digg

Join DiggAbout

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

The Collapse of the Bush Administration

time.com — Great essay from Time Magazine on why the ship is sinking on the Bush administration.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -54/+124http://moveon.org
    http://opencongress.org

    Be counted and be aware
    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -271/+47Wow, what a surprise, Time magazine knocking a Republican. Who would have guessed that would happen from one of the Democrat House Organs. Maybe next will be Newsweek, or The New York TImes.
    • Monolith2, on 10/12/2007, -215/+55Hey Diggers, im a republican. Digg me down, quick!
    • FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/12/2007, -193/+44You will probably get dugg down, KDX, but its true. I can't stand Time because of their horrible, horrible slant. It's almost like reading People magazine now - barely any valid news at all.
    • Gannoc, on 10/12/2007, -36/+218Actually, I've also heard comments that Time Magazine is too conservative. If a media outlet is going to be critical of anything political, its obviously going to have to take a "side".

      Should the media completely ignore the fact that the Bush administration has collapsed out of fear they'll be labeled too liberal?
    • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -51/+170@KDX
      When you have no defense just blindly swing at the speaker. Standard right wing knucklehead tactic.
    • darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -115/+46What's funny is that the digg community will constantly thrash Fox News for its republican slant but if you dare claim that any other media has a liberal bias you're just asking to get buried / flamed.
    • darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -99/+34@subgeniusd

      No...standard political argument tactic. It goes both ways my friend. You are obviously a liberal, so you see it as a "right wing tactic." A conservative sees it as a left wing tactic. And those of us rational folks in the middle ground? We stand back and laugh.

      And its not if you don't have a leg to stand on, its "if the other guy doesn't agree with you."

    • MrVictor, on 10/12/2007, -22/+122@KDX200rider

      You should try to find fault in the essay writer's arguments before you question their motives. Anything else is a straw man.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -29/+137Time's slant aside, the Bush administration has been riddled with failure and incompetence. Even people with strong republican history are finding it hard to swallow the ***** that is thrown around. It was clearly evident that Iraq was a decision made purely on Bush's personal vendettas.
    • FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/12/2007, -59/+28@mrvictor

      Tell me this isn't even slightly slanted:

      "The three big Bush stories of 2007 ... precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys)."

      I'm a liberal, but very often, this magazine is tripe.
    • WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -35/+63@darksheet

      That's because there's a lot of intelligent people on digg, and intelligent people tend to be liberal.
      Plus, most of the time when a conservative calls a news outlet liberally biased, it is usually just a swing at them (reality has a strong liberal bias you know). Granted there ARE some heavily liberal biased media outlets that just take swings at republicans, but usually it's not the case.

      There's a lot of morons too; (see caoimhinn below) that's what the digg down button is for.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -19/+31Time does have a leftward slant, but does that mean this article is false and should be ignored? Look at the reasons Bush gives for justifying his actions regarding the three points in this article and then make a decision.
    • WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -8/+46@floppy

      it's an OPINION essay.
    • TheSource, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30@floppyllamadigg

      Why would you read People anyway? I don't know if it's just me and a few of my friends, but does anyone else find the lives of celebrities completely boring. I love movies and have a bunch of favorite actors/actresses, but there's a point in which I don't care who they're dating, who they're breaking up with, or whose kid they're carrying.
    • FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/12/2007, -40/+16@warp
      >it's an OPINION essay.
      Which is why it isn't valid 'news'.

      @TheSource
      >Why would you read People anyway?
      I don't. It's crap. That was my point.
    • WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7@floppy

      good point. Guess this is in the wrong category :)
    • AttackMantis, on 10/12/2007, -21/+63Worst president of my lifetime. (maybe of all US history)

      I love threaded comments!
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -16/+107Not one of the remaining Republicans here so far have even attempted to address the issue, that the Bush administration somehow isn't collapsing.

      Three have attacked Time as liberal (even though this is an editorial) and didn't address the argument.

      One attacks Digg as hypocritical and didn't address the argument.

      One claims that "everybody does it" (ie. attacks the speaker).and didn't address the argument.





    • slipgrid, on 10/12/2007, -17/+19@gannoc
      >Actually, I've also heard comments that Time Magazine is too conservative.

      I think they are being too nice. He went to war because "Saddam tried to kill his dad [and] his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam?" WTF!?! Didn't they go to war for the oil? Hegemony? They didn't do it because Bush is stupid; they did it because they are greedy!
    • mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -54/+16The title should be:

      The Collapse of Objective Reporting
    • plato1123, on 10/12/2007, -37/+13How can you describe the Bush admin as anything *but* a collapse??? I call it a jaw-dropping car wreck on my blog, http://www.infogasm.net

      Seriously, we're looking at possibly the entire middle east breaking out into war as we leave a power vacuum in Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia vie for control there. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. =-(
    • Dataplume, on 10/12/2007, -17/+20Now I hope that we can start pointing the finger at the validity of the very people that wildly supported the Bush regime. No longer should the opinion of the christian community be taken so lightly! Hence forth as americans we need to scrutinize the opinions of the christian community to a great degree and hold them accountable for the decisions that they continue to support both in the immediate past and into the future.

      I understand that there are a great deal of moderate and liberal christians that had nothing to do with Bush's inauguration, but I recommend that in the future you who consider yourself christian but not of the right wing, fascist kind had better start working very hard to polish up your reputations. Whether or not you like to associate with that brand of christian you unfortunately will be grouped in with them due in part to the human inability to distinguish gray from black and white. Beyond that it is your responsibility to prove your worthiness as a community both on a secular level as well on a global one. Gone are the days of Christian infallibility! I hope that Americans are beginning to see that as well.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26mrfoos:

      >The Collapse of Objective Reporting

      It's an editorial, not reporting. In the print magazine there's even a title for the slow, dimwitted folk "opinion." Since you're evidently unsure, check the author.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -13/+40If Time Magazine is so 'left wing' then why did they run two consecutive cover stories on the whitewater scandal during the Clinton administration?
      http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960318,00.html
      http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19940404,00.html
    • MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10It doesn't take reading a magazine to figure any of this out.
    • insanechemist, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7This is AWESOME - I can block all the nutjobs just by scanning one topic!
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44This administration isn't sinking. This administration, is SOARING. We're re-arranging the chairs on the hindenburg.
    • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Bias is ONE tool, of many that you should use with critical reading, and it gets waaay too much weight on here. Probably because it's an easy way to dismiss something out of hand or make a snap judgement without actually using your brain. It implies some sort of bending of the truth to suit your agenda. Like shouting "Lies!!" without actually saying it. However, it pulls no weight if the "biased" person is stating facts. This article is pointing out facts. It doesn't matter if the most middle of the road moderate wrote it, or Hilary Clinton wrote it at an abortion and gay rights rally. It doesn't take away from the FACTS that are in the article.
    • heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5@KDX

      Man up and get a real dirt bike.
    • cosmokramer1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39Lets look at the bigger context here

      Bush said, ' if you're not with me, you're against me ' - Translation - My way or the high way.
      American approach - if you don't support the war, you're " conservative ", " un-patriotic ", " emboldening the enemy ", etc. etc.

      We know Bush is a politician. Forget him for a moment.

      As a common man, how hard is it to think " what if my president is wrong about this? ". If you term that ( also ) as 'un-patriotic', you're unfit to live in 2007. That's the crucial question that American's didn't ask and voted him again ! That's a mistake.

      Going by the argument that in 2004, we didn't see what we see now in 2007, fine - agreed. But knowing what we know now, if we still don't have the gut to speak in one voice to say "no, I've been patient, now I don't accept to what you're saying", that's actually un-patriotic toward your country, than what they try brain wash you.

      How do you say in voice - just stand up for yourself and reach out to local leader. Non-violent, un-cooperative protest will work. It has to e.g. Indian Independence, South African protest by Nelson Mandela. Why go so far - Martin L King.

      American's need to understand that President is not god, he/she is an human being, who are prone to make mistakes, who are prone to be arrogant. Don't quickly conclude that I'm democratic, that's nonsense. The point is the approach of the people toward any person in power.

      If Americans are going to say, oh well - we have him as the president, we have to support him, you're no different than a sheep following the other, no matter what.

      This ignorance mixed up with arrogance is what people hate about this country, more than laughing at the incompetent leader.

      Open your eyes !
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7 @floppyllamadigg

      I bet you love Fox News
    • Agilio, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Meanwhile back at the White House:

      "You sunk my battle ship Cheny!"
    • TexMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I hope all the Neocons in the Bush Administration riot in hell for their incompetence at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
    • MephistoX, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5The bush administration isn't sinking.... its soaring!

      Mr. Bush isn't rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, He's rearranging them on the Hindenburg!

    • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@texmurphy

      They don't riot in hell, the demons keep them all in line.
    • stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6For those who think Time is liberally biased....one name comes to mind: Judith Miller.

      There have been many others so please spare us your ***** about media bias.

      If you have a problem with something in the article, focus on that rather than using the cop-out excuse that NY Times is biased.
    • biggychong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@KDX200rider

      Damn reality and its liberal bias!

    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@bigdavediode:"didn't address the argument."

      What argument? All I see is a propaganda riddled smear job. The "facts" presented are a mix of cherry picked statements clumsily strewn together with the author's own brand of moonbat mind reading, conspiracy theories, and leftist ideals.

      Example:"From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had."

      What the hell am I reading? Is this an article on US politics or the plot for a Steven Segal movie?!
    • fudoshin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It may be a comforting thought to believe that the administration is collapsing, but unfortunately, magnitude of power dictates who can do what. No matter the number of scandals that occur, the number of wars the administration starts, or the number of people it wrongfully discredits, the group currently in control of the U.S. will continue to do what they please unless another group with more power can usurp them. Unfortunate as hell but true - as long as they keep people believing that the enemy of "terror" exists, they have a license to break any law that has been passed in this country all in the name of freedom.

      However, while people are believing that by backing the administration they are backing a free world, their freedoms and liberties are being taken away from them one by one.

      You have to think carefully which is worse - a dictatorship such as one in Cuba where quality of life may not be that great but the person in power is being completely honest in that he wants his authority to pervade every aspect of your life, or a dictatorship such as one that is being created in America, where the ruling group is hiding behind the guise of a free democracy.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2sandus:

      >What the hell am I reading? Is this an article on US politics or the plot for a Steven Segal movie?!

      Well you could, for example, address the author's contention that the three major stories he quotes are reflective of arrogance, incompetence and cynicism. You could, for example, show how they aren't examples that apply, and try and use that to contend that therefore the Bush administration is a tightly wound ball of cord.

      Or you could critique the writing style and compare it to a Steven Seagal movie, which is, by the way, an ad hom.
    • FongoBongo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@subgeniusd

      "of us rational folks in the middle ground? We stand back and laugh."

      sorry, you don't sound rational. Your reek of left-wing conservative *****

      rational folk don't pretend not to be conservative on digg, your just a coward. Now go and turn on Fox news
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3SOMEBODY voted for these guys.

      Any hands?
    • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I won't deny that Bush has made stupid statements, and I'm certain for even disagreeing that I'll be Dugg down - since Diggsters are too Leftist to acknowledge good points when they hear them.. but.. here we go..

      "Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam."

      Are people STILL saying this? There's never been any substantiating proof defending this OPINION. The simple fact that the author even pointed this out proves that his first argument is putridly far-left and ill-advised. I'm quite certain he's a fan of the moveon.org crew.

      "General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible."

      The point of having any kind of panel is to have varying differences of opinion. This is far too much for ANY of you to be able to handle. I've read about many higher-ups that have disagreed and agreed, but neither side is unanimous. Don't pretend like it is, but what happens with Leftists is that anyone who disagrees with Bush has a "free mind" - but anybody who agrees with him is a "sheep". Yes, welcome to politics. None of you are original in your faulty ideals.

      "On April 3, the President again accused Democrats of being "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need." Such demagoguery is particularly outrageous given the Administration's inability to provide our troops "what they need" at the nation's premier hospital for veterans"

      What I really like about this statement is how truly Leftist and close-minded it is. In one hand he points out the Bush Administration calling out the Democrats for fighting political battles and not giving the troops what they need. You mean, they can vote on non-binding resolutions, bitch and moan on Capitol Hill all day long about something that won't even enter law - but none of them can hop on a plane and go see the troops who have been wounded in a Hospital? Yet, these people are the ones we've now entrusted to "fix" Iraq? They are as much to blame as Bush - Republicans and Democrats alike.

      What this really has come down to, especially on Digg and the Internet - is that people blame Bush for everything because it's easy. He opens himself up to it, and people point it out to gain popularity. A friend of mine said it a few years ago, "It's the fad to hate Bush." Well, all of you are now the cliche', and thinking for yourselves are apparently far beyond your grasp.

      Digg me down, it's all the power you have in this world. All the power the author of this tripe has is that he's able to carry the Time logo next to his crappy piece of 'journalism'.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Bamont:

      >"Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam."

      >Are people STILL saying this? There's never been any substantiating proof defending this OPINION. The simple fact that the author even pointed this out proves that his first argument is putridly far-left and ill-advised. I'm quite certain he's a fan of the moveon.org crew.

      You didn't address the argument. Here, let me help you: "Bush didn't start the war because... (insert argument here) ...as shown by the evidence (insert evidence here).

      >"General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible."

      The point of having any kind of panel is to have varying differences of opinion. This is far too much for ANY of you to be able to handle. I've read about many higher-ups that have disagreed and agreed, but neither side is unanimous.

      Okay, quote two or three of our Generals who say that a military solution to Iraq IS possible. What you've done above is hand wave that people disagree, without actually citing the people who you claim disagree and their bona fides.

      >Don't pretend like it is, but what happens with Leftists is that anyone who disagrees with Bush has a "free mind" - but anybody who agrees with him is a "sheep". Yes, welcome to politics. None of you are original in your faulty ideals.

      Okay, I'm unoriginal. Yawn. Got any arguments?

      >"On April 3, the President again accused Democrats of being "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need." Such demagoguery is particularly outrageous given the Administration's inability to provide our troops "what they need" at the nation's premier hospital for veterans"

      >What I really like about this statement is how truly Leftist and close-minded it is. In one hand he points out the Bush Administration calling out the Democrats for fighting political battles and not giving the troops what they need. You mean, they can vote on non-binding resolutions, bitch and moan on Capitol Hill all day long about something that won't even enter law - but none of them can hop on a plane and go see the troops who have been wounded in a Hospital? Yet, these people are the ones we've now entrusted to "fix" Iraq? They are as much to blame as Bush - Republicans and Democrats alike.

      Actually quite a few have gotten on planes to go visit hospitals. But they're not hospital inspectors. Again, you have failed to address the point which is: is the Bush administration negligent because of this story about their failure with the disabled veterans they rapidly create?

      >What this really has come down to, especially on Digg and the Internet - is that people blame Bush for everything because it's easy. He opens himself up to it, and people point it out to gain popularity. A friend of mine said it a few years ago, "It's the fad to hate Bush." Well, all of you are now the cliche', and thinking for yourselves are apparently far beyond your grasp.

      Yes yes, you already ad hom'd us by stating that we're unoriginal. Twice you did this, which is... well, unoriginal.

      >Digg me down, it's all the power you have in this world. All the power the author of this tripe has is that he's able to carry the Time logo next to his crappy piece of 'journalism'.

      Actually it's an editorial. And Time carries quite a few, if not most conservative writers.
    • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Looking at all the comments you've dugg dave, it's not surprising that you are beyond comprehending the very simple statements I've pointed out.

      You call me out for not citing sources, yet neither do you. The reality is that there is no right answer to this, which is pretty much what I eluded to in my entire statement.

      It's an opinion when you talk about somebody's motives who hasn't made them abundantly clear to the public.

      But for someone to argue a point and prove absolutely nothing wrong, yet offer up no counter-evidence, simply proves that you too are incapable of logical thought. I offered up logical responses, and if they mean that much to you - then you can dig up the websites (hint here, you may have to stray away from the radical leftist ***** you're used to digging up here on the good ole' anti-everything-that-isn't-Left Digg).

      Judging by your posts, I'm surprised you even bother coming out of your hovel.

      But - if their primarily conservative journalists, name them all, then cite where the Time writers state their political affiliations.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Bamont:

      >Looking at all the comments you've dugg dave, it's not surprising that you are beyond comprehending the very simple statements I've pointed out.

      Yes yes, I'm stupid. Tell us more. You know, I had a debate with one friend of mine and I claimed that Republicans didn't just refuse, but were incapable of actually addressing an argument, just swinging at the messenger. I bet you'll claim that's false.

      >You call me out for not citing sources, yet neither do you.

      I haven't made any assertions except that you've brought nothing to the table except attacks on the messengers (ad homs, and not only ad homs, but really boring ad homs). Since you're pounding out the assertions, it's up to you to cite your sources, you know, like Generals who claim that a military solution to Iraq is still possible. I'm DYING to read this one. It should be hilarious.

      >It's an opinion when you talk about somebody's motives who hasn't made them abundantly clear to the public.

      Yes, it's his opinion. That's why they call those things op-eds. The "op" is for "opinion." Wikipedia it if you need more help.

      >But for someone to argue a point and prove absolutely nothing wrong, yet offer up no counter-evidence, simply proves that you too are incapable of logical thought. I offered up logical responses, and if they mean that much to you - then you can dig up the websites (hint here, you may have to stray away from the radical leftist ***** you're used to digging up here on the good ole' anti-everything-that-isn't-Left Digg).

      Yes yes, I must hate you because you can't argue the point.

      >But - if their primarily conservative journalists, name them all, then cite where the Time writers state their political affiliations.

      Well for starters Bill Kristol is a columnist. Do you know who Bill Kristol is?

      Okay, never mind. You're right, I'm a dummy head and a stupid head and I don't bring facts for my assertions of how the article is wrong when I never said the article was wrong, that was actually you. But yes, I'm repetitive (your claim in your first post, twice), and I'm a dummy head. And I'm uncapable of understanding any of the really, really complex ad homs you have. And I must be a liberal, 'cause you claimed I was.

      Yes, I'm mocking you and your "arguments."
    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1bigdavediode:"...were incapable of actually addressing an argument, just swinging at the messenger."

      Quite frankly, that's because the messenger is being ridiculous. Honestly, this stuff reminds me of what the Holocaust deniers say, i.e., "Why won't you debate us?" "How do you KNOW the Jews didn't fake the whole thing?." "What do you mean there isn't a Jewish conspiracy? Prove it!" What's the point? This is your religion. Prove God doesn't exist. Oh, you can't? Well, then you're wrong! Why waste time debating someone who doesn't need facts to be convinced?

      I mean look at this tripe: "The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons..."

      How is the media's latest frenzy over the troop surge Bush's failing? How is Walter Reed a Bush story? Where is Mr. Klein's proof that the attorneys were fired for "tawdry political reasons"? What psychic power does the author have that he can attribute the emotional states he does to President Bush? How do you the reader know that any of the conclusions drawn in this half-baked editorial are fact?
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sandus:

      >How is the media's latest frenzy over the troop surge Bush's failing?

      Well the obvious answer to that is that he has completely ignored the Baker-Hamilton report. Correction, he hasn't ignored it, he's done the exact opposite to its recommendations. So how would a media frenzy NOT be Bush's fault?

      >How is Walter Reed a Bush story?

      Didn't he appoint the head of VA who just resigned? Yes, he did. And wasn't the administration warned that they weren't putting enough in VA affairs, given that they're creating disabled veterans so quickly? Yes, they were. So it's pretty much solely a Bush story, another Republican failure.

      >Where is Mr. Klein's proof that the attorneys were fired for "tawdry political reasons"?

      Other than the prosecutors testimony themselves, there's also the Gonzalez memos that show that this is true. Don't tell me, you watch Fox and are blissfully unaware of any of these facts.
    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bigdavediode:"Baker-Hamilton report"..."he's done the exact opposite to its recommendations."

      I said before that I don't really have the time or the inclination to debate you properly, however this is a matter of cut and paste:

      Page 16 of the Executive Summary of the report, "The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by
      increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and
      to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military
      personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these
      actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq."

      I watch Fox?! When? I should start writing these things down...
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sandu:

      >I said before that I don't really have the time or the inclination to debate you properly

      So far you're succeeding marvelously at not debating me properly.

      >Page 16 of the Executive Summary of the report, "The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades.

      Holy crap! You're bringing information to the table rather than attacking everybody and everyone around you like a small child! This is a miracle! Are you certain that you're a Republican? (This is a fallacy too, mockery, but hey, since you're so into this I should at least show you how to do it.)

      >"The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades.

      Wow, how's that going? (Again, more mockery.)

      >While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq."

      I wonder when it will hit you that embedding additional troops with units, and as the very next sentence says "redeployment" does not mean adding additional troops into Iraq. Hmmm... I bet never, because you want to think you're right.

      >I watch Fox?! When? I should start writing these things down...

      Okay, I concede, perhaps you don't watch any news, or even read it. After all, it strains credibility to suggest that Bush isn't responsible for the VA hospital appointments (and lack of oversight), or that the Baker report supports Bush in any way whatsoever.
    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bigdavediode:

      I wasn't making any attempt to debate you with the excerpt from the report. I was merely illustrating the mistakes that the radical nature of your viewpoints inevitably result in. (e.g. the troop surge isn't in "exact" opposition to the report, I don't watch Fox, and--here's one for you--I'm not a Republican.)

      It's certainly ironic that you fit your own depiction of Republicans far better that I.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sandu:

      >I wasn't making any attempt to debate you with the excerpt from the report. I was merely illustrating the mistakes that the radical nature of your viewpoints inevitably result in. (e.g. the troop surge isn't in "exact" opposition to the report, I don't watch Fox, and--here's one for you--I'm not a Republican.)

      Ha ha! Sure you're not. At this point with Bush at 28% strongly support in the polls, the ONLY people who come to his defense are Republicans. Also, Republicans are famous for attacking the speaker, as you did, rather than actually bringing facts to the table. This is an extremely common Republican tactic. Another one for Bush voters at this point is to deny that they had anything to do with the blood on their hands, like you're doing.

      As for not the "exact" opposite, the only fact you've brought to the table so far, the Baker report says reduce the number of troops in Iraq, and Bush is increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Seems like "exact" to me. Another Republican tactic is to try and redefine words.
    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's right. Keep painting the world with that big red brush. I'm not a Republican(I didn't vote for Bush either). Your problem is that you, like most ultra-leftists, have the world view of a 5-year-old and a temperament to match.

      You are like a creationist. You have your propaganda; you have religionism.
  • dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -19/+82What's frustrating is that there still _is_ a ship to be sunk.
    It's nice to see them crash and burn but really we need to move on and start fixing things.
    • ColinCampbell, on 10/12/2007, -22/+93Was the ship ever afloat? Outside of a small period after 9/11, Bush and his Administration have done nothing but continually ***** up.
    • quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -21/+41FTA "Arrogance", "incompetence" and "cynicism." I would add greed, corruption, immorality, and criminality.
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5It's weird that there was a ship to begin with. Part of the original intention of our representative government is that elected officials were supposed to be interchangeable and expendable. Strangely enough, the number of appointed and hired positions has increased to such a point that changing one politician effectively changes several handfuls of officials. It has damaged the authority of majority rule to the point that we now question whether the decisions passed by congress will be enforced.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6They've got 19 more months to screw up... Two worst case scenarios: 1) there is another 9/11-type event (nuke, chem, or bio) that gives them an excuse to cancel the elections and institute martial law. 2) They invade or bomb Iran and it snowballs into World War III. If either of those things happen in the next 19 months, the U.S. is doomed.

      As long as those two things don't happen, I think the U.S. will be okay in the long run with a new president who has proven they know how to understand and accommodate the needs of political opponents -- someone like Obama or Romney. We've had almost 7 years of a guy who calls himself "The War President" and "The Decider" and only surrounds himself with yes-men. We need someone who is better at consensus building, is less eager to resort to violence, and listens to people with opposing views. I don't particularly care if it is a Democrat or a Republican, so long as they have this quality.
    • greywolfexcel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@TPOCS:

      I just read the entire proposal, and have to say that I am relieved to see that some other people have the sense to see what's going on, past all this partisan crap that is dividing us. Thank you for posting that link, and for having common sense, a quality sorely lacking in today's world. You won't see me voting for any incumbents this coming election.
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -16/+87 It is too bad that there are still some that defend this fella. It makes one wonder how badly someone would have to muck things up before those remaining 30% get it through their heads?

    Still, what is more disheartening is that for a while, a good while, the majority of Americans bought this clowns act, while demeaning those friends and allies that were pointing exactly this stuff out 3,4,5 years ago....

    I guess better late than never, but you all know he will still walk away from this without so much as a slap on his wrist...

    Pretty sad, but if they want it, Americans can take back their country. I just don't know if enough of them want it.
    • foooey, on 10/12/2007, -17/+57"Those remaining 30%" have been conditioned their entire lives to never under any circumstance think for themselves. The only way they could possibly "get it through their heads," is for the magical bearded guy in the sky to stop by and do it for them.
    • FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+51>Nah, they are too busy watching NASCAR and getting fat.

      Or watching ANNA NICOLE SMITH: STILL DEAD?, CNN's new special.
    • scrimaxinc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30@squantix

      Your ridiculous over-the-top America bashing is just making Americans automatically disregard any criticism of them. Why read through a bunch of "Stupid lazy American" comments to get to something constructive.

      @waiting2awake

      Thank you for being coherent in your criticism.

      Some of us did vote for the other guy.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Just do like I did and block Squantix. He's clearly a troll.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10@foooey

      You're on target. The American population has been educated in a public system that fails on virtually every level. Our government has put great effort and financial resources into dumbing the average American down, and this is the reason.
    • KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27NASCAR isn't "American". It's "southern".
    • EarlofSlander, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ squantix
      Could you please inform us dumb American cattle what great Utopian nation you live in. This way perhaps we can all move there and learn how to debate as articulately and intelligently as you. It may take more time for us slow witted fat cows but I sure your government, being as perfect and compassionate as it is, would be patient with us. Please have pity on us and tell us where we can find this perfect nation.
    • Pomond, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@waiting2awake:

      I agree with your point, and it has always mystified me that supposedly "conservative" voters would support Bush and his huge-government, no-accountability, military adventurism policies.

      I have decided that it comes down to hate: Bush appeals to the worst in people, and he attracts the bigots, sociopaths and xenophobes who believe that their way is the right way, and that everyone else deserves concentration camps and genocide. (It's unbelievable that supposed "Christians" can be so gung-ho for war. Forgot about that one Commandment, didn'tcha?) The Bush administration tapped into and exploited the worst sides of the worst elements of the American people: Ruled by fear, fueled by hate.
    • geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have an inkling that much of those 30% of people who still approve of Bush don't actually care for him that much. It's just that they really HATE liberals. To say "no, I don't approve of the job that President Bush is doing" is, in their eyes, admitting defeat and letting the liberals win.

      It's really sad that so many people think this way. Liberals are the enemy. Bush is not a liberal. Therefore, Bush is good (enough) for us.

      They fail to see the big picture. They fail to see what an atrocious president this man is. I personally don't care if Bush was a Democrat or Libertarian or Wig party. I'd still be calling for his impeachment.
  • caoimhinn, on 10/12/2007, -45/+4LoL ***** hbahHAHA!!!
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -21/+42The article is dead on but one question remains; when will impeachment proceedings begin?
    • socket, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Never. Congress doesn't have the balls. Not until the remaining few Bush supports open their eyes and demand him and Dick be held accountable for getting us into this mess.
    • squantix, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Yeah, it would be great seeing the Dick and the Bush doing the perpwalk. However, the chances of that happening are slim to none.
    • londubh, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7Congress will begin impeachment hearings as soon as Bush breaks into the Watergate Hotel to get a blowjob. Since Cheney is Bush's buddy. He should get two blowjobs and bring him back one.
    • foooey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Unfortunately, we won't see that until it benefits them the most politically.

      The real gotcha is Bush has the best anti-impeachment insurance policy in the history of America. NO ONE wants to see Cheney as President.

      It's incredibly difficult to impeach a president, it would have to be virtually impossible to impeach both the President and VP at the same time.
    • Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6>It's incredibly difficult to impeach a president, it would have to be virtually impossible to impeach both the President and VP at the same time.

      First you take impeach the Vice President then the President..At least that was the plan with Nixon.
    • salinemist, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6When Bush perjures himself to dodge a sexual harassment suit, or when he starts intimidating witnesses like a mob goon?
    • dawg109, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5It wont the democrats have no balls or spine.......OMG i hate to say it im a democrat therefor i have no balls or spine!!!
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Didn't you hear? Pelosi and Dean took impeachment off of the table six months ago.

      It was all over the news.

      I'm amazed the die hards are ignoring their leaders and bringing it up.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Actually it's very simple to impeach, it's that the elected house members make it appear difficult. The simple truth is they don't want to do what's right.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The simple truth is this:

      - The Dems REMOVED IT FROM THE TABLE of their own accord..

      - Impeach Drones will read, discuss, promote and orgasm over any article or opinion piece that comes along and mentions the word.....despite the fact that it has been off the table for half a year.

      - The press realizes this and takes advantage of the Pavlovian tendencies of Impeach Drones to line their pockets with traffic revenue.

      Anyone can make up a reason for impeachment being taken off the table. The most likely one is this:

      - The Democrats in power know they don't have enough concrete evidence or the TIME to follow through with Impeachment proceedings. Motive placement does not stand up in court and they've all said the same exact ***** Bushie has said. In other words, THEY would end up looking just as bad in a legal contest as the President. They do not want this.

      "Not having the ballls" is really the same as "I don't understand why."
    • DiggeralToolz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bush got Imus fired!!!

      ... uh, wait.
  • warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15"I'm a uniter, not a divider". Nuff said.
    • Sithlrd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56And he was right. He's united 70% of America against his administration.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18He's also the self-proclaimed "decider." He just decides against the proper course of action most of the time.
  • darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -18/+16While I agree with a good many of the points made in this article, its written in such a ridiculously biased manner that it's just shoddy journalism. Yes, there have been a good deal of *****-ups and we all acknowledge that, but this isn't an analysis..or even a peek at those *****-ups. It's this guy venting because he doesn't like GWB. His assaults cross the border between journalist and personal, and the whole article comes off as far less appealing for it.
    • TrueXtremeIcon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15What part of Opinion/Editorial eludes you?
    • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The only '***** ups' that ever happen in BushCo. country are the 'slip ups' that catch them with their pants down.
      Everything else is intentional.
  • londubh, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23When did the mainstream media grow testicles?
    • darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -24/+7they grow them any time it's trendy in the public opinion to bash a republican.

      Occasionally, they'll chime in if its a democrat (or if you're watching Fox News)
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30The only silver lining to the Bush disaster is maybe Americans will finally learn how to vote. It's NOT a popularity contest. You have to vote for the most qualified candidate.
    • DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24what if the 2 wealthy candidates have already been pre chosen for you.
      they have to ban companies from donating to candidates, and ban lobbyists for a start.
      they are supposed to be "for the people" not "for my corporate buddies"
    • fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4@deadbaby
      I'm sure that's exactly what all you OBAMA fans are thinking. ***** dopes.
    • Sambone67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@defex

      You're right, unless we completely overhaul our election process we're doomed to more of the same. I would like to see elections funded by taxpayer dollars only. Each candidate gets the same budget to spread their message, equal amounts of 'air time', etc. If we can remove big money from the process candidates might be more inclined to actually talk about solutions instead of smearing the other guy. On a tangent, I also think term limits for all politicians would be a good step. Did our founding fathers ever envision politics as a career? I don't think so. Maybe I'm all wrong, but this is how one skinny ass American thinks.
    • fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4Sure, digg me down. Because B. Hussein Obama is actually SO qualified and not just the current leader of a popularity contest. Really mature of you folk.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@sambone

      That sounds good in theory, but the party leaders would still find a way to support their candidate. You can't stop well funded people from buying airtime and giving their opinion, 1st amendment and all. With the way our government works, your best bet is to hope that the winning candidate actually has the moral fiber to carry through with their cited promises.
    • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6There's another silver lining:

      Bush, Cheney and Rove are digging the grave of the Republican Party. With another two years on the clock, they will have destroyed their enterprise's credibiltiy so thouroughly, that the GOP will be about as relevant as the Whigs, for the remainder of the 21st century.

      Just look at all the rats leaving the ship, already, claiming to be "Libertarians"...Ron Paul, my ass.





    • RationalCenter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@fleischner, if you could articulate even one of Obama's ideas or platforms, your comment might be worth leaving alone. To me, being intelligent, articulate and having good ideas makes you qualified to run for president. Obama has those things. Having the middle name Hussein is not relevant to his qualifications, and your use of it only underscores your own lack of qualifications in contributing anything useful to this discussion. Dugg.
    • Sambone67, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@drmangrum

      Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream but somethings got to change. The current system is stagnant, it seems that campaigning has become the focus instead of actually trying to solve problems. This country does need a 'great leader', unfortunately I haven't seen that type of politician in a long time. I know there must be a few of them out there, but the status quo keeps them on a short leash.
  • DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15collapse would be nice. the giant scam still continues though. your money is flowing to haliburton and blackwater faster than you can imagine.
    those companies are run by his neo crusader christianist friends.
  • Drkboarder, on 10/12/2007, -35/+4At this rate they'll be out by 2008, oh noes!!!!!!!

    Is it the end of The Daily Show? Or will the next president be just as easy to joke about.

    *Puts on John Stewart is overrated shirt and dugg down helmet*
    • Jeveran, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41drkboarder,

      The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had been on for ten years. He did three years of Clinton (remember him?) satirizing before moving on to the current administration. Stewart is a bright, talented guy with a fantastic writing staff. Whoever lands in the White House, male or female, Republican or Democrat, religious conservative to social liberal, is going to present a huge target of opportunity.

      Think about it for a moment. What president hasn't been easy to joke about?
    • Woomanchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7That couldn't be any more true. Imagine if our lives were under this much scrutiny; talented comedians would tear our lives to shreds. This is definitely not exclusive to celebrities and political figures.
    • farksucksmasack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@drkboarder

      i'm not gonna digg you down. i'm just gonna go ahead and...

      *PLONK*

      douchebag
  • Phyter, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11So the Dems won Congress. I hope that it means more than providing the scum in the White House with a scapegoat. Bush and Cheney's latest: "They're blocking funding for our troups! It will be THEIR fault if we lose this war!!"
    God Almighty! How can these screw-ups possibly say that with a straight face! Anyone who buys that line of crap is beyond hope, IMHO.
  • GoneSouth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Let us not forget to add cowardice to his list of failings. The Decider is going to leave the hard choices about cleaning up this mess, to his successor.
  • rancorcrankor, on 10/12/2007, -29/+11Bush's fatal mistake is that when he set out to remove Saddam, he didn't take into account the fanatical resistance he would be up against.

    In the US, that is... not Iraq.

    • GoneSouth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Support the troops, rancor. Enlist!
    • demicritter, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4So true. With Pelosi, Murtha, Waxman, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry and others declaring we've lost the war, the enemy definitely has supporters right here on our soil.
    • DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah, the Dixie Chicks did him in. You know if 5 years, the Republicans will run on a Presidential campaign about how the Democrats lost Iraq despite the 4 years of failure already in Iraq.
  • theobell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Does it really matter at this point? The damage is already done.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Yes, it does matter. When you fail to hold a leader, any leader, accountable for their actions, a precedence is set. With any luck, more people will see how dangerous not voting or voting irresponsibly really is.
  • flipside3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had."

    I've been telling people this for years... even told a friend before Bushy got elected that Saddam better watch out, cause Baby Bush just needs an excuse. Nice to see someone else thinks the same thing.
    • DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wrote in 2001 that Saddam was a marked man. After 9/11, I wasn't surprised at all that Iraq was going to be targeted. Saddam was Bush's white whale, and he's exactly the simpleton who would be petty enough to start a war.
  • kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Joe Klein, the author of this article for Time has and always had a problem with any Republican administration.
    That is fine with me, but what the problem is I have listened and read a lot of his stuff and I have yet to see him be a fair and impartial journalist when it comes to politics.
    He tends to pick and choose parts of conversations that suit him and his agenda, that fit quite well with Time magazine.
    I have no problem with that type of agenda journalism, but what I more thankful for is the fact that with all the sources for truth today we do not have to depend on people like Joe Klein, when we seek to find what is truth, what is ideology driven journalism, and what is opinion.
    He is not a person I would look to for facts free of a glaring contempt for anything other than his own ideological leanings, more power to him ,
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Yeah, I've never been impressed by Klein either.

      This is an attack piece for the sake of attacking. Big surprise.
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6What part of "Opinion" do you not understand?
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5We understand the concept of opinion.

      That is precisely why we are giving ours.

      Now let's ask this questiom: Since you are such an expert on opinion, why are YOU burying them on an internet discussion board?
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5My point is that you are criticizing Joe Klein for "agenda-based journalism" when this piece is explicitly stated as an opinion. He picks and choose parts of conversations in order to forward a discussion and share his opinion on the topic. It is not declared as, nor is it designed to be, a balanced news report.

      You don't like him, that's fine - please don't read it.

      FYI, I did not digg down KAISER44 - in fact I dugg him up for a reasoned argument against Klein instead of just screaming "moonbat" all over the place.
    • kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@MISWRL, Opinion pieces are fine, but you should still try to at least be factually correct in you're statements.
      when you leave out parts of a speech, and use other parts to support you're opinion, you are being dishonest,
      If you are going to quote some one at least use the whole text from which the quote was lifted.
      He has done this over a period of many years.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I'm "criticizing" Joe Klein because I am not impressed by his body of work.

      I'm not sure where you got the rest.

      I'll read what I choose and comment according to my own opinion, regardless of what anyone has to say about it.
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@KAISER44 - "Opinion pieces are fine, but you should still try to at least be factually correct in you're statements. when you leave out parts of a speech, and use other parts to support you're opinion, you are being dishonest, If you are going to quote some one at least use the whole text from which the quote was lifted. He has done this over a period of many years."


      I trust that you have the same reaction to obvious right-wing opinion pieces and the overall "fair and balanced" reporting of Fox news? I can cite countless pundits from the right who selectively quote out of context those on the left to support their agendas. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc....

      I'm not trying to troll for the left or right here but the main point is that this article is one person's opinion - I don't necessarily agree with what he says either. You may also disagree with him and that's fine but Joe Klein is not the only one out there trying to persuade an audience using a "biased" interpretation of facts. Both sides are equally bad in my opinion.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We are discussing Joe Klein.

      If you'd like our honest opinions on various talking heads that haunt the MSM, start your own thread. Everyone else on the tellyvision is irrelevant here.
  • dougbell, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Remember when Cheney shot that guy in the ***** face? ROFLAMOLOL
    • squantix, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Yeah, that was funny stuff. Or when Laura Bush killed her then-boyfriend when she was 17. Sure, it was an "accident" but still: He died by Lauras hand.
  • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Get back to me when the hangings begin.
    • DiggeralToolz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bush married a murderer!

      ... uh, wait.
  • UrbanVoyeur, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8So, when a presidency collapses, does it form a singularity?
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Dugg for asking the important questions.
    • wakananda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It forms a "unitary executive" (don't call it dictatorship, or we'll pull your grant funding).
  • Spuy767, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@Phyter The last bill passed by the house increases military funding, but also has a timeline for withdrawal that isn't feasible, it's not actually Bush and Cheney's latest, but a democratic ploy to convince the divide the more conservative caucus into the dumber, who will se a Bush veto of the bill as blocking funding of the troops, and the smarter who will see the bill as it is intended, as a bill that was designed as a conflict of interest. The last bill is partisan politics at its finest, and was never meant as a bill to be signed into law. It was simply devised, by people who's salaries the american taxpayer pays, no matter what side of the river you stand on, to make the other political party look bad. The democratic majority is wasting your money, and mine, on superfluous legislation that is designed to do nothing more than make the president look bad to a certain number of people. I'm not a republican, and I'm certainly not a democrat, I am a socially liberal conservative. I don't let religious ***** find its way in to my political views. At any rate, I'm sure that this post, as it possesses a certain logical quality to it, will find itsel;f dugg down very quickly, so good day to you all.
    • KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5 >I am a socially liberal conservative.
      You're a New England Republican? Boy are you a vanishing breed.
    • Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Spuy767

      Your arguments do follow some logic however I find the leaps of faith contradictary in most cases, my responses follow:

      "but also has a timeline for withdrawal that isn't feasible"
      - Not being feasible has only been argued from a political standpoint. Militarily, we can be out of there tomorrow. Politically we have differences of opinion, and most of it comes down to either "We started it so we should finish it" or "We can't finish it, there's no end in sight". My opinion is that economically and politically, staying there will destroy us, because as you stated later on, they DO hate us, and will continue to fight us forever. They've been fighting amoungest themselves for over two thousand years, I doubt a few decades will bother them much. To add, there is no time period sufficient to "finish" the job and therefore a statement that "withdrawal that isn't feasible" would be more accurately stated as "withdrawal is impossible" for an indefinite period of time.

      "make the president look bad to a certain number of people"
      - Aside from your previous opinions, the previous leading statement to this was the mention of the funding bill for Iraq being tied to a removal of troops at a certain time period. While I understand your emotional response to a quandrary of mixing the bill with two different aspects, this is how compromise is done. Both sides have to lose something in order to make headway. The democratic side loses some political standing for backing the war since their records will now show they voted on a war spending bill in future news, and the republicans lose political standing for backing a withdrawal bill in the same fashion. In the end though, the president is displaying a clear lack of ability to deal with the ideaology of compromise which is essential in not only normal political positions, but vital in a job so important as the President of the United States. Is there really anything you think that could be a better compromise that would satisfy both parties? To this end, the president has a history of such decisions and generally has been seen in a bad light by a growing number of people in all reports. Honestly, to make the president look any worse, you'd have to give him an easier task than simply vetoing a bill he didn't like. Anyone who currently supports him is likely to do so unless he is forced into a situation which places a smoking gun in his hand.

      I didn't digg you down, in fact up, since I found your arguments did not lack common sense and logically oriented. We need more sensible discussion on digg IMHO and less Fark if you get my meaning :)
    • Spuy767, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New England republican who was born and still lives in Georgia. Simple fact is I make my own decisions based on logic and forethought something which so few people do these days. Sure I was brought up with the typical Christian mantra spewed at me from all directions, but I abandoned them, why? Because the make absolutely no ***** sense and do not belie the opinions of a rational man. I don't follow all that religious tripe, but I doo feel like a Hussein controlled Iraq was a dangerous thing post 9/11. Hussein was a dangerous man, and he tried to assault the US militarily once and was decimated. That's a lot of pissed off to carry around for ten years, and when 9/11 took place, it exposed a potential weakness and Hussein would have happily harboured those wishing to exploit that weakness as so many other leaders are happy to.
  • travisgerrard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3The scary thing is, I’m almost afraid to digg a story like this because in the back of my mind, I think the government might be watching and start to consider me a "terrorist"
    • squantix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4They are watching. And as long as "you are not with them, you are against them" i.e. a terrorist.
    • Influsion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yes, because the administration has their own Digg-a-terrorist surveillance program. Pelosi already got 233 "terror-diggs" for visiting Syria against Bush's wishes.
    • squantix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't think they need a specific Digg-a-terrorist surveillance program. I think Echelon and PROMIS does the job just fine.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This strikes me as fear mongering for no particular reason.

      Paranoia isn't exactly a socially acceptable quality one wants to exhibit in public places.

      Save it for your partisan chat rooms where they stifle freedom of speech far worse than the government ever could..
  • TheSource, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Saying that this article has a slant is kind of redundant, it's from the Time blog. It's not supposed to be very objective, its meant to state the opinion of the author regarding current affairs. While I do find the argument interesting, it's nothing we haven't heard a thousand times before.

    "Bush is a bad president in retrospect. I tried to stand by him and the administration but it turns out they just suck, blah blah"

    I'm not saying I disagree, I'm merely saying *yawn*. Regarding Bush's incompetence and inability to lead, I'm reminded of a story from way back called "The Accidental Candidate."

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2000/10/bush200010
  • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -9/+7Buck Fush.
    • squantix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3clever
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I recommend scratching that one on a bathroom stall somewhere.

      It certainly fullfills all the thought and charm requirements of ***** graffiti.
  • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6old news. This administration has been going down the crapper since bush was re elected in the last elecition.
  • Just1nD, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7anybody else wanna stop reading after "Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam." Joe Klein started to make some political points, then turned into my 16 yr old sister.
    • AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I very clearly remember Bush talking about Saddam trying to kill his dad,as justification for war. It was not reported that he said it; it came from his lips. I also found it interesting I only heard that rationale once and then it became all about WMD.
    • farksucksmasack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Bush Quote: "That man tried to kill my daddy!" (while smirking of course)

      bush if a ***** asshat. get a clue.
    • AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2digg down
    • Just1nD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1you're missing the point. it's using it against him as one of his 4 main reasons in a political article which is pathetic for a 'professional' reporter. i'd expect to see that on bushsux.com

      i don't like bush anymore than the next guy.

      edit: checked for a bushsux.com.... point proven.
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It appears it's OK for a foreign dictator to attempt the assassination of a US President as long as he's a Republican.

      Frankly, I want third rate butchers who fire thousands of missiles at US aircraft over the space of a decade after signing cease fire agreements and attempt to kill any US President along the way removed from the face of the Earth.

      If anyone has ever really "only heard this once" then they never really read the definitive legal document drawn up by Congress that gives the real reasons for going to war. The Joint Resolution mentions it all.

      Party is irrelevant. Identity is irrelevant. Attack my fellow countrymen....pay the price, *****.
  • portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3arrogance in the media to not report the news in Iraq without spin: The surge is working. Bombings are dropping in most areas. Results are being seen. Just because everything isn't perfect all over doesn't mean it's all bad.

    Incompetence of the media to not understand how the military works: Bush can't take tours of every facility that's what he has commanders and so on down the chain. By the way those in command have been removed. It took no time for that to happen either.

    Cynicism: Funny this may be the only one that's right. One out of three ain't all that bad I guess
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Bush is incompetent. He got us into a war that we didn't need to be in. We should not be in Iraq right now that is the point. And the bombings are only slowing down in Baghdad there is an entire country that surrounds that city.
    • pkghost, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Bush is not just incompetent. He is a criminal. Look at his expansion of executive power (NSA eavesdropping, detention of American citizens w/o due process) and the read the memos coming from the DOJ justifying his actions -- the man thinks he's a monarch, and has actually been fairly open about saying so.

      The fact that some people still support him (and that others aren't mad enough to do more than complain) goes to show how well King George has managed to use fear mongering and jingoism to bend the American people to his own extreme agenda.
    • bolerobell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@portwojc,

      This administration and especially its supporters have always said that the media was inaccurately portraying the situation on the ground in Iraq. If that is the case, and things have always been improving there, as you and others like you would contend, then why the ***** did we ever need a surge in the first place?
    • AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The surge may be working or it may not. There needs to be more time to tell if it's a success that's why you are not hearing about it's success in media outlets. It's funny that rather than argue merits of ideas we liberals and conservatives argue about the delivery method: Time, Fox, CNN and their biases. What in that article is wrong? While it's one man's opinion Walter Reed, US Attorneys firings, Bush using a double standard for the emergency budget bill all happened...


    • bolerobell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@portwojc (again)

      And, you know what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that the surge is having a positive influence on stability in Iraq. That just proves the longtime criticism that the US never sent enough troops to secure the country in the first place.

      It's blind support that enables the Bush Administration to do the bad things they do. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. The entire lot of Chickenhawks have juvenile attitudes with regard to war and public service, and their inadequacies are poisoning, to the core, our great US military. And they keep doing it because they keep hearing the cheering crowds of dittoheads backing each and every stupid thing they say without any thought on whether or not what is said is true or reasonable.

      It will take decades to undo the damage that this administration has caused, both to Iraq and the Institutions of the US.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6"There needs to be more time to tell if it's a success that's why you are not hearing about it's success in media outlets."

      Actually, we need diggers to pay attention to news that is inconvenient to their viewpoints. Stories that are unpopular with the average liberal activist digger get no SURGE of diggs that promote it to the front page.

      http://digg.com/world_news/In_Parts_of_Baghdad_Surge_Is_Working

      This was on ABC news. It was conveniently ignored.

      Impeach stuff makes it to the front page while real news is ignored.

    • AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@courtesyflush

      I would not say looking at only five neighborhoods and having violence reduced in some of those a success or even working, but it's a good sign.

      It's the medium to long term effects that matter for the strategy to work. Have you thought, insurgents have stopped their daily combat operations until they understand what the surge really means to their operations? ff you want to claim the surge is working go ahead but make sure you're not doing it from the deck of an aircraft carrier; we've all seen how that can turn out.

      Also, if you watch the video it states, "Make no mistake Baghdad is still a very dangerous place." Until we can control one city with consistency I'll reserve my judgment on this plans success.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I have not declared anything a success or a failure.

      I'm merely pointing out the myopic tendencies of the average acvtivist digger.

      I'm seeing declarations in this thread about "what we hear in the news" and, in return, I'm showing one of the reasons WHY some articles are not seen. It certainly is NOT because they don't exist.

      My conclusion for this lack of interest in any inkling of surge success in the MSM is that it does not benefit most activists politically. They are not in favor or interested in any form of success in Iraq whatsoever because of all of their political investment in failure.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, I'm being dugg down for giving my thoughts on why activists ignore success and claim there are no stories about it..

      Regardless of what I think, this link still undeniably demonstrates a glaring indifference to success and the fallacy of making a declaration that the stories do no exist.

      I believe my conclusions based on well established traffic patterns are sound.

      Instead of digging me down, perhaps someone should explain WHY the story linked above doesn't count and why they won't digg it.
  • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2My essay on why the Bush administration is coming to an end: ***** TERM LIMITS
    • demicritter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Too bad your screen name didn't take.
  • BrandonMills, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Well, I just hope everyone realizes that he couldn't have done this kind of damage without the full support of the Republican House and Senate. Yeah, Bush needs to go, but don't let the instinct to scapegoat let the other culprits get away.

    The Republicans in the House and Senate ( and Joe Lieberman, although he might as well be a Republican ) let the adminstration get away with anything they want. Now suddenly, they act like they had no part in the matter. Don't be fooled - kick out any Senator or House member that has a history of rubber stamping all the BS that this President has gotten away with.
    • EchoExousia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Including and not limited to:

      Hillary Clinton (running for president - leading the polls)
      Harry Reid
      Chuck Schumer
      John Kerry
      Joe Biden
      Christopher Dodd
      Jonathan Edwards (out of office but running for president)
      Dennis Kucinich
      Sheila Jackson-Lee
      Gary Condit

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

      Just trying to help the opposition a little bit. :)
  • Ub3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I'm really getting tired of seeing crap articles like this make it to digg. Why? Not because I necessarily disagree with them. I don't think you could find one person out there that would say this administration has done a good job or is without mistakes. We know, we ALL know. Any ***** can point out where someone screwed up. What we need now is ideas and discourse on how to get back to being a great nation and how to unite people. Look through this thread. Its mostly name calling and bickering from both sides of the fence. This will help nothing. All those of the more liberal, Bush hating crowd who think the answer is to swing the policy pendulum all the way over to the far left are either naive at best or don't have a good grasp of history. What we need is to find common ground, talk about where we need to go, and how we're going to go about doing it. Enough of the bickering already. Let's work on making this country great again.
    • AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You're starting from the wrong point, I'm sorry to say. Not everything can be fixed or in order to fix it you need time and not actions. Our credibility as a nation has suffered in the world's eyes both left and right will be feeling this for a long time. The conservative revolution was a bait and switch. You were promised less government and fiscal responsibility.

      Well we got the exact opposite but hey congress did step in and try to stop Teri Schaivo from being taken off life support, created a new class of person that can be held indefinitely without due process, allowed the president to tap your phone, bank records and emails with out a warrant.

      Now you want to change the argument to how do we fix this; well I want to know who's responsible for this and how are they going to fix it or at least how are we going to hold them responsible.


    • Ub3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Axeswinger, what the hell are you on about? I think you completely misunderstand what I'm getting at. I'm not some Republician apologist. I didn't vote for Bush either time. I'm saying the bickering is retarded and the finger pointing is wasting time. I agree, we are a lesser nation in the eyes of the world because of the current leadership. No doubt. My point is we can waste time going on a witch hunt or we can get to work fixing the problem. Articles like this only serve to divide people further and that's not really what is needed at this point in time.
    • AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Point taken. I think I understand what you're saying but I still think we need to hold those in power accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, too many people, often myself included, look at politics like a sporting event with a side needing to "win".

      I too would like to see a less divided country; I'm still trying to figure out why someone who is a moderate is looked down on. I truly believe that we should rule from the moderate but protect the fringes but that's another thread.

    • Ub3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not advocating that anyone be granted a "Get Out of Jail Free" card either. I'm just saying that its far more pressing to fix problems and do damage control than to issue punishment right now. In many ways we're on the brink right now. Let's get ourselves out of trouble and back on the right path, then worry about holding people accountable.

      There's two things that I don't think people are considering here. As anyone who's ever had to do extensive troubleshooting knows, the problem is usually complex and several layers deep. I'm guessing that's what we'll see if we start to work on the ills in this country. You could try those in charge with crimes they may have committed, but that limits their liability. You can only charge them with what you see now. If they've actually done more damage behind the scenes than you know, you can't charge them again because of double jeopardy. Only through fixing the problems and making things right can you truly wrap your arms around what's been done and what should be done to hold those accountable. Does that make sense?

      The other thing is really Bush specific and that's the impact of his legacy. I've met President Carter and I can tell you that Presidents worry more about their legacy than you could possibly imagine. By fixing issues first, you can gain some perspective of what's really gone on, and gain the ability to paint a better picture for the history books. By getting things right and having our facts straight, you gain the ability to have a potentially huge impact on his presidential legacy. That's punishment in perpetuity. I'm not saying it should be limited to only that, but its a far greater puniative measure than people might realize.
    • AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure but the problem with legacy is revisionist history. Reagan was not the great conservative president that he's remembered as, Nixon is remembered for his recent works as a statesman and his previous actions have almost been excused by modern pundits, Carter is portrayed as a peanut farmer or rube while he's become quite vocal about poverty. Clinton's legacy has yet to be decided because it's relatvely recent history.

      Legacy can be changed for the right amount of public relations.
  • RyanChappell, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3"Bush Disaster," my a$$! It is all Clintonisc Smoke and Mirrors and a general non-truth concocted by the Liberal media machine!

    Ridiculous! He has kept us safe by keeping the war over there. Who cares how mad the extremist are? They are mad because we are winning, and Westernism killing their backwards oppressive ways. That is why they are so disparate as to spread lies and suicide bomb. Digg is mainly a bung of 20 year olds who think being liberal is cool, they will learn. When you get your first real paycheck and see all the socialism taxes that the Demoncrats steal from us everyday!
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What is it with right-wing propaganda victims always always ALWAYS using the word "extremist" or "terrorist" as plural? I've noticed this unusual trend for years and kept my mouth shut, but here I must draw the line. Adding an "s" makes the word plural. "Extremist" is not a word like "sheep" or "deer" that is the same when singular or plural. Jesus Christ, if you're going to try to make an argument, no matter how vapid and content-free, at least spell the easy words correctly.
    • Sambone67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"When you get your first real paycheck and see all the socialism taxes that the Demoncrats steal from us everyday!"

      Yeah, who is this FICA guy and why is he getting all my ***** money?

      /joke
    • RyanChappell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Selfabortion - nice name, spelling police. thanks i didn't notice. for me if is an auditory thinking thing. Spelling is important but and as important as ideas, I guess I subconsciously sensed the s sound in the word an it passes my inattentive mental test. Kind of picky if you ask me? Also it is transparent to the spell check.
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4So as a fiscal conservative (I presume), you lament the fact that your tax dollars go to social programs such as welfare and social security to help those less fortunate, but you apparently do not seem to mind that an even larger share of your hard earned money goes to support an absolutely gigantic military and defense industry?

      Which do you want: a welfare state or a warfare state?
    • RyanChappell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Defense is money in the bank. We have no economy if bombs are tearing up NY, etc.
    • Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can't wait until 2008, when I can start saying "but... but... but... BUSH!"
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"arrogance, incompetence, cynicism"

    Bush isn't the brightest man but we are told not to worry because he surrounds himself with bright people. But you have to be smart yourself to filter out what people around you relay to you. He's no Winston Churchill. Churchill relished in war but he also wrote books about war and history. Bush, on the other hand, is very pro-war and there doesn't seem much more thought beyond that. We are truly in the times of mediocrity.
    • demicritter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Every PC pundit thinks they have the mettle to lead. Get real. Opinions are cheap. Take 1/1000th of the responsibility the President assumes and try to keep from crapping your diapers. Time to get out of your caves and start interactive with civilization.
    • DiggeralToolz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bush is incompetent! Just look at the past 4 elections!

      ... uh, wait.
  • roho76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Left or Right. Who gives a *****? The fact is that at any one time less than 40% of the people polled like him. And it has been like this for a substantial amount of time. So he has Failed. Move along sir.
    • RyanChappell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Sometimes you have to do things as president that are not popular! That is one of the things wrong with Clinton. He would have marketing studies before every decision he made. That can't be best for the country.
  • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I believe the Dem's should cut all founding to the troops. This will force a withdrawal from Iraq. The only way to support our troops is to bring back home the ones that are still alive.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Punish the troops because of Bush?

      No, congress needs to take back some of the power that Bush has somehow given himself.
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5ITs not punishing them. It is brining them home.
  • roho76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Left or Right. Who gives a *****? The fast is that at any one time less than 40% of the people poled like him. And it has been that way for quite some time now. So he has failed. Move along sir.
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6conspiracy theorist base all there facts on weak anaologies. They have no scientific proof.
  • gibbwake, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6You cant talk about the collapse of the Bush Admin without talking about 9/11. There were wargames going on on 9/11 simulating the same attacks at the same time. It was an inside job! Do some research!
    • squantix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2RIGHT ON!
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Your an idiot. 911 was not a inside job. You do some research and stop listening to documentaries that are false.
    • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2'your an idiot'

      lol
  • roho76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0*****. dbl up.
  • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Rats abandon a sinking ship, and look at all the Republicans working to distance themselves from Bush.
  • tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7That article nailed it. And yet the neocons will continue to blindly defend everything Bush says and does. We can only hope that the new congress will be able to stop him from doing any more really serious damage to the world before he leaves office.
    • georgeslivers, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Like bomb the remaining 2 card-carrying members of the AXIS of EVIL, so they can't use their nuclear weapon factories to destroy the U.S.

      Unfortunately, it will take another attack on the U.S. for for the pro-terrorist liberals to wake up.
    • tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"pro-terrorist liberals"

      You're obviously a complete idiot.
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@georgeslivers - "Like bomb the remaining 2 card-carrying members of the AXIS of EVIL, so they can't use their nuclear weapon factories to destroy the U.S."

      How about we bomb the 3 nation states that refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Don't these rouge states present a much more clear and present threat to U.S. interests since they have unrestricted and completely unmonitored nuclear weapons programs already in existence and have publicly stated their intention to use these weapons against their enemies if provoked?

      You know who I'm talking about don't you? - Israel, India, and Pakistan.
    • DiggeralToolz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Impeach Bush! Then Cheney will be president.

      ... uh, wait.
  • georgeslivers, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Time has it all wrong. Bush will be remembered as the last great president, prior to the apocolypse that will be brought on by the unholy union between post-modern left-wing dingbats and islamofascists.

    We can all be thankful that his war on terror gave the free world a few more years of peace and prosperity. After he finishes his term, you better start saving up funds to buy your wife a burka (Nancy Pelosa is half-way there already).
    • tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3You forgot to add /sarcasm to the end of your comment.
    • rancorcrankor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Some hate Bush so much that they take up sides with those that shout "Death to America" in the streets..

      "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" I guess...
    • demicritter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hahahahahaha. I got it.
  • bigspruce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6From the article:
    "this Administration governs badly because it doesn't care very much about governing."
    We've had do-nothing administrations before, and actually they aren't too damaging for the country.

    But this is very different - these guys actually go out of their way to damage the reputation and standing of
    the country. And alot more bad will become of the 654 days we have yet to endure.

    I feel like a prisoner in my own country.
    • Archos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Trapped in Illuminati's cage.
      Remember: Bush did NOT do nothing because he just happens to be a cold blooded monkey; he followed orders. Orders from everyone but the people that supposedly elected him.
  • squantix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Here is what is in store for you:

    "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

    Extra credit for naming the author.
    • georgeslivers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Lucifer?
    • generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Albert Pike
    • tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Albert Pike
    • dwiezel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, now that we understand the grand scheme of the "illuminati", what are us little people to do? Sit back and watch it all happen like a bunch of sheople?
  • shartman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7The last sentence totally sums it up.
    "And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead."
    • mcmalayalam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Exactly... another 2 years of his crap presidency!?!? That's a long time for a president to ***** things up even further. Even if Colbert said it on a comedy show, he is absolutely right - Bush needs to be impeached. Right now. He's given enough reasons to do so already.
      http://www.devilducky.com/media/59637/
    • Archos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bush destroyed the United States of America. With the agreement of the Communist North American Union, he sold the country to the globalist conspirators without informing the American people. Face it, freedom is over. America has become a fascist dictatorship. The New World Order endgame envisioned by the these Satanist Bonesmen, the Jesuits and other scum, will be a nightmare worse than any time in history. Unless the entire world cooperates and stands up against it!
    • DiggeralToolz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We will not allow Bush to be re-elected!

      ... uh, wait.
  • generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7This is the same media that called Reagan stupid until the day he died. This is the same media that made it their mission to sabotage the Vietnam war. This is the same media that claimed the residents of New Orleans had to resort to cannibalism (after 2 days) to survive. And, the majority of the moonbats supporting this media ***** are the same moonbats that whine and bitch and cry and stamp their little birkenstocks anytime they hear the name (turn around moonbats) Karl Rove.

    Moonbats, go sit in a circle, make up a few rhymes and then go attack someone or throw rocks or ***** or whatever it is you idiots do to people who are as en lighted and smelly as you. Most of you are liberal arts majors or high school kids. Knowledge comes with experience, there's still hope for you after you are through trying to be cool.
    • nycmac247, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@ generalinterest

      At what point do you admit things are not OK?

      When the housing bubbles bust from deregulation, OPEC moves to the Euro and you can't afford healthcare?

      When China dumps all those loans we have taken out from them?

      Or will you keep saying "America #1" as the country continues to get run into the ground?
    • generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5NYCMAC - I think those are all valid issues and I don't think things are OK. And furthermore, neither of these parties are going to make things OK. They are different sides of the same coin.
      More regulation is not the answer - less regulation is.
      OPEC switches to the Euro, I'm not sure how that effects health-care, but gov't control of health-care is not the answer. Getting insurance out of the drivers seat re health-care is the answer. How does supporting a multi-billion dollar industry to stand between people and doctors help reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of health-care? Making the insurance industry offer national policies would help reduce the costs and well as having insurance companies with a social conscience would help. paying the CEO of UHCG $40m/yr does not help anyone have better, more affordable health-care.

      Our relationship with China is embarrassing. We harvest our natural resources, ship them to China, they manufacture things, ship them to us for more than they are worth. We get loans from China to buy it all. in effect we are shipping China boat loads of money because our business environment to so over regulated and mismanaged that we can't afford to manufacture our own goods anymore, that's what should be addressed.

      I don't think you will find anywhere on DIGG where I've said "We're number 1" I simply don't think being a knee-jerk socialist is the answer.
    • nycmac247, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6NYCMAC - I think those are all valid issues and I don't think things are OK. And furthermore, neither of these parties are going to make things OK. They are different sides of the same coin.

      --- We are in agreement there.

      More regulation is not the answer - less regulation is.

      ---- Hard to say. More regulation can mean bloated overhead but LESS regulation means that we are are trusting people (i.e. Enron) to police themselves. I am concerned b/c the 5 day work week, abolishment of child labor, pollution controls, etc. we not brought into industry voluntarily. The former Soviet Union is a good place to look at how things are when there is very little regulation. At least with the gov't we might have a shred of accountability in policing white collar crime.

      OPEC switches to the Euro, I'm not sure how that effects health-care,

      ----- I was getting excited and trying to stress that the US is going to loose its primacy. Its not just that other countries are churning out more engineers and scientists but that our long-term future is really in jeopardy b/c of the economy. From my understanding, once we went off the gold standard the value of currency was just a matter of perception. Therefore, if OPEC switches to the Euro and away from the greenback due to the US economy being perceived as being managed by short-term thinking we would really be in trouble ---> and National Health Care would _not_ be a politically viable option?

      but gov't control of health-care is not the answer. Getting insurance out of the drivers seat re health-care is the answer. How does supporting a multi-billion dollar industry to stand between people and doctors help reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of health-care? Making the insurance industry offer national policies would help reduce the costs and well as having insurance companies with a social conscience would help. paying the CEO of UHCG $40m/yr does not help anyone have better, more affordable health-care.

      ---- I am concerned that all other Industrialized countries have national health care and we don't. One of my best friends is an M.D. who it looks like will be going on an exchange-type program with the government of Denmark next year. In talking with him, he said that although taxation is high the Danish model actually gets a high approval rating from the public since all their basic needs are taken care of and they don't need to worry about the necessities of life. And, in regards to those that would say that this is "Liberal" or "Commie" or whatever he said "We'll you can complain all you want and point fingers but the fact is that they'll continue to have a safety net whereas we -- including the aging Baby Boomers -- will not." Basically, from my understanding, the US gov't actually lets Big Pharma and the health industry write their own regulation while all the time planting the public memes that _any_ type of socialized medicine results in super high taxes and long, long wait times for health care; two claims that are demonstrably false.

      Our relationship with China is embarrassing. We harvest our natural resources, ship them to China, they manufacture things, ship them to us for more than they are worth. We get loans from China to buy it all. in effect we are shipping China boat loads of money because our business environment to so over regulated and mismanaged that we can't afford to manufacture our own goods anymore, that's what should be addressed.

      ---- Hmmm. I am a business owner and it seems to me that the problem with the US is not regulation its that our country is not protectionist enough to keep me from competing against zero environmental regulation and - dare I say it - slave labor. The only reason why Wal Mart and others exist is because poor people want to buy things and our gov't allows Chinese goods to be shipped halfway around the world and still cost less than local produced goods. I am concerned that by the time people "get it" (that is, that gov't is the only thing that can create a good economic environment) that the "free market" argument will have already spiraled to the bottom: a large share of white-collar jobs will also go overseas and the same people now arguing that the free hand of the market will take care of everything will be the same people in 5 years who are out of work b/c _their_ job has been outsourced.

      I don't think you will find anywhere on DIGG where I've said "We're number 1" I simply don't think being a knee-jerk socialist is the answer.

      --- I am interested in this. Is any gov't oversight "socialism"?
      Do you think you should pave the road that you drive on in the way to work? Do you think that there should be no safety net, kind of like how third world countries have with the ultra rich and the ultra poor? And what about the countries (think of northern Europe) that self - identify as "socialist"? Is their standard of living really bad? From what I remember its not just Nokia that's doing well financially up there... and have you seen any of the TV specials having our fifth graders taking knowledge tests vs. their fifth graders? Although I am not interested in moving (Not yet?) from talking to people from and who have traveled to other countries it seems like we, as Americans, have a lot of mis-conceptions that are getting in the way of us looking at differing models for health care, education, etc. I'm not saying that we go whole hog and adopt things outright from ...whomever... but I wonder why no one stands up in Congress and says "Hey! All the other industrialized countries have national health care and they can't _all_ be worthless; let's look into these existing systems and craft one of our own." It seems to me that a good way to stop change or attempt at change would be to just shout "Socialism!" whenever anyone talks about something new in the US instead of looking -- critically -- at existing systems from other countries and seeing what we can learn from them.
    • generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Some regulation is necessary. But how much is too much? We have laws that address many of these issues that should be strongly enforced, because anything w/o oversight will take every advantage it can. but we shouldn't have the govt playing the nanny role. Jefferson said "responsibility is the price of liberty" let's make people take personal responsibility and hold those responsible who take advantage.

      OPEC has threatened to move to the EURO for some time and I think most of it is political pressure due to the make up of OPEC, Venezuela, Iran, etc...But, if it's an economic decision it will stay with the dollar as the US economy is still growing more and is still more stable than the euro economy. It's true that other economies are createing more "creators" i.e. engineers, scientists and that's a place where the govt should step in and create some incentives for students who choose to study those fields, that's in our econom