growth that we wanted to see.
Remember too that al Qaeda is targeting Iraqi civilians more than coalition forces. The two main reasons are that civilians
are easier targets and they get much greater news coverage. And if they can trigger a civil war between Sunni and Shias,
they hope to prosper in the resulting chaos.
As far as Iraq goes, we can either stay and finish the job now or go back and finish it later or all convert to Islam. We really
don't have any other choices. For you own information, if you are not already familiar with the term, you may want to research
the meaning of term Islamic Caliphate to understand the real stakes in Iraq. - GonzoLiga, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Jesus. What a lack of understanding of the military some Diggers have, re: insubordination, resignations and Happy Hour at Fort Leavenworth's military prison.
Now, on an unrelated note:
@jm9206755: Calling Bush an idiot is "contemptuous speech" and is actionable under the UCMJ. And, yes, general officers can pretty much leave when they choose. That's for two reasons. First, they have all served over 20 years and are eligible for retirement. Second, commissioned officers are appointed, not serving under contract as enlisted personnel do. So they can "resign." Another point: general/flag officers retire. They do not resign. Regardless of what one may think of their intellect, they're not so stupid as to "resign" rather than "retire." A resignation would eliminate their retirement benefits.
@totorototoro: It's a surge. It's an augmentation in troop strength. The last US occupation occurred in Germany and Japan. There is a world of difference between a surge and an occupation. The occupation of Japan, for example, meant the US ran the country: laws, curfews, employment, reconstruction and administration of justice were all carried out by the US.
@Rhino2: "Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is still as drunk and stupid as ever..." Best quote I've read all day.
@Dumbledorito: Have another tostada. Refusal to obey lawful orders is an actionable offense anytime, not just during war, however "war" is defined.
@m2313: There's a reason why you're DuggDown more than a new gold mine. Refusal to obey orders /= treason.
@Jammer: Probably prison time? How about, general/flag officers are so self-disciplined, educated and mature that they shut their mouths until they retire -- that's my "probably."
@roho76: "I'm moving to Antarctica." Don't go all Alec Baldwin on us at this stage in the game. I mean, don't say you're moving and then not move.
@abitarecatania: "Totally Ridiculus! The US generals and Col are as self serving as US politcans, the exceptions are extremely rare. Those who are suffering are the enlisted troops and they are the ones, who may revolt or start going "Mi Lai Massacre" on Iraqis and Afghanies. Where is CENTCOM head quaters? Tampa, Florida!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Ever heard of CENTCOM Forward? It's in -- I'm just guessing -- the Middle East. HQ CENTCOM deploys hundreds there. And what the hell is a "head quaters?" The image I conjure from that phrase is something out of a bad marijuana-stoked dream. Or is that Southern-speak? PS: Bonus points for your world-class understanding of "copy and paste," ref your "What in the world are you talking about?" post.
@dforty3: "The Democrats have proven not to take any action once they got the power to do so. These "investigations' are too little and too late. They are just buying time for the next "catalyzing" event." Are you talking about the 2008 elections??
@Nico: "The USA should help finance Iraq security for decades to come." She will. Look at the ongoing aftermath of WWII: The US still finances the security of Japan and Germany. "What happened to the big banner that said Mission Accomplished?" The banner was referring to the mission of the carrier battle group that was returning from the Middle East, not the war in Iraq. It's amazing what can be extrapolated from an image, or a speech, or a CV's mission, these days.
@akirksey: "Saddam was already fighting al Qaeda without any encouragement from the United States." Saddam was doing no such thing. He was not aiding them anymore than fighting them. Dugg you up for a thoughtful post.- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@gonzoliga... No, What I meant by the next "catalyzing event" (to borrow a phrase from the PNAC document) is along the lines of a "Hiroshimo type event" like this...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687360.ece
There is more than enough to impeach this entire administration (which just means indict and launch an investigation. Like they way Nixon resigned at the mere threat of impeachment, these bastards are likely to do the same.
- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@gonzoliga... No, What I meant by the next "catalyzing event" (to borrow a phrase from the PNAC document) is along the lines of a "Hiroshimo type event" like this...
- Slitchy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Nice post gonzoliga, dugg you up for the effort and intelligent post. Dont get caught up spending too much time trying to correct digg users... Some are well thought out and just generally good no matter which side of the political spectrum they fall, but I find the vast majority are emotionally charged rampages that barely resemble what could be interpreted as a logical thought.
You could be here a long time if you try correcting everyone on this site... - DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I hope it sparks a revolution, so we can overthrow our government and restart, and get our rights back.
(By the way, I am not advocating overthrowing our government, please don't arrest me on suspicions of terrorism!)- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Dugg you down so the "Thought Police" don't come knocking down my door. - LOL :)
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Dugg you down so the "Thought Police" don't come knocking down my door. - LOL :)
- Mageant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5If the "surge" doesn't work, the Bush administration will suggest a "billow" next then a "breaker", then a "deluge", then an "efflux", flood, flow, growth, gush, intensification, outpouring, rise, roll, surf, swell, upsurge, wave.
That should last until January 2009. - Lockhart, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4A coup d'etat led by none other than the Greatest Living American, Stephen Colbert.
- way2jaded, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Gawd it's always so satisfying to hear all of the experts weigh in...
I just get giddy thinking "thank god for Digg!" At least "we" can easily track where all the Nuts are!!! - MatthJD, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Buried - another misleading Think Progress piece.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Less propoganda, more truth from troops on the ground:
"...Our morale for killing the enemy is high, but to a man everyone is thoroughly disgusted with the US and all of the stupid things that people are saying about the war. Even watching commercials on TV here makes you upset when you see just how frivolous it all is. You really have to come here to understand just how well things are going at least here in Anbar. AQIZ is getting rolled up left and right and our attacks right now are averaging less than 2 per week in the entire AO! The ones that they do pull off are incredibly weak and all I see on FNC [Blackfive: Fox News Channel] is spot reps of a vbied someplace in the country. I know there are hot areas, but I read all the intel reports and we are creaming these fools.
[armor unit] is an army unit here [Blackfive Note: Oh HELL YEAH! ARMOR!] and they just got done f@#king up AQIZ in [redacted] big time. They swept through the joint and just slayed fools. We are having trouble figuring out where to go right now because everybody is getting rolled and the locals are ratting them out constantly. I'm serious, it is dead out here. That could change, but the people here are not having it anymore. The biggest problem in Ramadi is no electricity. It's getting hot out so that is going to suck for the people in a month or so. Apparently the way the grid is setup makes it difficult to fix but hopefully someone is working on it. Not my department..."
From Blackfive:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/05/anbar_sitrep_fr.html- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3To quote Rumsfeld (no doubt a hero of yours)...
"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/rumsfeld-d20031016sdmemo.htm
So considering that there weren't very many terrorists in Iraq to begin with, what overall effect of "creaming them' do YOU think is having on the war on terror? Is there a part of you that thinks Bush is too much of a pussy to attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3To quote Rumsfeld (no doubt a hero of yours)...
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Why not.... we had a GOP coup in 2000. All these neo-con chicken hawk cowards who benefit from this war committed an act of treason on their country by stealing two elections and then forcing an illegal war/occupation on the American tax payer. They lied to get to where they are today.... they should all be placed in prison for life for what they have done. But no.....instead a person caught smoking a joint will see more time in jail than all of these fascist sociopaths ever will. That's gonna have to change!
- Tylox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't it be cool if the generals marched into the white house with troops and arrested the administration and congress and re-instated the constitution, and forced paper ballot voting and Ron Paul won the presidency and we got a truly transparent government and all of the secrets and lies were put on the table for all to see and the murderers behind 911 were caught and hung? Shoot they might even tell us what they know about ETs ..... Naugh LOL
- GonzoLiga, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Call me crazy, but I believe overthrowing the government to reinstate the Constituion, as you cheerfully speculate upon, would be a violation of Article 3, Section 3, of that selfsame Constitution. This is Rube Goldbergian logic of the craziest kind.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by