digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Ilan Goldenberg: Not a Gaffe: A Fundemental Misunderstandin

huffingtonpost.com — Senator McCain credits the US troop surge as having laid the foundation for the Anbar Awakening. Only problem: the surge started a year after the Awakening. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the history in Iraq and should disqualify McCain from the Presidency.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • paprikapink, on 07/23/2008, -27/+40I can see where McCain is revealing himself as less and less fit for the presidency...I actually liked him a year ago! But what if he and his campaign actually accepted and acknowledged that it's hopeless and he dropped out of the race? What kind of election would that be? I'm actually concerned about Obama having no one to run against. Ron Paul? Would he run as a public service just so Obama has an actual competitor?
    • Maximilian000, on 07/23/2008, -27/+3Dugg for mentioning Ron Paul
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -10/+1No doubt, true Republicans are very scary to your kind.
    • zip000, on 07/23/2008, -12/+22Yeah, there is absolutely no chance that McCain will just drop out. He will continue even if he has no shot at all, and frankly he's still got a decent shot (as much as I don't want him to).

      Obama is constantly being undermined by the right wingers - especially Fox news...a largish portion of our country think that Obama is a Muslim; they believe silly propoganda about him concerning the national anthem and flag pins. They believe that Obama is going to tax us to death, etc.

      As long as such a large percentage of our country is so gullible (which means always), McCain has got a shot.
      • Nosferotu, on 07/23/2008, -6/+16I don't know why you got buried, you're very right on this. McCain doesn't even really need to prove himself to at least remain fairly competitive - he will get support from people who don't like Obama, and from people who just put their mark under Republican.

        Frankly, if McCain wins, it won't be for anything he did, and it probably won't be for anything Obama did or didn't do. It'll be for that gullibility you talk about - the propaganda will be stronger than Obama's machine. But I really, truly do not believe that's gonna happen. Come November, we're gonna be proud of our country again.
      • oscenester, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2@Nosferatu: ZOMG! Come November we'll be Proud?

        ANTI AMERICAN! STRANGER DANGER! STRANGER DANGER!

        Someone alert the Rightards!

        /SARCASM
    • Stormwern, on 07/23/2008, -11/+13Iran training al'qaeda is another example. He can jumble words all he likes, but in the odd chance he'll be doing any negotiating, he damn well needs to know who is friends with who.
      • Nosferotu, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9Who the hell is burying this? It's true!
    • pinchduck, on 07/23/2008, -10/+2It wouldn't ever happen. I'll put it this way: When was the last time you fired yourself?
    • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -16/+11Simple answer for those not on medication:
      WE DID HAVE USA TROOPS IN IRAQ ACCOMPLISHING THINGS BEFORE THE SURGE.
      Really, its true, we have reports of USA troops in IRAQ with missions and goals before the surge. Its not a conspiracy, it really was happening.

      Next huffinton story please -
      I so love how they have no actual points.
      • Nosferotu, on 07/23/2008, -3/+13Err.. the thing is, he said the SURGE SPECIFICALLY HELPED. But the surge HAD NOT OCCURRED. You see, we exist in this thing called time, which is actually a sort of referential term to the fact that there are cause-and-effect chains, and when something occurs previous to something else along the general cause-and-effect chain, it's a logical fallacy to say that the thing that occurred later had a direct effect on what happened earlier.

        That might be a bit more explanation than necessary, but see, you seem kind of stupid.
      • caramba420, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2You are not in any position to decide whether [huffpo] makes any points because you are sure to miss the point every time.
    • daddaa, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4stop it. you're such a tease. you're sending a chill up my leg.
    • booksnmore4you, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1SPOILER ALERT ! ! !

      Look for the GOP to nominate someone other than McCain at the convention.
  • greatgran1, on 07/23/2008, -17/+24This boggles the mind.There are so many doubts about Senator McCain's mental alertness and
    now his memory may come under scrutiny.I remember when Pres. Reagan was in the same
    situation.
    • qdkk, on 07/23/2008, -9/+10Yeah, Reagan was old too. In fact, Reagan was showing obvious signs of Alzheimer into his second term in office.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/23/2008, -6/+9When you see mentally ill Vets on the streets, you can thank Ronald Reagan. But Reagan told people, who substitute Nationalism for self-esteem, he told them what they wanted to hear.
      Last year I spoke with a co-worker who said that she liked how Ronald Reagan "made her feel". And now many people know nothing but that "Reagan sits next to Jesus in Heaven".
    • geekee, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4I love how stupid people who have been wrong about Iraq for the fast two years now think McCain doesn't know whats going on there. Until you admit you were wrong, you look more and more foolish with every word.
  • Carv, on 07/23/2008, -16/+51Thank you. There's a difference between misspeaking and not knowing what you're talking about. There's two different ways people choose their opinion - some do the research, then decide. Others decide first, then find whatever they can to back it up, no matter how far of a stretch it is, or how correct. McCain falls under that second category.
    • geekee, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2moveon.org said last year Petreus was a liar. Obama said the surge wouldn't work. I think we know who doesn't know what they're talking about. Add yourself to the list
      • thaboosh, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2the surge worked?
        the war is over?
        peace and democracy in the middle east?
    • mrsammercer, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2I'd like to sneak into a McCain town hall meeting as an avid supporter and find my way to the microphone just to say, "Senator McCain, generally speaking you really don't have any clue what the ***** you're talking about do you?"
  • battleangel7, on 07/23/2008, -32/+19"This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the history in Iraq and should disqualify McCain from the Presidency."

    I thought thet not getting enough votes is what would "Disqualify McCain from the Presidency".
    I didn't know that some random ass-hat on Digg had the power to "Disqualify" people.
    • Dozernotz, on 07/23/2008, -8/+21You underestimate the staggering power of asshattery, especially when surrounded by asshats of similar shape and size.
    • jmanfivek, on 07/23/2008, -11/+24"I didn't know that some random ass-hat on Digg had the power to "Disqualify" people." What the hell are you talking about?

      The Digg user submitted an article written by someone else. In fact, the author is mentioned in the submission title. So why are you calling the submitter an ass-hat? Looks to me like YOU have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Digg works and I move to disqualify you.
      • roomforpanic, on 07/23/2008, -9/+9Seconded.
      • jgzman, on 07/23/2008, -9/+7Motion carries. Battleangel7, you are hereby disqualified from the internets. May your deity of choice have mercy on your soul.
  • TheInformer, on 07/23/2008, -35/+24Funny how Huffingtonpost is trying to discredit McCain in every and any possible way, to pave the way for the ascendance of the Messiah.

    I didn't know that McCain had absolutely zero positive features.
    I didn't know that Obama had absolutely zero negative features.

    See what Huffingtonpost can teach you? The poster has taught me how to spell "fundAmental" as well.

    Spam. Buried.
    • the6thReplicant, on 07/23/2008, -16/+13So McCain didn't say those things?

      Maybe you should stop judging things by their cover and actually read TFA.
    • bloomanchoo, on 07/23/2008, -12/+10Funny how all you do is try and change the subject...

      How about this, lets try and talk about the subject at hand... how McCain has no understanding of the very recent history of the Iraq "war".
      • yourfaceah, on 07/23/2008, -7/+10LMAO and obama does?
      • mrsammercer, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Funny how all you do is try and change the subject...

        How about this, lets try and talk about the subject at hand... how McCain has no understanding of the very recent history of the Iraq "war".
    • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -6/+11To all those that just dont get it:

      WE DID HAVE USA TROOPS IN IRAQ ACCOMPLISHING THINGS BEFORE THE SURGE. SIMPLE! END OF STORY!
      GET IT? DUH!!

      That a subject change or you want to stick to the point of the story. Oops.... there isnt any !!!
      • malex, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6Here's what McCain said to Katie Couric:

        "Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."

        Do you see the problem here?
    • siszam, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3McCain discredits himself. No one has to do it for him.
  • bassjam5, on 07/23/2008, -18/+43Why do Republicans support such dumb people for President. When they open their mouths McCain and Bush are both an embarrassment to this country.
    • jmanfivek, on 07/23/2008, -22/+15Because the majority of republicans are not as educated or intelligent as democrats and operate on an emotional level. Facts, reason and logic take a backseat to ego, blind nationalism and revenge.
      • byronm, on 07/23/2008, -13/+9Agreed, they're just voting for their home team or if they're really dumb they're voting for the not to be named Radio Talk show host tells them to vote for. Because we all know overly paid Radio Talk Show hosts know more than anyone else!
    • Tebixan, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3The Republican base votes on 2 issues alone

      1) Abortion
      2) Gay Marriage

      Everything else is just a talking point positioned directly against the Democratic stance. It doesn't matter if their nominee knows about foreign policy, healthcare, economics, or technology. Because their voters don't know or care about those issues.
      • OstrakonX, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1That's not fair.

        The fact is, this "base" isn't really made out of Republicans. Real Republicans (which incidentally have nothing to do with the current Republican Party) want a smaller federal government that doesn't interfere with the lives of citizens. Pro-life, anti-gay movements are the work of prejudiced, uneducated bible-thumpers and those who manipulate them into voting for terrible candidates.
      • exronin, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1you forgot guns
      • Tebixan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1@Ostra

        That's why I said the Republican base, and rather than saying ALL republicans. I realize there are intelligent republicans out there that don't vote on those issues, but unfortunately their party has been hijacked by the "moral majority"

        It would love it if the Republican party was replaced with the Libertarian party. I don't agree with their economic viewpoint, but at least the debate would be limited to economics, foreign policy, and healthcare. Rather than focusing on social issues.
  • fr3ddie, on 07/23/2008, -15/+22The sad part is... McCant actually DOES have a chance... I have been seeing many bumper stickers lately... as stupid as that may be... but all we can do is vote obama i guess.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/23/2008, -16/+2either way you are screwed actually. Open your eyes to the dog and pony show. You may chose a dog, or a pony - but either way you are stuck with a bought animal that will do what his owners tell him - not what the voters want.
      • enclaved, on 07/23/2008, -8/+8Your analogy sucks.
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2Maybe so - but the proof will be in the pudding. In 3 years, people will be all down on Obama because he turned on this, that and the other thing... Just as this Democrat congress did.

        Americans, for whatever reason, simply can't see the show even after 7 years of the rest of the world walking them through it. They don't want to see that their system has been gamed, they don't want to think that the president stole an election, forget about the secret prisons, forget about the collusion of the media, and both wings of the government on torture, and stripping of Americans rights.... Nothing of nothing, the next guy - will change everything....

        It would be funny if their idiocy only caused them pain - but there are several hundred thousand people that are dead now because of their willful ignorance.
      • ToysRUs, on 07/23/2008, -2/+0There is very little pudding that is good after 3 years. Aside from that, your points are much stronger when you abandon analogies and metaphors.
  • Dotnetsky, on 07/23/2008, -35/+15More extreme left wing out of touch Huffington Post BS.
    • awtripp, on 07/23/2008, -15/+20It's not out of touch. The point is McCain has no ***** idea what is and has been going on over there. Right of left, you can't argue against the fact that McCain is the one that is out of touch here.
    • Nanite, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3[Looks at Dotnetsky's negative diggs]

      Who's out of touch?
      • vault, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Maybe you'll have a unique thought one day, Nanite, and won't care about how agreeable your comments are to the majority of digg.
  • thejimmyo, on 07/23/2008, -14/+42On October 10, 2002, McCain told us that "Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon."
    http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02 ...

    In May of this year, he falsely said that we had "drawn down to pre-surge levels."
    http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/mccain-says-we- ...

    He was also mistaken as to who had declared the ceasefire in Basra earlier:
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/06/mccain-ceasefi ...

    I don't know if McCain is lying or if he just has a reckless disregard for the truth.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/23/2008, -10/+17To steal a quote from Larry Merchent " His is either incompetent, or corrupt. Either way, we can't use him."
    • byronm, on 07/23/2008, -10/+6I'd say both.. lying and a reckless disregard for the truth. But that sums up about 99.9% of politicans
    • geekee, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4Remember "general betrayus"? I think liberals are the ones who haven't been facing the truth for the last couple of years.
  • thatguy331, on 07/23/2008, -36/+22Digg.com - Your Trusted HuffingtonPost news repeater...

    Seriously, all these HuffingtonPost links must be getting bot dugg to get to the front page, some of these anti-McCain links are just plain silly... "BREAKING: McCain got a speeding ticket in 1982, how can this man be president????" -HuffingtonPost.com
    • elhaf, on 07/23/2008, -11/+8This one is a bit more serious than that, particularly because CBS aided him in covering up this mistake. They edited the interview to air a response which was not so blatantly false.
    • bloomanchoo, on 07/23/2008, -10/+6thatguy331 - can't read an article and talk about the subject at hand.
    • 1oneWON, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2Please look at the content of material rather than just label a particular media source as "UBER-BIASED." If you want to have a real effect on people then how about you read the article and come back to us with a reasoned and fact-based rebuttal much like the article you are defaming.
  • maelstromwar, on 07/23/2008, -15/+4Need more be said?
  • LoneRanger85, on 07/23/2008, -30/+25You want to disqualify McCain from the presidency? Don't vote for him. Why are you people so afraid of him? Democrats hate democracy.
    • Buavesy, on 07/23/2008, -17/+14They're to busy drinking the Kool-Aid.
    • Fallenshadow, on 07/23/2008, -12/+22I am afraid of McCain because he would create policy that would greatly diminish my quality of life.
    • krnldmp, on 07/23/2008, -9/+21" Why are you people so afraid of him?"

      Because it has been recently proven that the highest quality candidate is Not necessarily who wins the presidency in the United States.
      • oscenester, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3It's also recently been proven that the winner in an Election is not necessarily going to appointed as the President of the US.

    • digigeek, on 07/23/2008, -11/+12Just like not supporting the war in Iraq makes us "hate freedom"? Right. Just like that.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/23/2008, -7/+14Why is the New York Times afraid to publish letters from McCain?
      • Fallenshadow, on 07/23/2008, -13/+3Because he probably writes like a 4 year old and they don't want to tarnish their reputation by publishing incoherent drivel.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/23/2008, -4/+14It seems rather thought out to me. Maybe you just can't understand it.

        http://digg.com/political_opinion/McCain_s_OpEd_th ...

      • Fallenshadow, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2Actually thats the first time I have read it, yes drivel is often hard to understand but my formidable intellect was able to decipher the intent of that letter. thanks for allowing me to reaffirm my original belief.....count it.
      • OrigamiRonin, on 07/23/2008, -9/+5McCain had an open opportunity to publish his thoughts on Iraq in the Times. He tried to use the space to attack his opponent instead. He had an open invitation to re-write his piece to state what his beliefs actually were. He instead chose to release the original piece through other channels and stage a very public hissy fit claiming that the media (which he refers to as "my base") is treating him unfairly. He's just playing the refs, pure and simple.

        The idea that any media outlet is afraid to let him publish something is laughable. That some should actually hold him to a standard is to be commended. Your questions should be: Why is McCain afraid to articulate his stance on the subject, and why are so many people defending him for dodging the question?

        After all, this whole charade is one huge dodge. Throw a fit and point the finger at the Times, all the while deflecting attention from the fact that he still hasn't responded to his opponent's piece in any concrete way.
      • OstrakonX, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3They're not afraid to publish by any means. They're simply not going to waste space in their paper on regurgitated talking points from the McCain camp.

        Maybe if he actually tried making a new point, they'd publish it. Instead, they have the integrity not to publish something laden with statements that have no factual basis in reality.
      • mrsammercer, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2I'm sure they'd be happy to publish if he paid for it as an advertisement. There is nothing newsworthy about that piece.
    • elhaf, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5I believe that is what the OP is implying should happen. We should not elect him because this kind of mistake disqualifies him. I don't think they are saying he should be removed from the ballot or anything.
    • mrsammercer, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1"Democrats hate democracy"? Because they want people to know what they're voting for in McCain? Why are you so scared of McCain's quotes being put into the context of how full of ***** they are?
  • Treoinmypocket, on 07/23/2008, -12/+17I'm reposting this comment from my response to a similar article because I think it is important so I hope you will forgive my "double post":

    This is all fun...pointing out which candidate made which mistake but what's more important is what is actually going on in Iraq, WHY what is happening is happening and what does it mean for the US and Iraq long-term.

    The reality of the Anbar Awakening is that it was built upon the Coalition's and Iraqi government's successful efforts to take back the western sections of that province from al-queda in early 2006. The success of that mission led to the building up of Iraqi army and police forces and and a resurgence of a normal life for the residents there. When al-queda tried to reassert itself around late May of 2006 - and the violence skyrocketed - Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi and his allies among the tribes contacted the Coalition commanders for assistance with their anti-al queda efforts. That led to the involvement of the Iraqi government.

    The Awakening is a success and is being replicated throughout Iraq in growing numbers. It represents exactly what the US has hoped for all along - that Iraq would ultimately stand up for itself and relieve us of the responsibility so we could retreat without fear of Iraq's collapse. The Awakening is classic counter-insurgency ... that wouldn't have been possible if the Coalition forces were not there and that is the real point here.

    We have GOT to hasten the spread of what Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi and his allies called the "The Sahawah Al Anbar" (Awakening of Anbar) and now called the Sahawah Al Iraq (Awakening of Iraq). Rishawi is working hard to do that and is doing so with the aid of the Coalition. It simply cannot be done without US forces and that is the flaw in Obama;s planned withdrawal in 16 months. Sahawah Al Iraq is a cooperative effort between the Coalition and the Iraqi tribes to rid Iraq of Al-queda. It is working and it is spreading. It also won't succeed...won't achieve the Tipping Point in 16 months but can get their soon -IF we stay long enough to help make it happen.

    Was the Surge responsible for the Anbar Awakening? No. The opposite is true. The Anbar Awakening showed that The Surge was necessary. If we see it through then Iraq WILL be free and self governing and we can begin to leave in earnest.

    One last thing - much has been made of Malaki's support of Obama's plan. The problem is that Malaki has always overestimated his - and his government's - ability to achieve goals in the timeframe he sets out or agrees to. All you have to do is look at his record to see that glaring truth. So why does he support Obama? Because he wants a weak US presence in Iraq going forward not a strong one. Plain and simple. There isn't anything wrong with that and while it would be nice -strategically for the US to have a strong presence in the middle east, that is, rightly, up to the Iraqi's. It is also true that if we pull out within 16 months, not only will there not be a strong US presence in Iraq, there won't be a strong Malaki presence either. That is bad for the US AND Iraq.
    • krnldmp, on 07/23/2008, -10/+4"We have GOT to hasten the spread of what Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi and his allies called the "The Sahawah Al Anbar" (Awakening of Anbar) and now called the Sahawah Al Iraq (Awakening of Iraq)."

      Only if you believe the Bush Administration's Iraq war is the salvation of the United States, which I think is pretty stupid.

      "Was the Surge responsible for the Anbar Awakening? No. The opposite is true. The Anbar Awakening showed that The Surge was necessary. If we see it through then Iraq WILL be free and self governing and we can begin to leave in earnest."

      what
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4I have a feeling you make that comment all the time regardless of the words being spoken so that you can make your textbook rejection of the Iraq war and not have to do any thinking about how complicated the issue of withdrawal is now that we are there.

        "Only if you believe the Bush Administration's Iraq war is the salvation of the United States, which I think is pretty stupid."
        -Did I say that? No. Did the article say that? No. We are actually in Iraq. We have to get out. How we do so will directly impact the resulting nature of the Iraqi government and its view of the United States. On a grander scale that in turn will impact other MiddleEast nations view of the US.

        As to this statement "what", I can only suggest you read my coments 6 or 7 more times until comprehension penetrates your mind.
    • digigeek, on 07/23/2008, -11/+4Can you imagine how PLEASED these supposed Al-Queda leaders are at the prospect of us staying longer in Iraq? It is the best possible thing we can do for their cause. Think about it. Nobody ever learns a damned thing from history or uses simple common-sense anymore, do they? So sad.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Staying in of itself is no solution and yes simply staying would make us a useful agent of Al-Queda recruiting.

        But that isn't what I said now is it. Maybe your moronic friends find your simplistic and irrelevant prognostications titillating. Thinking people merely find you foolish.
    • elhaf, on 07/23/2008, -10/+4I believe al-Rishawi was killed before the surge even started. Nevertheless, you show a better understanding of the Iraq war than McCain does. The other problem is that CBS edited his response to cover up the fact that it was so blatantly ignorant of history. That's the real story here. Media manipulation of elections (yes, it does happen in both directions).
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4You are right. Sept. 13, 2007 Sheik Sattar was killed by a roadside bomb. What he started however continues and that needs to be accelerated.

        I agree the cover up is the central issue of the story but my point is that I reject that as the real story. All these guys demonstrate ignorance every day and we just have to live with it. Just look where Obama gave his speech from in Germany the other day.

        My point is the "real story" is what we, as a nation and regardless of whose in charge, should be doing in Iraq.
    • oldgal, on 07/23/2008, -8/+6Thank you for a rational comment. I do, however, think it would be more useful to the discussion if we stopped talking about winning or losing the war. The troops won the war years ago (it's not like the Iraqis could make us leave if we don't want to). Now the question is how do we end the occupation (winning or losing an occupation makes no sense to me), and how many lives and how much money do we want to invest in this effort? Also, what is the impact on Afghanistan where the real terrorist threat lies?
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5I think you and I agree but I believe "how do we end the occupation (winning or losing an occupation makes no sense to me), and how many lives and how much money do we want to invest in this effort?" is addressed by what I said. I believe we need to get out. We also need to get out in such a way that Iraq isn't left teetering and in a position to be victimized by Al-Queda and Iran. To that end what I laid out is our best course. If we execute on this we'll be out soon enough, leaving behind a stable and reasonably friendly Iraq (at the very least not an overt enemy) and can turn our attention elsewhere.

        Anything less makes the whole effort a disasterous waste of lives and resources with absolutley nothing substantial gained for it.
  • bsmang, on 07/23/2008, -16/+21What I want to know is, why the hell are so many people still coming on here and defending McCain against himself? Isn't it obvious to them that he doesn't know what the *****'s going on and shouldn't be president? I can see his "fans" being a bit apprehensive about admitting it, but to come on here and actively argue for him anyway? ***** retards.
    • Nanite, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3He's paying people 'McCain Bux' to come here and shill for him. Easy as that.
  • futureisours, on 07/23/2008, -25/+17uhh on the contrary, I think any one of Obama's uneducated, feel good BS statements should disqualify him. Offshore drilling won't lower gas prices anyone? Oil went down $15 dollars on the day that Bush removed the executive ban on offshore drilling and doing that is pretty useless in light of the Congressional ban and all the lawsuits going around against it.
    • bsmang, on 07/23/2008, -14/+6Then maybe that should tell you that the price didn't go down because of Bush lifting a ban? (Or that if it did, then it's only a temporary knee-jerk reaction... big money saver there....)
    • mrsammercer, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1It's not like the idea that offshore drilling won't lower gas prices is some hairbrain theory that obama came up with. It's pretty much generally accepted that it wouldn't lower prices for at least a decade. And off shore drilling won't help us in the long term, either. Focusing on alternative energy and more efficient usage can lower prices faster AND it's the only real long term option.
  • datastorageguy, on 07/23/2008, -34/+27The surge worked.

    Liberals were wrong, Obama was wrong, and the Huffington post continues to be wrong on a daily basis.
    • Fallenshadow, on 07/23/2008, -19/+5The surge did not work, it is only hiding a building civil war thats going to explode when we ease up in Iraq.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -18/+7Yes, surge is working fine if you are a traitor that likes to ruin USA prosperity through militaristic waste. You love Iraqis and Taliban - you go live with them. We do not want or need the help of your kind. I think you had better worry more about us true Republicans than Liberals.
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -10/+3Keep pouring on those negative diggs. Truth burns like brine after 20 lashes, doesn’t it.
    • digigeek, on 07/23/2008, -15/+8Quit ignorantly parroting "the surge worked", which you heard on Fox news and please explain to me what "the surge" is and what is its purpose. Don't know, do you? Did not think so.

      BTW - It has had no impact at all. When you occupy a country by force, its citizens get pissed off sooner or later and start shooting at you - the longer you stay, the worse it gets - that's simple common sense.

      Wait, what happened to Afghanistan? That's where we went in the first place to capture the supposed mastermind behind the trade center attacks, RIGHT? Oh, I see, that's not a priority anymore? More important to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks? Sure, that makes sense. What the hell, right? If we would have spent HALF the effort we did finding Hussein in trying to catch Bin Laden we might actually have done something achievable and our soldiers could have been home several years ago. Eh?
    • dinot, on 07/23/2008, -9/+3The surge worked? 1,039 US troops have died since the start of the surge. And for what??? To get Iraq's stability back to the point it was when Bush said "Mission Accomplished"?? How the ***** does that constitute a success? Isn't success usually defined by leaving things BETTER than what they were at the time you got involved?

      Let me put it another way: Iraq was 0 before we went in, let's say it was -10 right before the surge. Well, it's -5 now. Yeah, it's better than -10, but it's still 5 less than 0.

      Yeah, Obama was wrong to oppose the surge because now it worked, but that doesn't change the fact that 1,039 American families now have one less member to celebrate the holidays with.
  • nickbyfleet, on 07/23/2008, -13/+9Can we just be done with election stuff, I'm already tired of it. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government still get in.
    • krnldmp, on 07/23/2008, -9/+3This is alsmost funny when you realize people's limited attention span is why the remaining candidates are so tiring even for those with above average capacity.
  • Nico_, on 07/23/2008, -12/+7Why is it that even though an anti McCain article is dugg up all the anti McCain posts are dugg down and pro McCain posts are dugg up?

    Please don't digg me down without a reply..
    • Sedren, on 07/23/2008, -11/+8Not saying there aren't a supply of McCain fans here atm, but I for one, never digg down all anti-McCain or pro-McCain comments generically based on their opinion. I digg em based on whether what they said was worth saying. To me it just seems that most anti-[insert topic here] comments have a lot less merit than pro comments... Its just too easy to jump on the "Down with McCain!" bandwagon for instance, than it is to actual supply reasons why. And even when a comment is purely opinion, the anti comments are usually leaning much closer to ranting contrary to popular belief you aren't going to convince anyone of your position via excessive swearing), than reasonable discussion. And no, I don't mean this thread specifically, thankfully the discussion is for the most part rational in this thread, which is quite a rarity. Well, that at least is my attempt an explanation, although I'm probably being far too idealistic, and there are just a lot of McCain fans here. :-P

      That being said I'm not voting because I don't care for either candidate, so please don't assume I'm 'pro-McCain.'
    • Aethirig, on 07/23/2008, -10/+7Check out the John McCain Online Action Center sometime. It's basically a giant astroturfing operation. I take a bit of idle pleasure in de-spamming. It's usually pretty easy to tell the fakeposts by keyword or structure.

      The irony, of course, is that legitimate arguments for McCain tend to get lost amongst the noise, so the astroturfing is probably hurting him more than helping.
    • OrigamiRonin, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3As a general rule I don't give a thumbs-down to a person that I don't agree with, just to people who disrupt the conversation or spout total BS. Unfortunately there is a lot of BS to wade through in order to get to any of the well-reasoned points.

      Listening to people I disagree with is what helps me learn, at least when they present a decent argument. I'm definitely in the minority on that point though as a lot of people of all stripes try to blindly bury anything that doesn't jibe with their opinion. Good luck trying to get a coherent explanation from someone.

      As for the recent rash of pro-McCain activity, there is an effort being made by his campaign to recruit people to spread positive messages regarding him. It doesn't list Digg specifically, but be aware that there is at least some amount of astroftufing going on:

      http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInterac ...

      Who knows if this is having any kind of effect or not. If McCain's fans want to pump up their guy, that's great. Unfortunately, I don't see this enthusiasm coming through in reasoned debate so much as just the automatic naysaying of anything that doesn't toe the party line.
    • anima715, on 07/23/2008, -6/+0Ok... Here's your reply! Watch:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieHwOm4ljA

      Listen, if you still stand on your current position after watching this, we will know your a sham!
    • jepaco, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I suspect many "pro-McCain" posts are dugg down because they don't offer any facts or analysis either in their support of McCain or in their bashing of Obama. It's actually surprising how little the McCain supporters can say that's based in fact.
  • bsmang, on 07/23/2008, -13/+23What I want to know, since we have so many McCain fans here at the moment, is what the ***** does he mean when he says he's going to "win the war"? What is he going to win? Who is he going to certifiably defeat? Whose unconditional surrender will he acquire???? And how? And if we withdraw our troops, which he calls "losing the war", then who are we losing to? Who is it in that case that claims they were victorious over the USA? I call BS to the whole thing - he's just trying to get the stupid rednecks fired up.
    • digigeek, on 07/23/2008, -9/+13Right on. The whole ordeal was supposed to be an effort to capture Bin Laden and his group in response to the Trade Center attacks.It is ABSURD that we ended up here today - completely insane. We no longer care about Bin Laden, it seems. Oh, we just cared so much about the Iraqi people? What? Give me a break, NO ONE in the Bush administration gives a rat's ass about them and we all know it.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -10/+2All that OBL stuff might be wrong. OBL is hardly the richest Saudi that would support anti-US acts like the 911 idea of Atta and the Hamburg group. Given the severity of the 911 crimes it made some psychological sense to lash out briefly and OBL was as good a target as any. But then Bush was not able to say no to the Military after that. My assessment is that his failures were mostly due to a combination of weak character and bad judgment. Anyone have another analysis?
      • bsmang, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4I don't think the military developed its own desires for war.. My correction would be that I think Bush was "not able to say no to" his own desire to be a war president and to rake as much money as possible from the taxpayers to the big corps.
  • fromaworld, on 07/23/2008, -17/+24The Huffington Post also thinks that anyone who ate cheerios for breakfast is not fit to be president either.

    Come on guys. The Huffington Post is turning into the equivalent of a political tabloid. They jump on *every* single chance to bash McCain and praise Obama. They've become the liberal, web equivalent of Fox News.
    • blackinthmiddle, on 07/23/2008, -11/+10Here's the problem with your argument. When news outlets bash Obama, they usually do so with nonsense. For example:

      o Obama doesn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge, so he's not "patriotic"
      o Obama doesn't have enough "flag flair", so he's not patriotic
      o Obama's a muslim
      o Obama hates white people

      When people bash McCain, it's usually with the truth. Can you name me *one* anti McCain digg article that made it to the front page that had erroneous comments about him? When he *repeatedly* references countries that don't exist anymore, that's simply the truth. When he shows his lack of basic geography skills, that's the truth. When he says he was for tax cuts, then against them, then for them, then against them, it's the truth. And in this case, when he shows that he simply doesn't understand the recent mechanisms that have brought about change in Iraq, that's also the truth.

      Again, if you hate Obama and want to support McCain, fine. As a professor of mine once said, however, "An opinion is only as good as the evidence that backs it up." I think, at best, McCain is starting to show signs of senility. At worst, he's an idiot, flip-flopper and liar. I think it's a combination of the two. There is TONS of evidence to support this opinion! Call it what you want, you can't deny the veracity of it.
      • fromaworld, on 07/23/2008, -3/+7My point can easily be illustrated by going to HuffingtonPost.com and looking at their front page.

        http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/31316/thumbs/ ...

        Tabloid? Yes.
      • malex, on 07/23/2008, -8/+6@ fromaworld:

        You've established that HP has a consistently anti-McCain position, but not that any of those stories are false or distorted.

        For example, in this article, we see McCain saying the following to Couric:

        "I don't know how you respond to something that is as -- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."

        The problem here is that his story is objectively false. Don't you think that deserves some attention, or do you simply reject any article that comes from someone who dislikes McCain?
    • shinxy, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Know what? There needs to be a liberal equivalent of FOX. We live in a competitive society and unless libs push back as hard as the neocons, the Republicans will always have the advantage of dirty tricks on their side. I'm tired of it. I want some dirty tricks up our sleeves too.

      Say what you want but Huffpost is the one voice of liberal punditry in a sea of conservative punditry. That's "fair and balanced" for you!
    • fromaworld, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1My point isn't so much that this article is untrue. John McCain, like the rest of us, is only human. (Quite an old human at that)

      My point is that there is such a bias to only publish anti-McCain stories on the FP of Digg. Why did this never get to the front page? http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY5MGVjM ...
  • fromaworld, on 07/23/2008, -21/+16The Huffington Post also thinks that anyone who ate cheerios for breakfast is not fit to be president either.

    Come on guys. The Huffington Post is turning into the equivalent of a political tabloid. They jump on *every* single chance to bash McCain and praise Obama. They've become the liberal, web equivalent of Fox News.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/23/2008, -15/+10The Awakening would not have succeeded without the surge. The surge would not have succeeded without the Awakening.
    • malex, on 07/23/2008, -5/+5The Anbar Awakening began well before the US surge was even announced. That's an objective fact.
      Everything you said was conjecture.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6Just as Obama's statement that there would "have been improved security even without the surge" is also conjecture. The fact that the Awakening began in September 2006 does not preclude the fact that it succeeded once the surge was in place.
      • malex, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4The problem here is according to McCain, the Surge is directly responsible for the Sunni leaders fighting back against al-Qaeda, which is chronologically impossible.

        This suggests that he's not all that on top of the facts.
  • hydrogenbomb, on 07/23/2008, -12/+4McSenile strikes again. Not fit to be president, unless you want the republican dream, a weak senile addle brained right wing sock puppet for the billionaire class of neocon zionists and big oil intrests and military industrial complex CEO's in his adminstration.
    • kenedamick, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2You're dugg down by McClowns, but your post is true. Dugg.
    • Nanite, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1I agree, your post is spot-on, but the neocons holdouts (McCain's only supporters) don't like the truth.
  • hydrogenbomb, on 07/23/2008, -10/+2McSenile strikes again. Not fit to be president, unless you want the republican dream, a weak senile addle brained right wing sock puppet for the billionaire class of neocon Zionists and big oil interests and military industrial complex CEO's in his administration.
    • hydrogenbomb, on 07/23/2008, -9/+1Can we please get a president who can complete an accurate thought or complete a sentence.

      Republican definitin of an elitist: completed 3rd grade grammer and can think their way out of a paper bag.
  • satanikus, on 07/23/2008, -4/+18This Article Title: Not Good: An Effront to the Englisch Languege
  • cobophers, on 07/23/2008, -8/+1If his cognitive impairment is fine, then please excuse his cognitive gaffe? I don't think so...Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb the Awakening Council....F*ck it we'll do it live! Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb people who write history differently than I say!
  • DuffyDirect, on 07/23/2008, -10/+6"his is a fundamental misunderstanding of the history in Iraq and should disqualify McCain from the Presidency."

    history??? when i think iraq history i think like... babylon, trajan, the mongol sack of baghdad..........
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -7/+1He even supported the Vietnam War. I think we all know who were the big winners of that. He would have liked to have a North and South Vietnam and another DMZ so we could have another $xx billion a year expense for 100 years and a chance for another nuclear boogie man to extort money from us. Too bad Hawks, people finally won out that time! We will win again and I don't think we will be quite so forgiving this time.
  • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -20/+16HUFF HUFF AND AWAY !!!!!

    What Gaff? What misunderstanding?
    Arent we all just a bit sick and tired of huffington and their propaganda and NON-STORIES?

    To all those that just dont get it:
    WE DID HAVE USA TROOPS IN IRAQ ACCOMPLISHING THINGS BEFORE THE SURGE. SIMPLE! END OF STORY!
    GET IT? DUH!!

    WTF is with all the retards posting crap from huff all the time - are you off medication?
    Did mom let you out of the house to visit a net cafe?!
    • blackinthmiddle, on 07/23/2008, -8/+10Here's the problem with people like jabberwolf. Rather than try to support their opinions with intelligent discourse, they fall back on the lowest common denominator: sophomoric name-calling.

      "What Gaff? What misunderstanding?"

      Admit it, you didn't even read the article, did you? If you did, you wouldn't be asking that question!
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/23/2008, -7/+3The problem with them is that they still buy the old line, despite all the evidense out there. They are now, effectively helping the overthrow of, what was once called "the home of the Free, and land of the Brave".

        To still hold these views, to still support this course of action - is treasonous. The bills this course of action generate will have to be paid by those not even alive today. It is, by definition "Generational extortion" - holding tomorrows generation hostage so people don't have to admit that they were too fearful back in 2001 to understand what was happening, and too patriotic to listen to their friends. Instead, they'll enslave their children.
  • hydrogenbomb, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2Reagan, Bush Senior, Bush Junior. What do they have in common?
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/23/2008, -3/+9They defeated Democrats in five elections?
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1And your nation... don't forget your nation. When you child is calling some Asian "master", don't blame China - blame yourself. You are the ones that with all the hoopla, and high fives sold off your future so you can have trinkets today...
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Why yes! If only Carter, Dukakas, Gore or Kerry had won we would be tightening the screws on China and the Middle East AND living in a magical world of electric cars, Europeans who loved us, and billowy white clouds floating on clean, clean air!
  • HeavyWaters, on 07/23/2008, -14/+11Fundemental Misunderstandin? You huff-post subscribers are so smart.
  • ramiro, on 07/23/2008, -18/+13BURIED: Leftist brainwashing propaganda.
    • blackinthmiddle, on 07/23/2008, -10/+7So the truth is now brainwashing?

      Why do so many, in their zeal to support their candidate, refuse to process facts? The article's facts and time line are irrefutable, but rather than address that you give a blanket, "BAH, IT'S LEFTIST BRAINWASHING", response. Why not actually address the article and dispute it's facts (if you can)?

      It's this kind of thinking that got us two terms of "dubya".
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/23/2008, -10/+1Then you have nothing to fear.. they have nothing to wash on you...if you feel that way.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/23/2008, -11/+10The best we can say for McCain is that he is not smart enough to be dishonest.
  • qXdc, on 07/23/2008, -14/+12Buried due to source being Huffinton Post.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5Yepper, nothing to see here - I don't like the source, so it must be wrong...

      I am surprised that people still do this ***** after it getting you Bush and an Iraq war - and the wholesale sale of your future generations to pay for it...

      But I guess some people just want to ***** with the future generation... it is easier than trying to ***** with people that can fight back. Which would explain the rush to fight poverty stricken desert people barely hanging on to life....

      The fact that aggressors are being spanked by said poverty stricken people is just icing on the cake.
    • AvangionQ, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4You don't bury a source -- that's about as bad as shooting the messenger of bad news ... you prove the source wrong -- find a factual error or blatant lie and rail against it ... barring that, you accept the bad news as truth and *deal with it* ...
  • anima715, on 07/23/2008, -10/+0Must See!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieHwOm4ljA
  • 1oneWON, on 07/23/2008, -9/+9John McCain, as the title of the article suggests, has a fundamental misunderstanding of Iraq. Everyone gives the guy a pass because of him serving in the Navy (though we tend to overlook that the guy graduated with a class rank of 894 out of 899 from the Naval Academy), but he has made several errors.

    1.) He mixed up the Sunni and Shi'a
    2.) He incorrectly referenced the "Iraq/Pakistan border." Did he mean Iran, since that is the COUNTRY between Iraq and Pakistan. Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border.
    3.) He incorrectly credited the "Almighty" Surge with the beginning of the Anbar awakening. No, the Anbar Awakening took place before the Surge.

    On top of all this is the general belief that Surge has helped us "win" this war. First of all, this isn't a government with an army we are talking about here but rather insurgents and in that regard it's pretty difficult to "win" a "war" in the traditional sense we've come to define like winning the World Wars.

    Secondly, this is guerrilla war taking place on two battlegrounds: Iraq and Afghanistan. We sent a heavy concentration of troops into Iraq, so the insurgents simply moved their attention back to Afghanistan, a country that since the Surge has become more violent and accounted for more American deaths last month than Iraq.

    We haven't "won" in Iraq more so than we have forced our enemy to move back into Afghanistan, the oft-overlooked battleground we immediately dismiss because we "won" there back in 2003...at least temporarily.
  • abooth413, on 07/23/2008, -9/+9Recent comments are mostly bashing Huffington Post.. but the source here isn't the point (unless you are claiming the story is inaccurate)

    The point here is McCain's consistent display of not being a very smart guy. On numerous occasions he provides incorrect data. It is clearly apparent in several situations that he answers questions with pre-written answers. (This is most obvious when someone asks him to elaborate about an answer and he simply repeats the same answer. He also has no idea how to use a computer and/or the internets.

    If I were running a company of 50 people, McCain would be unhireable as a manager or director of any sort. Why are republicans putting him up to run the country? After Bush, you would think they could see the importance of having someone with more tact and intelligence as our commander in chief. I can think of 2 reasons the GOP would nominate another incompetent, aggressive person to represent their party.

    1. Nobody with a qualifying IQ would follow the path the GOP wants to take the republican party. This is probably a bit of an overstatement, but most people I've met that support the new Neo-Con GOP (not those that still represent the true republican platform).. most of these Neo-Cons lack intelligence and common sense.

    2. They want the media and public to be so busy laughing and making fun of our president to notice the crimes and horrible policy they are acting out. I'm a Daily Show fan.. but I am often discouraged about how Torture, and Illegal Wiretapping, and troops dying is turned into comedy. If our president were a well-spoken, intelligent, professional CEO type .. we would be more likely to take action against his anti-american action rather than just laugh at it.
  • AvangionQ, on 07/23/2008, -8/+8I'm much more angry with CBS, that they would intentionally attempt to conceal a blatant lie made by a politician and further lose their integrity as non-partisan journalists, than I am with a politician who has already lost all semblance of credibility through repeatedly caught lies ...
  • kenedamick, on 07/23/2008, -9/+3haha - I love seeing all of you neo-clowns getting bent out of shape over a huffington post rather than dealing with the facts. So hey, how's that "librul media" working out for you guys now?

    Someone get the old man his crazy pills. He's babbling once again!
  • rationalbeats, on 07/23/2008, -9/+6Why does John McCain hate our troops? Seriously?

    His disregard for the facts on the ground damage our troops, and put Americans at risk.

    McCain is unfit to serve
    • Jexie, on 07/23/2008, -8/+1Oh he's not in this game to serve, he's here to *take* like all the other politicians - he just happens to be to dumb to even do that.
  • sisternovena, on 07/23/2008, -10/+2Oh c'mon, guys, give a guy a break. This just isn't his best material. I'm sure his thoughts on relations between North Vietnam and Cambodia in 1972 are unusually thorough and nuanced.

    I bet they go something like, "Get yer damn hands off me, you ugly gook! No, no! Not the bucket again! Not the bucket! No! Ahhhh! Ahhhhhrrrghghghghh!"
  • geekee, on 07/23/2008, -6/+8II'm laughing at you idiots. You said the surge would fail and now are arguing semantics because you still can't admit you were WRONG. The troop surge was an important part of the success because it gave Sunnis the strength to oppose al qaeda. The Huffington post is a joke.
    • shinxy, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2Wrong again. The Sunnis were opposing al qaeda before the troop surge even started. That was the whole point and you missed it completely. Got any more brilliant opinions to spew?
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2The Sunnis were opposing
        This I know
        For Arianna tells me so
    • jepaco, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1If you consider security improvement as the only goal of the surge, then yes, it worked. If you look at the goals the Bush administration laid out for the surge, then no, the surge did not accomplish most of them. A success? Hmm.
  • scoottie, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080723/ap_on_el_pr/mc ...
  • Arkons24, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7Buried as Obamaganda
  • magus_melchior, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Fundamental misunderstanding? Or even more of a patsy for Cheney and Rove than Bush?

    One would think that if the Republicans are so desperate to keep their favorite tools from getting investigated next year, they would keep a firm leash on McCain's policy advisors.
  • grbradsk, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1I once sort of liked McCain, but the more he talks, the more I see that blank incurious stare on his blank face, the less I like him and the more he seems like that other idiot president.

    Forget conservative or liberal (they've swapped places anyhow), think about dumb vs smart. Dumb people do really dumb things. Smart people are often quite successful. Let's try someone smart, see how it goes this time.
  •  

    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.