digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Rumsfeld Says He's Too Busy To Testify On Iraq War

news.yahoo.com — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he essentially was too busy to testify at a public hearing on the Iraq war, raising a new furor on Capitol Hill over the three-year-old conflict.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -131/+10Not suprising, since this is only politicking by the left. Leave the man alone and let him do his job!
    • DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+88This isn't a right or left issue, this is an American issue. People are dying.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41One of our servicemen every ten hours at present, and the party with 100% of the power in government is too cowardly to "change the course."
    • scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43Let the man do his job? He hasn't been doing his job for the entire time he's been in the Bush administration.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36Ahhh your leaders are unaccountable now too? That is a funny way to conduct a democracy. Well, judging from this example countries like Iraq - and a lot of other countries in the middle east - will shake their heads in agreement and implement "the same level of demcratic accountability".

      I have NEVER seen such a disgraceful state of affairs.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33"Rumsfeld Says He's Too Busy To Testify On Iraq War"

      Is Rumsfeld too busy to go to jail?

      He hasn't done a very good job in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the Pentagon. What do we need him for?

      I think he's full of hot air; a Dick Halliburton lackey that helps them get no-bid contracts via the military.
    • theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Only the left actually give a ***** about people dying and Americas image being shot to pieces by retarded red-neck grunts who shoot injured Iraqis infront of Fox news cameras and then 20 minutes later do an interview to camera saying "I dun shot him and it felt like woah awesome!"

      Only the left care that billions of dollars has been spent on this war for no apparent gain except that one burnt-out dictator has been taken out of business while 20 more worse people are still around and half a country has been made unstable.

      Only the left care that the Middle East is being fueled entirely on Iraq and Israel as a massive motivation against America, only the left care that reliance on Saudi oil is going to come and bite America on the ass.

      The real fact is, only the left care about the real world - the right only care about how many ***** plasma screens their Churches can buy and who should be allowed to get married - the right do not constitute a government.
    • krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3@Mrkamikaze
      Yes - you are correct, despite your negative 87 "thumbs down" rating... This really is simply a political ploy, for which Rumsfeld doesn't have time. I commend him for doing his job and not getting bogged down in politics ... as DigDugDigger points out, people are dying; I'm glad Rumsfeld understands the stakes.

      Per the unaccountability accusations - that's a bunch of crap. Rumsfeld HAS testified plenty in the past, when it wasn't a political trick. Furthermore, he's only Sec. Def. RIGHT NOW because in 2004 the AMERICAN PEOPLE voted to keep Bush in office.
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yes, leave him alone, hold the hearing without him, and let him face whatever decision is made since he is not there to represent himself.

      What would happen the average Joe tried to pull the same crap? Rummy should face the same consequences. I don't care if you're Jesus, Budda, Allah, Kali, Anibus, Zeus, Cthulhu, etc. himself, no one is above the law.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1"Rumsfeld Says He's Too Busy To Testify On Iraq War"

      If you would actually read the article, Rumsfield will happily meet with the Senate behind closed doors to answer any questions they may have on the record. However, he refuses to have this questioning public becasue of the time it would take.

      This article title is misleading because Rumsfield is not refusing to testify, just refusing to testify in public. He's ready and willing to testify to the Senate behind closed doors.

      But I don't suppose this will change anything. All of the liberals will continue to be unsatisfied that he's even being questioned and will continue to complain about "thats not enough!". I expect to see a lot of ignorant comments from Americans and Canadians alike about our government. Post away!
    • star, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"TubaTechno" claims; "...Rumsfield will happily meet with the Senate behind closed doors to answer any questions they may have on the record. However, he refuses to have this questioning public becasue of the time it would take."

      Hehehe...what an extreme load of bullcrap..."becasue of the time it would take"...ROFL!!
    • krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1To those who claim not liberal bias on Digg, please explain to me why this story had over 650 Diggs and this one:
      http://www.digg.com/world_news/Rumsfeld_Decides_to_Testify_on_Iraq_War_Before_US_Senate
      explaining why this one is WRONG only has 19.
    • GreasedUpDefGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I guess, in his case, the best way not to sound stupid is to shut up.
    • DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If seeing Americans returning from a illegitimate war in caskets or without limbs upsets you, then I guess you're a liberal.
  • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+78Politics? If I'd asked the man in charge of a bungled war and reconstruction to tell me what the *****'s going on, I'd expect a ***** answer. I'd say it's high time he stopped whatever he's "busy" with... for good.
    • Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -79/+5Explain to me what the point is of having the Defense Secretary hip deep in a global war testify (again). Its just a political ploy to make it appear to the public they give a *****.
    • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+54Well, for one thing, attacks and violence have increased by orders of magnitude since he last testified. We're talking about an average of 100 civilian deaths per day at this point. Additionally, there are reports of rampant corruption, more troops called up, the Haditha revelations and the recent buildup of troops in Baghdad.

      I'd say quite a lot has changed, and the ASC has the right to call up military leaders to answer for those facts. The ASC gives a ***** because when things go wrong, they are the ones responsible for oversight.

      In addition, the Armed Services Committee is a bipartisan committee controlled by the majority party, the Republicans. The request came, in part, from its REPUBLICAN committee chairman, Senator John Warner. You don't have to be a liberal to see that the Iraq campaign is spiraling out of control, if it ever was under control. The only "spin" here is from know-nothings like you who relentlessly shill for the administration while we spend blood and treasure on a fruitless boondoggle abroad.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Drahkon -- it's only $8 billion a month, or according to the Congressional Research Service, expected to exceed $320 billion. Really, just chickenfeed to the brainwashed Republican masses.

      Why do you hate America, you darn terrorist lover you?
    • scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28We need Colbert to run the investigation.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14We need a ***** nuke dropped on these crooks! (Metaphorically-speaking)

      How much is it going to take? Do Americans not know what should be done?

      Conduct public hearings, and let's get this info out in the open. If the mainstream learns the extent of the crimes that have been committed against them by the Bush administration and their corporate lackies, they will storm the ***** White House!

      Yes, it is THAT bad. We're not talking about some minor crime like Nixon's coverups, this is a crime of unprecedented proportions. Literally, the worst in the history of the US! Never have we had so much tax revenue embezzled and diverted without accountability! Billions of dollars!

      Notice, I have said nothing yet about the false claims that led us to the Iraq war, or the warcrimes committed afterwards.

      They are not going to get away with this. I do not believe that the people of America are this cowardly and gullible to let them go free.

      Or are they? Are you, America?

      Bush is right about one thing: freedom must be fought for and protected.

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    • AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Re: bigdavediode

      ONLY $8 Billion a MONTH. What have we ever spent $8 Billion per MONTH for 3 YEARS on? WW2?

      This actually brings up a good point. I have yet to hear any inflation adjusted comparisons between this Iraq conflict (NOT WW3) and WW2.
    • krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Drahknon

      That sounds all well in good, except for the inconvient fact that Rumsfeld gives regular press conferences and has done Senate hearings in the past.
    • Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Re: AnotherBrian

      The US spent $288 billion USD on WWII, and I believe inflation adjusted, that would be about $2 trillion USD. Of course, at that time we had 16 million soldiers engaged as opposed to 150,000 in Iraq. And, WWII saw about 62 million people die (about 290 thousand US), or about 2.5% of the world population at the time. There's no official estimate on Iraqi casualties, military casualties are estimated between 10,000 and 12,000 and 40,000 civilians have been killed per adding up body counts in incidents reported in the media (though, statistical sampling shows a much higher civilian death rate) -- the real fact is nobody has a good count, it's just a big number. The US has lost about 3,000 in combat and an estimated 12,000 more from "other" causes.

      Iraq has been cheaper (at $300 billion, not counting reconstruction or military efforts elsewhere), we'll employ about 1% as many soldiers as WWII, but the modern soldiers are about 6x more likely to get killed. However, the $5.8 million per-kill expenditure for Iraq is much higher than WWII.
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@OBKenobi: Ok, while i know the dems are itching to send indictments flying, they are still the minority party in the US congress. Meaning that even if they wanted to do something, chances are they will cause a party-line vote, in which they would immediatly loose because they are the minority party.

      Dont expect to see anything really happen until the US 2006 elections take place, where I expect most of the republican incumbants to loose their seats, at least in the contested disricts.
  • silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -86/+4This article is all spin. Like the man said, he is not obligated to testify at every cry that some liberal Democrat makes to annoy him at every corner.
    • NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -12/+75I've had it. I'm going to snap. Go ***** your self you right wing religious nut conservative with your bush loving dicksucking. God. I really cant take you people anymore. Say liberal one more time so I can bitch slap your stupid ass accross your stupid ***** face with your god damn bitch tactics.
    • daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -43/+10@NinjAlt

      You appear to have used a liberal interpretation of correct sentence structure and English usage in the construction of your posting.

      :)
    • joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35NinjAlt, I second that motion. It's about god damn time people stopped tacking liberal onto everything and act like it's a bad thing. News Flash: Liberals founded this ***** country. Liberals make progress.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19I've had it. The United States is split apart into two halves, and I sure as hell don't like one half.

      The US ringwingers, republicans and neocons are no longer democratic. They are a parasytical element in Society and they are openly, brazenly dedicated to fascist values. I am not exaggerating - we know people like that in europe very well : N A Z I ' s.

      PLEASE get rid of these people. Start a revolution as soon as possible. This will lead to civil war !
    • kolywater, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5i agree, ninjaAlt. adding the word 'liberal' to an argument or rebuttal completely invalidates any worthwhile point the poster may have had (clearly not the case with the parent, he's just a troll). the word liberal has no effective meaning now, and only serves to discredit its disseminator.
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And while you're at it, quit using the word "moonbat". It just makes you look like an idiot.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"i agree, ninjaAlt. adding the word 'liberal' to an argument or rebuttal completely invalidates any worthwhile point the poster may have had"

      And yet the word "neo-con" and following words:

      "I've had it. I'm going to snap. Go ***** your self you right wing religious nut conservative with your bush loving dicksucking. God. I really cant take you people anymore. Say liberal one more time so I can bitch slap your stupid ass accross your stupid ***** face with your god damn bitch tactics."

      Don't achieve the same thing?! I smell hypocrasy on both sides.
    • kolywater, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i don't oftten see the word republican tacked on simply to add insult to injury; however, there hundreds of comments that throw around the word 'liberal' for exactly that purpose. if hundreds of people used the word 'neo-con' in the way that 'liberal' is used on digg, ninjalt would be ranting about that as well.

      this has little to do with sides, and everythign to do with trolling.
  • ccec, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27@Mrkamikaze

    People, people. Let's just all agree that no one in congress or the white house or the senate gives a *****. Otherwise why would we be in this mess.
    • brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I disagree strongly. They give a ***** - just not about the things importasnt to us. They give a ***** about maintaining power, robbing us and future generations blind, killing the environment, watching everything we do, turning the internet into the shopping channel, etc, etc. They are passionate about these things.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Don't discount how many of them are under pressure by their political parties to follow the status quo.

      Some of them give a *****--slightly--but they still can't really do anything about it. Not while we've got this partisan political system in the US that's divided between two parties. Two fatally corrupt political parties.

      Do people not see how they have hijacked the elections? The media, everyone, is divided up along these two party lines. Ofcourse we won't get any investigations, both parties have blood on their hands!
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think i've figured out why the people in congress are not doing anything against the administration. Because they cant effectively win. Currently, the majority of people who are against the administration, are in the minority of congress. If they were to start something now, it would most likely be struck down by the majority in congress, thus preventing it being used later when the current minority gains a majority in the 2006 elections.

      Now after the 2006 elections have come, and the changeover occurs, if they still dont do anything, THEN and only then be worried.
  • ccec, on 10/12/2007, -8/+39@silentdud, "Every cry that some liberal Democrat makes"

    You tell them Dud! "Oh no. The war isn't going as planned. Oh no, there's a Downing Street Memo. Oh no, thousands of Americans dying! Oh no, we were misled!"

    Who cares you stupid libs! Ha ha, stupid liberals.
    • ccec, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38And that was sarcasm, I should add. Thank you.
    • CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The saddest thing is, the sarcasm post-script was necessary to definitively differentiate this from a genuine know-nothing conservative. The far-right cannot be parodied, because no matter what you say, an actual Republican (much to the chagrin of reasonable Republicans, mind you) has probably said something just as absurd.

      Just see www.fstdt.com (fundies say the darndest things) for some disturbing examples.
  • DaveRocks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Wow
  • Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48Rumsfeld should be thrown in jail.
  • justhim, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23I second that Daiken
    • detrate, on 10/12/2007, -24/+1um... what?
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13There IS a reply link. It's how my comment ended up under and indented from yours.
  • pidge, on 10/12/2007, -15/+0I don't like Rumsfeld either but you do understand that this is what government does. It has hearings to pretend they actually are doing something for Americans. Where there are hearings, there are cameras. When congress sees cameras, they see votes. That is why there are so much unnecessary drama on the hill when there are hearings, yet when the cameras are off, they go about their daily business of screwing the voters in exchange for money. If I was wrong or right, I wouldn't really see any gain to testifying before congress.
  • Toon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Guys, cut him some slack. He is very busy. He has to keep shooing the kids off his lawn by shaking his cane at them.

    Also, don't forget, while being a Harbinger of Death has its perks (awesome costume, flexible hours), it does not pay well. He works a night job as a guy who gets mumbles things under his breath at the old lady next to him who keeps beating him at Bingo.
  • skoles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Rumsfelds secret is that he constantly walks around the office with a folder filled with papers & a look of "I'm on a mission" face.

    Congress comes up to him (yes, all of them) and is like "Hey, think you gotta moment to talk about..." and Rummy just mutters and points to the papers with a look of being in a rush as he ducks into a broom closet leaving Congress with a dumbfounded look.
  • UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Rumsfeld does about-face on testifying >
    Defense secretary WILL face Senate panel over Iraq policies

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/rumsfeld.ap/index.html
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16That was fast. The douche-bag must have been hanging out here on digg and picked up on the negative vibe.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This man knows he failed.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You know he asked to resign over a year ago, but Bush told him to stay.

      At least, that's what he claimed. Bush didn't deny it.
    • Srezic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hey Kenobi, you mind posting a link to support that? I would be interested in reading about it.

      Thanks mate.
  • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24I guess he was too busy in secret meetings with defense contractors handing out no bid contracts to Cheney's wife. Or maybe he was helping Condi pick out shoes...
    What an ***** - he's the worst thing to happen to the military since don't ask don't tell....
    • Bakkhai42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7OMG! Right on.

      Bush Administration... Worst ever.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10He's busy searchin for those WMDs?
  • Choppinski, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Time to clean house. Get rid of every Politician in office today. Next step would be to dismantle political parties


    SAVAGE NATION!



    • joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17If this 'democracy' is going to survive, something is going to have to happen. Right now with bush we have an 8 year theocracy already.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"SAVAGE NATION!"

      Kind of hard to maintain credibility when promoting the guy MSNBC fired for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die."
  • smlee, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0oh....
  • hodyoaten, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Why can't we just call a spade a spade and proclaim a dictatorship? No more shenanigans, everyone goes back to watching American Idol, and the administration pushes its agenda through more quickly.
    • nefty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Most people wouldn't beleive it even if they did come out and say they've taken over the country. "Breaking News: America now a dictatorsh-" Hey change the channel, American Idol is on!
    • Araya213, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I dont' even trust my gardner so how can I trust my dictator?
  • SupaFupa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Its not like these thugs face consequences for anything they've ever done. How can you hold any power over these guys when they never have and never will be held accountable for anything?
  • AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8the system is killing our souls

    ***** the Police, ***** the Troops, And ***** all you Dupes. True to the cause. True to My Self
  • romeohifi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Too busy making money on the tax payer's cost. Support our troops and vote Mr.Bush and his group out of the office.
    • SupaFupa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4As much as I hate smug ***** for starting posts with the term "ummm", I see no other way to tell you:

      Ummm, George Bush can't be reelected. Even though he's wiped his ass with the constitution every chance he gets, I think he'll be held to this one.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9There is one way, that's to impose a state of emergency.

      Unlikely, but CAN be done.

      They used to say that Clinton was going to do it. Instead it seems Bush used the same idea after 9/11 to at least get two terms of dictatorial control.

      Think back to how terrified anyone was to speak out against Bush shortly after 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks.

      It's funny how that Anthrax was sent to Daschle and Leahy; two people that did speak out against the Patriot Act. It was passed days later...
  • REALLYTANGY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If "they" are Liberals, then what does that make "you"? Neo-conservatives? Oh, and BTW, the next time "you" try to spin the term Liberal please think of Abraham Lincoln, remember him? He was the Liberal Republican US President that wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, that is unless abolishing slavery was wrong.
    • Nonleg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Liberal also used to mean what libertarian does today. We can't even call ourselves "classic liberals". BTW, wasn't it Lincoln that suspended habeus corpus? Um, yeah.

      So.. anyone not on the Pelosi bandwagon is a neocon. Feel better now?

      What new testimony is he supposed to bring to the table? Can't they ask a question and have him put it in a memo? The only new info I can possibly glean is that they may want to ask him if the Iraqis will really be ready by the end of 06 to take over. Why not ask their Minister of Interior to drop by to testify then? Wait, that wouldn't fit into the moonbat credo of making fun of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
  • caboosemoose, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6I am living in DC at the moment and had a chance to go to a public Armed Services Committee briefing on Iraq late last year. I can assure you all that whatever the technical institutional considerations for oversight, the public committee briefings are a pointless farce that damn well are a waste of Rumsfeld's time. If I were in his position I'd do my utmost to avoid them as each one basically ruins a day and accomplishes nothing. I assume the closed briefings are more productive. Or at least I sincerely hope so.

    None of this is to support Rumsfeld as a Defense Secretary. I find him a horrendous public speaker to rival Bush and Cheney, and am mortified by his attitude on many issues. As a strategist, I really couldn't say how much he is to blame next to the Joint Chiefs and other members of the military hierarchy. But I have every sympathy for him wanting to stay away from the Armed Services Committee chamber in Rayburn House Office Building.
    • Rince, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure, you may be completely right, but the issue is not whether it was pointless, the issue is that he said "no, I'm busy, it's pointless".
      Regardless of political background, I would see this as a pinprick: if the man is able to -publicly- ignore this, then it would set the precedent that his colleagues may also ignore this in future, citing his example.
      Is that a road you want to wander onto?
  • pointofact, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This arrogant and sarcastic guy has been a liability. Rumsfeld should be retired to the field to graze as he is past his expiry date as a worthwhile advisor !
  • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8How would America really be served by listening to Rumsfeld another time? Seriously, if you want the truth about the Iraq war is Rumsfeld the right source?
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If I told the people who give me my paycheck, "I'm too busy to report to you"... well I wouldn't do that, I'd get fired, rightfully so.

    Rumsfeld reports to Americans, we give him his paycheck. Looks like he forgot that. It's a good thing he works in government, anywhere else he'd be canned.
  • Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2subpoena
  • theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Rumsfeld is too busy smoking crack to even remember whats going on in Iraq. He would be so useless in any hearing you would probably get more useful testimony calling a brick to the stand - at least it could be a brick from a bombed out Iraqi building, that might actually provide some insight!!
  • mixelplfft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1what is taking so long to fire that administration? get the lead out people...wake up!!
    • Litespeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ooooh, now is a good time to listen to "Wake Up" by Rage Against The Machine.....
  • Ranger1988, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1It brings me great pleasure to see you LIBERALS get so worked up. When your side wins an election you can pick your own Defense Secretary---maybe a John Murtha or Dick Turbin.
    • afghanwhiggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hey thanks for your permission. Jackass.
  • krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2[Rumsfeld has] testified in the past and was not reluctant to face off against some of the committee's more vocal war critics, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
    - the article
  • krouskop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4This is hilarious...

    http://www.digg.com/world_news/Rumsfeld_Decides_to_Testify_on_Iraq_War_Before_US_Senate

    Rumsfeld actually will testify. I still think doing so will be a waste of this time, the rest of you though whining about his not testifying can eat some crow though.
    • ccec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, I think we all are happy to see that he will attend. Hopefully it doesn't keep him too distracted from our upcoming war with Iran. Then again, how much planning does he really put into those things anyway? Give him ten minutes and some sticky notes and we'll have another Rumsfeldian War Plan.
  • mlock2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2he will just say i cant comment on that its classified
  • AboveBeyond, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah he's probably too busy sipping on Gin and juice at his mansion in the Caribbean. I would to if I had one :)
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Give Rummy a break. He just got his new remastered special edition of Dr. Strangelove in the mail. He's way too busy protecting our vital bodily fluids to testify.
  • trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yuo can question Rumsfeld all you want as long as questions are submitted before hand so that Rumsfeld can research all the answers and run them through the George W. Bush censorship community who will provide answers in the form of George W. Bush past meal comments.

    Then you just need to learn how to decipher these comments.

    For instance, when bush met the Germin prime minister and commented about cutting up the roasted pig they where about to feast on he really ment carving up the middle east into oil and non oil producing entities.

    Just think like a spoiled redneck and the truth comes out.

  • kindaslow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I really hate to point this out, but the Bush administration is the effect not the cause of this ongoing useless partisan discourse.

    All Chimpy and Co. have done is tap into the small minded, hateful little followers that constitute the majority of voters in this country.
  • livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"People should not be afraid of their government, Governments should be afraid of their people."

    Rummy is basically showing how afraid he is by saying f**koff I'm too busy.
  • AICWebmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0He probably is. Someone has to count the bodies of all the American kids being killed in Iraq in the name of Exxon/Mobil and Halliburton.
  • Tsujigiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm going to try this one on my boss for my quarterly report-

    "I'm sorry Helen, but I'm just way too busy to answer or be held accountable for anything I've done this quarter..."
  •  

    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.