digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com —

Obama: McCain Foreign Policy Stance is Extraordinarily Naive

huffingtonpost.com — Obama is continuing to push back hard against John McCain's foreign policy attacks. In a interview with Wolf Blitzer this evening, Barack called the Arizona's senator approach to Cuba "extraordinarily naive."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stevanoski, on 05/21/2008, -94/+23Baaaraaack would know about naive.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/21/2008, -11/+21Haha look at the childish response from the Neo-Con anti-American who supports Bush negotiating with the largest funder of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, and Stevanoski supports Bush giving arms to Lebanon which is a terrorists state.

      Why do you support Bush capitulating to the terrorists Stevanoski? You do know that those actions undermine our troops.

      Why do you hate our troops Stevanoski?
      • DavidS9, on 05/21/2008, -12/+6So you would support a measure to drill in the US and build more refinery's??
        • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -3/+11Refineries (and regulations over them) have nothing to do with current problems.

          The rise in gas prices has been from *CRUDE* oil prices. Refinery have been fairly low and dull except for very short term spikes like Hurricane Katrina. Ditto for the flat federal tax, which hasn't increased.

          We've either got a financial bubble or true "peak oil". If it's a bubble, drilling in untapped domestic areas probably won't ramp up until the bubble bursts and then we end up losing money.

          If it's "peak oil", then we should preserve those resources until we really need them, and not "sell low", since they'll just become more valuable over time, at least until nobody needs major supplies of cheap oil anymore.
        • orangefly, on 05/21/2008, -3/+6they are just trying to blackmail congress into opening up more drilling.....that is the only reason for the price increases....
      • provost, on 05/21/2008, -1/+11I support you learning how to use apostrophes.
      • didiman, on 05/21/2008, -11/+2LOL obama calling someone else naive, now i've really heard everything. He must live in la la land like the majority of Diggers.
      • executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4Lebanon is not a terrorist state.

        Hamas happens to be there but the government and army is a coalition of christian/sunni/Druze.
    • V0lk, on 05/21/2008, -4/+4that's a very intellectual argument you have there....
    • jabberwolf, on 05/21/2008, -14/+8"Haha look at the childish response from the Neo-Con anti-American who supports Bush"
      Someone needs to get that retard a mirror!

      Sorry but someone that has 1 term experience versus someone that has 30 years experience in the Senate and dealt the the crazy Ayatollah in last conflict?

      Sorry but Obama is WAAAAAAAY out of his league!
      And sorry you may call others that disagree with obama neocons but simply,
      its the people that remember passed 9/11,
      Remember the 1st Iraq war that liberals wanted to get out of (helped no one because we are back again)
      Remember the Iran conflict with the Ayatollah
      Remember the previous attacks by other middle east nations.
      Remember IRAQ trying before to build a nuclear reactor.
      Remember Libya
      Remember the Pam Am flight downed.
      Remember the numerous hijackings

      I dont know how you can call people that remember the passed NEO ?
      • asspants, on 05/21/2008, -5/+6Sorry but Obama is WAAAAAAAY out of his league!
        - Yeah because a guy who crashed 5 planes and surrendered to the enemy like a pussy is SOOOO much better. He allowed himself to be captured.



      • Lockean, on 05/21/2008, -3/+5You just used 'passed' in place of 'past'. Gross.

        If by 30 years of 'experience' you mean the achievement of total senility, then I totally agree with you. The man is decades beyond what might have once been considered his prime.

        The neo-conservative movement got its real start, under that guise, in the '90s. It held the same war-mongering policies before foreign terrorism really hit in the states.
        It was conservatives that wanted limited engagement in the Gulf War, big daddy Bush himself, in fact.
        What were the 'previous attacks by other middle east nations' that you referred to?
        Are you talking about the Osirak reactor that France helped them build, completely legally, and that Israel decided in all of its idiocy to illegally destroy?
        Please go ahead and list the incidents that your extremely limited intake of msm has shown you in your pathetically narrow world-view. And then, actually learn something about the neo-con movement before you ever try to post on it again. Google PNAC, moron.
        • jabberwolf, on 05/22/2008, -3/+2"passed= past" sorry quick typing and easy trust in digg spell checking - big whoop!

          "It was conservatives that wanted limited engagement in the Gulf War, big daddy Bush himself, in fact. " IRAQ INVADED KUWAIT YOU *****!!! DUH!!
          And it was conservatives that wanted to change the regime of IRAQ then and not leave it. It was liberals that were clammering that it was a conspiracy to invade Iraq, and we wound up having sanctions that cuased close to 400,000 deaths of REAL innocent children and Iraq's. These are deaths liberals are responsible for but will gladly try to change history to avoid blame as always.

          "Osirak reactor"
          You mean "Operation Opera" 1981 ?
          When Iran was building a "PEACEFUL" reactor AFTER Ayatollah Khomeini had led the Islamic revolution in 1979?

          The Ayatollah Khomeini who created the Basij who were children that marched across landmines and given plastic keys to heaven around their necks for doing so? That celebrated their deaths with fountains of BLOOD?!!!

          Sorry but WHO THE ***** IS LIMITED IN THEIR HISTORY? YOU ARE SIR ! AND GROSSLY SO !

          Go back and read ALL OF THE THE ***** HISTORY... not just the bit that you think suits your argument. You are more worried about being right than actually admitting what is right.
          Shame on you!

          Obama is severely NAIVE and people like Mccain know ALL the history and dont just cherry pick as you do!
  • jbenson2, on 05/21/2008, -84/+23Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain and more his own character, his inexperience and odd cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere as a junior senator with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished by the softball questioning of a fawning press. (Which is why those “Saturday Night Live” parodies of the O-man were so devastatingly effective.) His only way to stay in the game is to stay on offense which will be very difficult for a rookie.
    • SketchaMPM, on 05/21/2008, -4/+6"Odd cultural attitudes"? Really?
    • ncairns, on 05/21/2008, -4/+8Listen, we all know that your only hope for November is to convince stupid people that being old as ***** is somehow an advantage for McCain, but if there's one place it's not going to work it's here. Go back to the comfortable echo of LGF.
    • thoughtcrime, on 05/21/2008, -9/+6This thread illustrates nicely the caliber of the average person using Digg. jbenson2 posts something intelligent and reflective, and the the throngs of keyboard pounding monkeys down him to a "-25" and counting. Pathetic. Now I remember why I quit coming here.
      • DanMiller, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4Actually it looks like this thread illustrates nicely the number of people who feign intellegence by parroting things they heard from another source while the rest of Digg slams them back down a few notches for being idiots.
    • nahaleitan, on 05/21/2008, -3/+7This comment is clearly plagiarized from this article by Charles Krauthammer.

      http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrautham ...

      For that alone, buried. How does this stuff even manage to pass as original thought here?
      • phrenzy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2pwned. Really, the Reichpublicans are ***** hilarious this year! They've got NOTHING so they try to invent strange theories. LMAO.
      • DanMiller, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I'd be interested to see if this douchebag dares to make another comment on this thread.
  • cashman57, on 05/21/2008, -59/+23Don't care much for the author, but I see problems with McWarmonger as a president. We would be on a course for disaster as well if Obama is elected.
    Obama calling McCain naive on foreign policy is ironic. Obama chairs a Senate foreign relations subcommittee and has never even convened it.
    As I see it both of them put too much emphasis on the rest of the world and how to solve their problems instead of making sure we are taken care of here. One Senator is as bad as the other.

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/13974/
    "When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan;...The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ..That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq...It’s going to take facing tragedy head-on and turning it into the next generation’s triumph. That is a challenge that I welcome. Because when we do make that change, we’ll do more than win a war ...
    *****************
    Is that what you want? How is that any better than what the other Senator says?
    • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -14/+9Apparently to the Obama fans, war in Iraq is bad, but invading Pakistan is good. Yep, nothing says trust like invading an ally, albeit a marginal ally, but still.

      Thanks for that clip, it's the first I'd heard about his views on Pakistan. You'd think that might have been worthy of at least a scroll at the bottom of a cable news channel. Then again, it's not very flattering for Obama, so I can see why it would be suppressed.
      • ncairns, on 05/21/2008, -3/+12"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

        Gee, how unreasonable.
        • cashman57, on 05/21/2008, -5/+2Look at the number of times he talks about war with Pakistan before he even mentions Musharraf.
          Backing a warmonger like Obama is as stupid as backing any other warmonger.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/22/2008, -3/+1He was fully behind covert operations that were unknown to Pakistan (an ally, I'll say it again), to send troops across their border to carry out missions. Correction, it was "his idea".

          Gee, how reasonable.

          Nothing shows a wobbling nuclear nation that their government is strong and dependable quite like having foreign troops enter their nation, complete an assasination mission, and leave without any knowledge of them being there to begin with.

          Yeah, I look forward to see what else he's capable of if he becomes the president.
      • neognostic, on 05/21/2008, -4/+8You need to update your reading skills, he wants to continue the fight against al Qaeda, not Pakistan. Yes there are al Quaeda in Pakistan, and Obama has said that he would work with Pakistan to get al Quaeda out.
        Of course a lot of this is mute until we find out what the peace accord that has been worked out between the western tribal lands of Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan that was announced today.
        • cashman57, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2You need to wake up to the fact Obama wants to be the war president.Go to the link I provided and read what he says and pay attention to the number of times he says war. He seems to think moving the war from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan while still leaving troops in Iraq will make a difference. He's clearly naive when it comes to foreign policy and he's clearly a warmonger.
          My reading skills are just fine it seems you have a comprehension problem.
          I read more news before you wake up than you do all day.
        • stfucupcake, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1I think we all like to believe that Obama, should he become president, would bring our troops home.
          That's what people remember from speeches from his campaign trail, especially those first few months when his anti-war passion ran so deep.
          Ending this illegal war is what the majority of Americans want and what the majority of our military men and women want as well.

          The closer we get to seeing an Obama Candidacy the more removed he gets from an anti-war position.
          His image as a peacemaker is all in our mind. It's what we want to believe -- a Jedi mind trick.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Work with? Like his much heralded idea to send covert ops across Pakistan's border, violating it's sovereignty? An ally's sovereignty? That's a bit different than Afghanistan or Iraq. That's akin to sending troops into England without telling them.

          Wake up, he's not special.
    • davidrools, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3He was making the point that if the war in Iraq were a response to terrorism, then it's completely misplaced. Our potential terrorist enemies are in Pakistan (Bin Laden) and Afghanistan (Al Qaeda). If we had intelligence of a legitimate threat then Obama would take action where necessary, such a these two countries.
      • cashman57, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2Did you read what he said? He would go to war with a nuclear power like Pakistan and he doesn't give it a second thought.
        Are you that blind?
      • PolishLogic, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Iraq was not a response to terrorism, it was just sold that way. There is no point to be made, this isn't some secret that only diggers know.

        The sooner you can get use to the fact that the ***** that put us in there is now a moot point, the sooner you can realize the other problems we're dealing with that are much larger than a mistaken perception that was allowed to exist either due to laziness or purposely. One of those problems is making sure we are not ***** up the stability of a nuclear nation who is currently friendly with us politically.
    • sodade, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3I'm voting for Obama, but I absolutely agree with your assessment.
      Let's face it - if he were really going to change america's insane foreign policy of the last 60 years, Michelle would be holding his brains...
    • Haapi, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2He chairs what committee? Biden chairs the Foreign Relations Committee.
      Buried.
      • cashman57, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2I am sorry that you are unable to read what I wrote and thus became confudsed. Obama was given the chair of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee and never convened it.
        You can bury my commenbt all you want to, it doesn't change the fact Obama is not experiences nor does he have any expertise in foreign affairs.
        If you would put a rookie quarterback in to win the superbowl you would vote for Obama, the least experienced Democrat presidential candidat since Lyndon LaRouche.
  • dBass, on 05/21/2008, -21/+96If only after being in Washington for over 20 long years, McSame could keep his Sunni-Shiite straight, or understand who is really in charge in Iran of the nuke program and country, maybe, just maybe we could take his dumb ass seriously.

    Surely the repubs could have come up with a better candidate than this clueless, loser.
    • Stevanoski, on 05/21/2008, -27/+11If only after being in Washington for over 20 long years Obomer could realize there are 50 states, not 57.
      • moolaismyfriend, on 05/21/2008, -8/+18wow a slip up and a fundamental misunderstanding of the players involved in the war we are fighting.

        Are you that childish Stevanoski?

        Ohh never mind, you are just an anti-American bottom feeding scum here on Digg representing the lowest common denominator in society.

        Doing a good job at it too.
        • DavidS9, on 05/21/2008, -15/+5Oh so Obama can make a minor slip about how many states there are in a country he wants to run but McCain can't mix up two similar halves of the same religion??
        • Bith8654, on 05/21/2008, -3/+13I just find it funny that when there was the whole McCain holding his mic upside down thing republicans got all pissed off that people were making fun of it. I said straight up if the same thing happened to Obama you know as well as I do you guys would go on about it forever and WOW look at that I was right.
        • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -1/+14@DavidS9: McCain has made that kind of mistake (even the exact same one) repeatedly, and his kind of "mistake" is far more likely to cause problems. Calling it a "senior moment" is actually very charitable compared to alternative explanations.
        • ncairns, on 05/21/2008, -2/+14McCain did it like nineteen times, and only corrected himself when Lieberman whispered in his ear. Either he's ignorant or senile. Your choice, GOP.
      • sinrtb, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Wow after campaigning in almost every state and hitting quite a few more then once, Obama miscounted the number of states that hes been to. That exactly the same as confusing a friendly greeting with sniper fire or confusing one warring faction with another.
    • whodat51773, on 05/21/2008, -31/+6Barack Obama began crying again. Someone should remind him... there's no crying in politics. He has whined that we can't use his middle name, he has whined when we bring up his close relations with aging hippy terrorists, that we ask aloud about his "spiritual mentor," the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and now he is crying that we are highlighting the anti-American statements made by his wife as she campaigns for him all across the country. So, on Monday he whined "lay off my wife."

      What's his other spin America needs to repent and be forgiven...He wants to shame America into voting for him! (Oh we are so bad using lots of fuel, eating to much, bringing China and India out of poverty...God Damn us!)

      Obamanation! America Ashamed!
      • ncairns, on 05/21/2008, -1/+6*YAAAWWWWN*
      • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6If there's anyone who should be ashamed, I'd say it's the guy who is cross-posting the same copy-pasted response multiple times, eh?
      • whodat51773, on 05/21/2008, -4/+1Or "the guy" who reads the post again
    • mypetridish, on 05/21/2008, -4/+7But but but... John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.
      • ddmichaelson, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5Thats directly from McCain Recruit-a-troll site
        • SlimFastForYou, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Yeah, I noticed, but it was funny. What I hope catches on is people using his talking points in the places where they are least appropriate. Maybe have a [/McTroll] tag at the end just so people know ;). Hey, it could work and it'd be a good way of letting people know what smoke he's trying to blow up our collective asses from day to day.
    • chrissku, on 05/21/2008, -4/+13John McLame is off to a real bad start in his campaign. Everytime he opens his mouth Obama slaps that ***** down.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Wow. you people are quite naive, especially chrissku, who I have seen plastering naive comments all over the place recently.
      not only did I bury it for being huffpo, I also buried it because WHAT DO YOU EXPECT OBAMA TO SAY?! Thats his opponent!
      Did you really frickin expect him to talk about how great his opponent's foreign policy stance is?
      Guess what? Obama has a very, VERY shady, malleable foreign policy stance, the type that is prime for him ending up being a puppet for "special interests". It's actually very reminiscent of a former recent Prez's stance...his name is Bill Clinton.
      there's only one candidate who has a legitimate, straightforward, unquestionable stance...and we all know who that is....and nobody voted for him...
      • SlimFastForYou, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Hey hey hey, I voted for him even though I thought it'd be throwing away a vote that could have gone to Obama (next best thing IMO). Then McCain and Hillary won my state :(. But don't say I didn't vote for him!
      • dangeroussnakes, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Mitt Romney?
  • knumbknuts, on 05/21/2008, -38/+10That headline makes about much sense as:

    "McCain calls Obama a crappy speaker."
    • baldr, on 05/21/2008, -2/+10You do realize that everyone can easily view all your recent comments, don't you?
      • knumbknuts, on 05/21/2008, -12/+8Yes, I have about a dozen obama supporters that follow me around ("friends") and digg me down... I consider it a sign of my effectiveness in disquieting them. There's nothing to be gained here; I like stirring the pot. Digg is a big ass sandbox... one with a lot of Huffingtonpost turds in it.

        My only real frustration is I have yet to be countered by an obamabot on a policy issue, based on his voting record, that makes me go: Hmm... I may just vote for this guy.

        Not that anything I read here would ever change my mind, but it may point me in the right direction. So far, all I've learned is that Obama has a Foreign Relations Subcommittee he's never convened and has sponsored two pieces of legislation in his entire Senate career... one was to make lobbyists eat standing up.
  • Swfhunter, on 05/21/2008, -34/+2Well, it was proven by some speech analyzing(I dont remember which.It was published in the newspapers) organization that Obama's speech contains hidden meanings.
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/21/2008, -1/+12Re-e-eally?

      Care to share this?
    • reuscel, on 05/21/2008, -1/+12Wow,that's some great research you did there. I mean, it's nice that you admit you don't know where this imaginary report came from, but that's why you probably should have avoided commenting in the first place. Moron.
    • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -0/+7Well, if we're not being serious, then...

      Your MOM contains hidden meanings. And by hidden meanings, I mean...
    • DavidYeah, on 05/21/2008, -0/+8Short Swfhunter: O'reilly says there's hidden meaning in Obama's speeches.
    • ScottoGato, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Probably the worst comment (that actually tried to be a reasonable comment) that I've ever read. I can't believe you actually went through with submitting it.
  • casey2kazan, on 05/21/2008, -2/+35Wolf Blitzer badly needs a vacation -from TV.
  • suzywang3000, on 05/21/2008, -34/+11unlike Obama's foreign policy stance which is undoubtedly the greatest foreign policy stance in the history of mankind.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/21/2008, -18/+50Look at all the Neo-Con grunts in this thread. What a train wreck.
    • sonnybobiche, on 05/21/2008, -21/+9Yeah, it would be a lot nicer if everyone in the entire world thought the same way as you. That way you wouldn't have to deal with reality and all that nastiness.
      • publiclurker, on 05/21/2008, -0/+8Unfortunately, I'm afraid we will have to deal with the like of you for quite some time.
    • knumbknuts, on 05/21/2008, -17/+4wot teh obamabots not out of school yet?
      • sqwirl, on 05/21/2008, -0/+10Apparently, you should join them.
        • cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4Yah, the Antiobamabotsbots are much more annoying than the Obamabots
    • timewarp424, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5Look at all the scarecrow arguments and insults.
    • tomasII, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Another argument based on name calling rather than facts...Is that all you got?
  • SheilaNoya, on 05/21/2008, -21/+51I would have used stronger words than Obama used. McCain's stance on foreign policy is ignorant, arrogant, and dangerous. You can't resolve a problem you have with someone if you won't even have a conversation with them. The Bush/McCain strategy is just to let a situation fester until the only option left is military intervention.

    It's time to show some real courage and meet our enemies face-to-face, instead of just calling them "evil" and hiding from them like Bush has done.

    The right wing conservatives thought Reagan was a hero for meeting face-to-face with the Soviet Union ( a huge nuclear threat to us at the time), but now it appears the Republicans have lost their balls and only want to stick their heads in the sand.
    • DavidS9, on 05/21/2008, -19/+7Yeah the thing about meeting with the old USSR was we did it from a position of strength. Obama wants to Surrender to Iran's forces in Iraq and then talk to them about being a good little boy after proving they could kill some soldiers and we will do what ever Iran wants.
      • SheilaNoya, on 05/21/2008, -6/+15Come back and try again when you have something intelligent and less childish to say.
        • DavidS9, on 05/21/2008, -7/+6Says person calling people names.
        • neognostic, on 05/21/2008, -3/+7It's a description, not name calling, and I think she hit it right on the head.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1@DavidS9: Call a spade a spade.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5What I really find interesting about this situation is the comments being attributed to Gates. Claims that Gates supports Obama's position, when Gates reiterated yesterday that talks would ONLY be fruitful if we did, in fact, come to the table from a....wait for it.....position of strength. Meanwhile, the Digg-Obama Nation leaves that last part out, merely stating that Gates feels that Obama's stance on opening talks is the right one.

        With all this intellectual dishonesty out there, it's no wonder why people like SheilaNoya don't find Obama's foreign policy to be every bit as ignorant as they find McCain's to be.
        • DavidS9, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4They love doing the selective editing you should know that by now. God for bid they use someones full quote.
        • papipablo, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1"Forbid" is one word moron. Someone has done some selective learning of the English language.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1@papipablo

          Thank you for that incredibly insightful commentary on the topic. It's refreshing to hear such a well rounded take on American foreign policy.

          Wait, never mind. Go screw.
      • tgolferman, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Respectfully DavidS9, is having our military stretched thin a position of strength? If another conflict arose that clearly threatened U.S. interests and we could not respond because we are bogged down in Iraq and Afganistan, how do you rationalize portraying Obama as a frightened little school boy? You know his view is that we are stretched thin and that we are vulnerable. What is your real agenda?
        • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Not true. If our country was seriously and directly threatened, as in forces mounting on our borders, you'd see a mass redeployment. Bet on it.

          Furthermore, you also seem to be assuming that the only position of strength one can assume is a military one. That's far from true.

        • neognostic, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Not true polishlogic, the U.S. Generals have openly stated that since there is so much equipment and soldiers in Iraq, that if the command went out today to cease all warfare, it would take over a year to get them all out.
      • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6"Yeah the thing about meeting with the old USSR was we did it from a position of strength."

        WTF are you smoking?

        Our position versus Iran is, if anything, even stronger, negotiating from a *better* position of strength.

        Their military budget is almost invisible compared to ours. By comparsion, the USSR was trying to maintain a comparable military force and possessed a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons.
        • PigGeneral, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1We had the USSR by their economic balls when Reagan went to bat. Really hard to afford to keep up with our military buildup when your economy is capitulating.
      • shakin, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I am going to take a wild guess and say that you are one of the apparent McCain Internet trolls we read about earlier. It's the only explanation I have for why you'd say something that out of touch with reality.
    • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -8/+7And sending troops into Pakistan (an ally) against that country's wishes, isn't ignorant, arrogant, and dangerous?

      Ok, terrific. Let's just send a few battalions in Russia and China while we're at it.
      • publiclurker, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4Google the news reports and you will see that Bush has already attacked terrorists in Pakistan.
      • dagamer34, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4The areas of Pakistan where bin Laden would be hiding, the Pakistani government has 0 control over. Why else do you think he hides there?
    • tgolferman, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Their heads are in a place more odoriferous than sand!
    • iizh, on 05/21/2008, -7/+3There is a large difference between Islamists, our current enemies, and communists, Reagan's enemies. Talks with the Soviets worked because they cared for their own survival and well being as rational human beings do. MAD kept them from launching missiles and Perestroika & Glasnost were a result of the realization that their system could not compete. An Islamist has no such concerns. God has preordained their victory as far as they're concerned. Obama will beg for talks and more talks while our enemies continue unfazed. The thing about diplomacy is that it requires a rational opponent. Islamists are religious extremists, i.e. anything but rational.
      • malex, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1"Your Commie has no regard for human life, not even of his own..."
        -General Jack D. Ripper, "Dr. Strangelove"
    • HonestAbe, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2...and stop calling people "enemies" when they have shown no aggression towards us.
  • sonnybobiche, on 05/21/2008, -21/+9Frankly, the Cuban people don't want America to talk to the Castro regime. They just want the Castros dead, and whoever is willing to make that happen is fine by them.
    When a kid is having a tantrum in a supermarket, the parent can do one of two things: they can either get down on their knees and have a conversation with the child about why his behavior is improper and what steps can be taken to change things, or they can tell him that if he doesn't stop, he'll have the ***** spanked out of him.
    The first option may have the immediate benefit of making the kid stop crying, but he'll quickly figure out that crying is the fastest way to get attention and get what he wants from the parent. The second option may or may not lead to continued crying, depending on how mature the kid is, but once that belt lands, the tantrums are over.
    This is how I was raised, and I don't even know how to throw a tantrum anymore.
    • Bith8654, on 05/21/2008, -3/+10Hmmm isn't it crazy that spanking is generally considered bad and ineffective in the long run these days?

      http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/spanking3to6
      http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/factsAndFicti ...

      My favorite quote from it "One large study showed that the more parents spanked children for antisocial behavior, the more the antisocial behavior increased (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997)."
      Oh here's another good one "The more children are hit, the more likely they are to hit others including peers and siblings and, as adults, they are more likely to hit their spouses (Straus and Gelles, 1990; Wolfe, 1987)."
    • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -0/+10"Frankly, the Cuban people don't want America to talk to the Castro regime. They just want the Castros dead, and whoever is willing to make that happen is fine by them."

      SOURCE POLL PLEASE.

      Seriously, I think you can't make that kind of statement if you're only listening to militant Cuban expatriates in the USA.

      It's the same kind of "I AM the people" crap some people pull when they call you "antisemitic" for holding opinions that large majorities of Israeli citizens hold.
      • mfc5200, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I know a bunch of Cuban people. My own family had our house stolen during Castros ascent and they all came here (I was born here). My Dad and all his friends are all doctors, reasonable, intelligent etc. But when it comes to Cuba, all their logic goes out the window like it does with the Chinese and Taiwan.

        If you mention something like "we should get rid of the embargo, it hasn't work for 50 years, and the lives of the cubans hasn't improved," all cubans will be like, "WHO CARES!?! , we should just bomb the entire island. ***** all of them." They don't want us talking to Cuba, trading with them, etc etc. In fact, my dad stormed out of the room last night when we were talking about this. There is just so much resentment in the Cuban community, they just all the want the Castro's and all of his henchmen dead.
        • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I'm not trying to belittle their hardships, but I'm just saying that "The Cuban People" primarily people still in Cuba.

          Similarly, we don't make conclusions about, say, "The Chinese People" primarily from first- and second-generation immigrants in the USA.

        • mfc5200, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Sorry, when I say Cubans, I mean Cubans living in America. And all of these Cubans hate the Castro's and want the US to either invade them or at least totally try and isolate the country. And it is these Cuban Americans who drive the US-Cuban relationship.
      • sonnybobiche, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1It's hard to get an accurate poll in a communist country.
    • EtherGnat, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1"They just want the Castros dead"

      Unless you're suggesting that WE kill the Castros it's none of our business. In the meantime Castro and friends are the government, whether we like it or not. We routinely deal with far worse governments, I'm not sure why Cuba is any different.
      • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Ancient enmity?

        I can't find a link right now, but there's this political cartoon with two figures facing each other, a very old Castro, and a very old guy dressed almost like a US civil-war-era general in a wheelchair.

        Casto: "Why won't you DIE!?"
        US Cuban policy: "Why won't YOU!?"
    • phrenzy, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1They should have just hit you with a baseball bat - Then you'd REALLY have learned, right?
  • fishbeef33, on 05/21/2008, -10/+65It's much easier for the common American to understand things in terms of good and evil. Only us "elite" liberals would dare to look at world policy in the nuanced way in which the real world actually exists. The conservatives have done a heckuva job in the past few years training us to see certain countries and their leaders as one-dimensional, evil, movie-style villians. We're comfortable with that. That's how the world works in TV and movies.

    It all comes down to education vs. emotion. Are you the type of person who hits back immediately when attacked, or do you hesitate to think about the greater consequences? Don't confuse what IS better with what FEELS better. And don't do the stupid macho thing and call the hesitater a pussy. The "pussy" WILL fight when necessary.

    • Bith8654, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4Yeah and their claws hurt like a bitch :P well said.
    • HanFastolfe, on 05/21/2008, -3/+11While not all the opponents of the United States are truly evil, what can not be nuanced away is that evil does exist in this world. I'm not going to Godwin the thread (I'm sure someone else will), but evil in the world didn't begin nor end with,"you know who".

      "education vs. emotion"? My education, on this subject, has taught me that avoiding being hit in the first place is preferred. Waiting to be hit, then deciding what to do later does an immense disservice to the state/population/individual (it also displays an ignorance with rearguards to the nature of a threat). This is not to be confused with a belligerent stance. More that respect between adversaries is determined by the force of ones convictions to respond to a threat, and the planning/capability of that response.

      Hence, when you allude to what "IS", better vs what "FEELS" better you miss the point of what is axiomatically better. While it may "FEEL" better from a moralist point of view to take a hit then fight back (Pearl Harbor), it doesn't serve those that perished in the initial exchange (1177 on the Arizona alone). Besides those lives lost, the loss of tactical advantage in the opening round takes an enormus amount of lives/material to regain the initiative. (note what it took Soviets to expel German forces during WWII)

      Maybe that would "FEEL" better to an "educated" "elite", it's counterintuitive to even attempt to argue that it "IS" better.

      Many people today revive the quote from Teddy Roosevelt to,"speak softly, and carry a big stick". What can not be overlooked is the "big stick" component. One must be totally prepared to use the,"big stick". Otherwise the softly spoken word will dismissed by ones adversaries as meek prattle.
      • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5WTF, you're *supposed* to mention You-know-who (Voldemort!) and engage in immediate ad-hominem attacks! This is the internet, we have standards!

        But seriously, have a digg.

        As for comments about "first strikes"... That depends on the size of military force, large political considerations (esp. drawing in allied support.)

        In the case of Iran, our relative military forces are so different that we cannot use examples of WWII. While we may not have the manpower to *occupy* and pacify a defeated Iran (due to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), we certainly have more that enough convential military power we need to squash them flat and to support any friendly country that may be the first-strike target.

        Additionally, I do not believe the Iranian clerics are either insane or suicidal enough that the threat of powerful retaliation is not sufficient to prevent a first-attack scenario.
        • HanFastolfe, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1I know, the ad-hominem attacks has become the coin of the realm on the internet. Too many /b/tards... ...but I like /b/ as well, I just don't take it with me when I'm not there.

          I didn't specifically mention a "first strike" in a cold war/nuclear style sense. Consider something more along the lines had we caught the Japanese navy just north of Hawaii on Dec, 6th 1941. These opportunities do sometimes present themselves, they should be seized upon. Discovering, and thwarting the enemies plans denies them surprise, and the benefits of execution of those plans. McClellan used discovered information (special order 191) at Antietam against Lee. He probably could have exploited that advantage to a greater effect, but that's a different argument.

          Occupying Iran would not be easy with the current global force structure of the US military. The easiest way would be to move the troops from Iraq (and some from Afghanistan) directly to Iran. At no point, in the current paradigm, do I think that would be a good idea. Pacifying Iran would depend upon internal elements of Iran as well as the external force of the US military. If at some point a robust coalition of many nations could be amassed then that leverage would increase the chances of success.

          On the sanity of the Iranian clerics, I apply some nuance. I don't think from their perspective they think they are insane. Just as we believe we are rational, so do they. It just so happens that our rationals are, at points, diametrically opposed to each other. The Iranians are an intelligent, and educated people (as much as anyone is), they have not come to their convictions lightly. The same can be said for us.

          An Iranian nuclear first strike (lets be clear) would probably be against Israel. If not that then to be used as blackmail to get the US military out of the region. If the goal was national pride, why bother they have much to proud of. If it's security from invasion, again why bother, we wouldn't feel compelled to even think about messing with them (to a degree of military action) if not for the flash point of nuclear weapons. We could easily go back to the relationship we had in the 80's and 90's were we just isolated/ignored them.

          For Iran to threaten (or even attack) Israel with nuclear weapons Israel will respond in kind. Very few people want that to happen, not even the Israelis (other wise they could already have nuked Iran).

          Granted, the Iranians claim that they are interested in generating electricity from their nuclear program, but there seems to be too much that doesn't add up about their demeanor to take that position wholly at face value.
      • sodade, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Well spoken, but you (and the rest of the "big stick" crowd) fail to realize that the only big stick we have is in remote warfare, which is only good for destruction, not control. With the Iraq debacle, we have proven to the world that military power is only good for defense and a bomb em till they are a parking lot offense. Why didn't we learn this from russia with their failure to control Afghanistan?
        • HanFastolfe, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1There is more in the military bag of tricks than just a bombing campaign. Breaking an opposing army's will to resist is of a greater benefit then engaging them on the field. From our experience in Iraq (both times), to Panama, to the Allied invasion of Italy in WWII (sure the Germans moved in, but the Italians capitulated), the US military has proven the benefits of keeping the bulk of an opposing army inactive. One only gets to the point of being able to convince an opponent not to fight, by having a force that is willing, and capable of destroying their opposition with almost impunity, or ensuring the price of resistance is higher than submission.

          On the issue of controlling an occupied country, the Iraq instance does not serve as a universal theorem. It's next to impossible to "control" a nation through occupation alone. We could not have governed Japan had it not been for us keeping the Emperor alive, and his tacit acquiescent. Nor could we have governed Germany had the Germans themselves not been used to an orderly society (like Japan), and had the Soviet threat not been so close to their door.

          Of the biggest mistakes of the post-Saddam era of occupation for Iraq was in disbanding the Iraq Army, or if one was going to do that then more troops were needed on the up front side during the invasion/occupation. Doing both allowed what civil society there was to break down (through a lack of internal security), and an insurgency to gain a footing.

          While the US did destroy infrastructure in Iraq that was necessary to facilitate an efficient invasion, the rest was looted by the locals. There is a point in an occupation where it is incumbent upon a nation being occupied to stop stealing all that isn't nailed down, nor blowing it up every night. With a lack of effective internal security through the mistakes I have listed, it's not surprising. However, it feeds an overall concept amongst the populace that anything goes. Which we didn't allow to happen in other nations we occupied at the end of WWII.

          There are a great number of things we have trained our military to do besides making other people dead. As we have seen from our efforts in the Tsunami of 2004 when our navy shows up and starts suppling drinking water, and food the locals are grateful. There are almost too many to instances to note when aid has been provided by the US military to people in desperate circumstances, although I will note the Berlin Airlift (and our British counterparts). To only see the military in a one dimensional way detracts from the many positive less than lethal roles that the military has embraced.

          To compare the Soviet and United States' experiences in Afghanistan glosses over too many differences in the very different circumstances of each operation. The most glaring being that the current operation in Afghanistan is a coalition of many nations as opposed to just the Soviets. Getting all the various nations to ,`dance to the same tune', has been problematic on many levels. We did learn a great deal from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. The US losses in no where near those of Soviets losses:

          http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.ht ...

          Granted, they were there ten years and we have about seven in, but our numbers are not even comparable in the aggregate.

          The two greatest obstacles to overcome remain the lawless region between Afghanistan/Pakistan providing a safe haven for a resistance, and the heroin trade that puts money in the hands of the same resistance. Both obstacles working in conjunction exacerbate the other.
    • timewarp424, on 05/21/2008, -14/+2It's pretty typical of a liberal to support terrorists.

      I think I'd take seeing the world in black and white than supporting terrorists.
      • phrenzy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Oh the ***** irony of your response hurts SOOOO much.
        • timewarp424, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1okay.
        • phrenzy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3The fact that you are too dumb to understand the irony is just the icing on the cake.
  • geneikillua, on 05/21/2008, -15/+5First off, I think it definitely makes sense to keep the option open of talks with Iran, Cuba, etc. But I think comparison to talks with the Soviet Union is bogus. Obama is just getting it backwards when he says because Iran is a smaller threat than the USSR we have a greater reason to have unconditioned talks with them. We talked with the Soviet Union because they were a major force to be reckoned with and they could have nuked us off the map. Cuba and Iran are minor countries, and we don't have to treat them as equals. There is no great threat to us compelling us to do such a thing. Therefore, this is an option we can either choose to employ or not employ while with the USSR we didn't have that option quite as much because we didn't want to destroy the planet in out and out nuclear warfare.
    • DavidS9, on 05/21/2008, -7/+2Your right the USSR had enough nukes to wipes us off the map but you forget we had enough nukes to do the same thing, and if the launched one of their missiles we would have a hundred on their way over to the USSR not even a minute after the missile from Russia left its launching pad. They knew it we knew it so we were safe because we would all have been dead hence M.A.D.

      The difference between Iran and the USSR is that Iran would not hesitate to use a nuke and the USSR would. Most of those nut jobs running countries like Iran believe its a great thing to kill and die for Allah so if they though it was Allah's will to push the button they would push the button. That makes Iran a more dangerous threat to us then the USSR
      • geneikillua, on 05/21/2008, -3/+6Iran doesn't have any nukes. With that single fact your entire argument falls apart. I agree a psychotic nation with nukes they could deliver to the US would be more dangerous than the USSR, but this is not yet the case. Talking on equal terms with a country that is inferior and the only reason you want to talk with them is because they threaten you is not always the best option and could in a certain light be viewed as appeasement.
        • DavidS9, on 05/21/2008, -4/+1Where in what I wrote said that they had them?
          And how do you know they didn't buy any second hand from Russia after their collapse?

          And I, personally, don't want to talk to them, and would vote for glassing the country. You can talk to people who threaten you just to tell them to back down but you have to do it in a position that if they don't do what you say they will get hurt. but you don't want to ignore them and you don't want them to think they have any power over you.
      • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2"The difference between Iran and the USSR is that Iran would not hesitate to use a nuke and the USSR would."

        I'd go a step further than geneikillua.

        There is no evidence that they have a nuke, but It's also highly improbable they would commit national suicide by using it. Ahmadinejad's crazy comments aren't that much more than some of Bush's threats, and Ahmadinejad does NOT have the same kinds of war powers than the US president does. He does NOT have a finger anywhere near any sort of big red button. Those powers are held by the Iranian clerics, whose focus over many years has been personal and political self-preservation.
    • tgolferman, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Respectfully geneikillua, Iran has allies. What we do to Iran we do to them. Also, your description of Iran's willingness to kill or die for Allah feels in some strange way like going to war in Iraq because Hussein and Al Qaida were in bed together and Hussein had a stock pile of WMD's and those muslims were attacking Christianity. Exactly who are the sick bastards in this drama? Doesn't the answer depend upon your point of view?

      Bush's Faith and belief that he is doing God's work in the middle east sound a lot like your description of Irans motivation, don't you think?
      • geneikillua, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I wasn't the one to describe Iran's willingness to kill or die for Allah. That was DavidS9.
  • whodat51773, on 05/21/2008, -26/+8Barack Obama began crying again. Someone should remind him... there's no crying in politics. He has whined that we can't use his middle name, he has whined when we bring up his close relations with aging hippy terrorists, that we ask aloud about his "spiritual mentor," the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and now he is crying that we are highlighting the anti-American statements made by his wife as she campaigns for him all across the country. So, on Monday he whined "lay off my wife."

    What's his other spin America needs to repent and be forgiven by Obama the great blasphemer...He wants to shame America into voting for him! (Oh we are so bad using lots of fuel, eating to much, maintaining our house temperatures at a comfortable level, purchasing goods and services from foreign sources resulting in a higher standard of living in theses countries (China and India)..God Damn us!)
    Obamanation! America Ashamed! Some platform...Weakness Sells!
    • Julik, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1Yeah it is really getting out of hand with the stuff you are not allowed to say to/about him.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3You're kinda full of crap, y'know. It's easy to take someone's words, add "whined" in front of them, and pretend that the person is weak and spineless.

      It's just as simple to actually watch what he says, say "On Monday, Obama firmly warned the Tennessee GOP, "Lay off my wife," and tell the truth.

      But it's easier to lie, right?
    • KJGJ, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I love all of this stuff about Rev. Wright, and yet no one (We're blaming you FOX news), has ever even mentioned Rev. John Hagee. I mean hell, at least Obama condemned Wright's endorsement and claims.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Did you copy and paste that your self, or did you have help?
  • BryanG412, on 05/21/2008, -4/+25Repeating the same task and expecting different results is the definition of insanity...
    • Cyrus042, on 05/21/2008, -4/+1You mean like the perpetual diplomatic talks and international pressure on certain states?
      • sinrtb, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1What states are we in diplomatic talks with?
  • papipablo, on 05/21/2008, -11/+30The more the American people get to see of John McCain the more they will realize that he is wrong on nearly every foreign policy and economic issue.
  • wynja, on 05/21/2008, -15/+9wham, bam, thank you ma'am. take that you neocon whores.
  • thewump, on 05/21/2008, -6/+25Oh really? Killing people doesn't bring peace anymore? No *****.
    • tomasII, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Hmmm.

      Hiroshima and Nagasoki ended a war pretty quickly.
  • badfrog, on 05/21/2008, -13/+17Damn, just when the HuffingtonSpam had slowed down, now we get another day with 3 on the front page.
    • jnava121, on 05/21/2008, -4/+8anything with McCain = bad in title will get dugg up ... .I bet you don't even have to have an article ... hmm interesting idea ... thanks hahha...

      Emo kids stop cutting themselves and dugg me down in 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1 ....
    • thatsmyaibo, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Yeah it's absurd. People shouldn't even have to got to HuffPost anymore. Every ***** article they put up is on digg.
  • superkendall, on 05/21/2008, -14/+10Not McCain that is the naive one:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847 ...
  • jonronpaulie, on 05/21/2008, -15/+8A naive person calling another naive person, naive. Now that's a doozy!
  • rodgerse, on 05/21/2008, -16/+10Ahh, another brilliant probama article from huffpo....No, not from rawstory, politico or nothing, this story only comes from the probama site and editorialists...

    But why?.Why can't an editorial come from a reputable site?.

    Does drinking the huffs kool-aid make you feel good, your like fox news are you, hear what you want, from who you want, and ignore what you don't?.
    • cdzrom, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2couldnt agree more
      • rodgerse, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0Yeah, seems alot of diggers are using they're shovels though..not to my advantage.
  • fleischner, on 05/21/2008, -18/+12Hah! That's the pot calling the kettle... oh, never mind. I know you libs are uber-sensitive to language.
    • Anachronus, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4Beat me to it.

      To true though
    • skteoievtehr, on 05/21/2008, -5/+3I hope you are "uber-sensitive" to me calling you a moron.
  • timewarp424, on 05/21/2008, -18/+7OBAMA IS SOOOOO RIGHT. ALWAYS HAS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Fail. Supporting a candidate does not mean blindly supporting them and elevating them to the level of sainthood as so many of the militant and vocal Anti-Obama diggers suggest. Might some Obama supporters be doing so blindly? Sure. Take a guess at the chances the same is true for any candidate.
  • radiofrequency, on 05/21/2008, -14/+8Obama wants to negotiate with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, a man who says that Israel is a "stinking corpse", wants to wipe Israel and 7 million people off the map, and denies the Holocaust. Only maniacs think this is a good idea.
    • cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Where did Obama say that about Israel?
    • Terr01, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Compared to wonderful-super-super-Reagan, who "just" sold them missiles?

      Also, Ahmadinejad is at least part-figurehead. Different government system, despite the name "President".
    • DavidYeah, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1This guy proves that when you have the biggest military in the world, every problem looks like a war.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1What's your solution? Violence?
  • thoughtcrime, on 05/21/2008, -21/+14I sincerely hope all of you Obama bandwagoneers get your wish and this dud becomes President. I can guarantee you all one thing - Barack will most definitely be a one-termer. As far as his characterization of McCain as "extraordinarily naive", all I can say is he certainly has NO room whatsoever to talk. What a pathetic excuse for a candidate.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/21/2008, -3/+8I'm in the same boat. I actually want Obama to win so that these political noobs can learn a good lesson:

      1) Politicians are not worthy of this kind of hero-worship.
      2) Obama is just as full of ***** as the next politician.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/21/2008, -4/+4I want Obama to win because he's the best choice. Simple as that.

      If you sincerely want to prove me wrong, vote for him and sit back and watch.
      • thoughtcrime, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Sorry pal, I can't be an active participant to the commission of a crime like that. But take heart, with the stupidity-index of the American populace at an all time high, I'm sure you'll get your chance to "sit back and watch" a once-great nation implode. Oh, BTW, I agree with you on one point - your "choice" IS a rather simplistic one.
        • wacomwacoff, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1The difference here is that I've actually read his book and know how smart the man is; seems to me you're just one of the sheep who finds it clever and trendy to hop on the anti-Obama bandwagon now that he's popular. Fact is, he's too smart for most folks like you to really understand where he's coming from. It's easy to write off ideas you can't comprehend rather than actually think about them, right?
  • purelithium, on 05/21/2008, -11/+6"Barack called the Arizona's senator approach..."

    Really, Huffington Post?

    "Barack called the Arizona senator'S approach..."
  • JK1150, on 05/21/2008, -17/+2Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788
    • V0lk, on 05/21/2008, -1/+6McCain's Pastor: Hitler was fulfilling God's will
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/mccain-ba ...

      we could do this back and forth all day
    • DavidYeah, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3Can you seperate the difference between American policy and America, or do they just lump together in your mind?

      While I can't agree with the first statement, the second one has some truth to it if you actually acknowledge American past policies in the middle east. Why the ***** else would 9/11 happen, because some guys got bored and thought flying into a building would be fun?

      Clearly it was because of American policy, whether or not you agree with said policies.

      A right wing writer (D'souza, I think his name was) last year wrote a book where one of his thesis' was that America caused 9/11 because of its immoral character, and liberals were to blame. Do you agree with this or disagree with this?

      Or do you simply believe they were acting on the interests of an "evil god"?
    • defska42, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Why do you post to an ABC news article on the sermon and not the entire video? Have you even seen the entire video?
      • JK1150, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1unlike Obama, I would not like to watch a hate speech against America.
        • defska42, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3If you haven't watched the video then do not comment on it. You do realize that the media's job is to pull the juiciest 15 seconds out of the sermon to create controversy for ratings, right? The underlying message of the sermon was generally correct. I can see how the delivery of the message has scared white America, and I will admit that Rev. Wright is maybe a little too caught up in issues from the past, but that doesn't mean that he hates America.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2You wouldn't know hate speech if it jumped off the page and smacked you in the face.
  • Julik, on 05/21/2008, -16/+16Blah blah blah... More Obama saying he is going to change things... but not exactly how he will change things. Anyone can stand up there and say "This is not working so I will do it differently". That is all well and good... but how? I want to talk to this guy and figure things out... Ok what are you going to say to him that would make him change his mind?
    Obama is clueless about foreign policy, he has no idea what he is going to do besides tell everyone that will listen how much he can change, without giving any actual changes.
    It would be awesome if we could get some Huffington post articles here on Digg that are about what Obama is going to do about the issues in the U.S. Not every article needs to be about a republican saying the wrong thing or about Obama criticizing a republican.
    • basefx, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4Obama lays out his detailed plan for a lot of key issues on his website, I don't understand why people choose to remain ignorant and keep repeating this same worn out mantra.
    • desertDenizen, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1By communicating with our adversaries rather than chest thumping and 100-yr-old gunboat diplomacy, for starters. If you don't see the difference in this approach, then I can understand why you could not imagine what a different trajectory such behavior has the potential to realize. It requires a certain degree of vision, and many people, it is true, have none whatsoever, but they will always be marginalized and reactionary rather than leaders in their respective realms. Now go outside and play.
      • Julik, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Again... the one thing everyone brings up is how he wants to talk to terrorists. What about all the other issues the country faces?
        • sinrtb, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Which issue are you confused or want more information about?
        • Julik, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I just want articles on Digg with more substance, I have the information I need on the issues that are important to me. All I ever see is stuff about Clinton lying, or McCain's gaffe's, or O'Reiley saying something stupid... Where are all the articles about his views on the current fuel situation, or his stand on Illegal immigrants, ect...
          I am not looking for anything specific.. would just be nice of the Obama supporters on Digg would bump up some articles about things that will effect us if he is elected, rather than just trying to bash the other candidates.
  • shdwsclan, on 05/21/2008, -15/+9Hmmmm..........
    McCain:
    Give more money to the jews (israel and the banks)
    Stay in iraq indefinetly
    Bomb iran and merge it with iraq
    bomb afghanistan
    Build more troop bases in Saudi Arabia


    I wouldn't say mmcain is naive...but stupid !!!!
  • oilcan, on 05/21/2008, -12/+12holy *****, look at these comments. who hired the neocon spamwagon to come visit digg today?

    you do realize that America is supporting Israel *talking* to Syria right now right? Shouldn't they *not* talk to them, because it's conceding to your enemy? How can you be for talks in one case and against them in another? At least be consistent in your asinine stances O_o
    • verifex, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1I even saw one guy at the bottom of the comments repeating something that someone at the top said, I wonder if these guys are all copying from the same neocon website or something.
  • Shanich, on 05/21/2008, -10/+10 Yeah look what a great job Bush did , that should be your role model guy right there , forget all that diplomacy stuff lets just nuke everyone except the rich white people and than we could start over with only they real smart ones and create the perfect new world order , {insert evil laugh}
    • ShisouKen, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5*raises a pinky to the corner of his mouth*
  • VinnieDaMac, on 05/21/2008, -4/+6I'll give McCain the benefit of the doubt and say that McCain is probably just playing up to the "uneducated white voters." I doubt he's really that naive when it comes to foreign policy (I hope).
    • pintomp3, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3mccain: i'm not really a hateful warmongering neocon. i just play one on tv.
  • flink405, on 05/21/2008, -8/+11Who says these dictators want to even meet with Obama?
    And the irony will be that they set preconditions with Obama before they meet him.

    Did Democrat Jimmy Carter ever meet with the Ayatollah Khomeni?
    Did Democrat John Kennedy ever meet with Fidel Castro?
    Did President Roosevelt ever meet with Hitler or the Emperor of Japan?
    Were those Democratic presidents also using "failed policies"?
  • chronicenabled, on 05/21/2008, -9/+3I think McCain said it best on SNL when he said "I've got the oldness to be president." He sure has the oldness for being President. Unfortunately most old people are really close minded, just like Bush's and McCain's foreign policy. Also I would never vote for anyone that was associated with Karl Rove, that sorry excuse for a fat sack of *****.
  • robotderek42, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5This just in: no one on DIGG knows the ümlaut keystroke. More punctuation at 11.

    /sarcasm
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1ASCII Nazi.

      /ignoring your sarc tag
    • sa9e, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1alt-129 if i am not mistaken oh yes, ü. Obama über alles!!!
  • flink405, on 05/21/2008, -11/+5Obama´s people are already backing away from Obama´s hot air:

    Obama supporter Tom Daschle who said that the meetings would not be unconditional:
    Asked about Obama's original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate -- and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.
    "I would not say that we would meet unconditionally," said Daschle.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4 ...

    In same article Obama advisor Susan Rice:
    Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama's meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.
    -----------------

    Oh yeah and then there is this:
    Governor Bill Richardson (he endorsed Obama over Clinton) echoed the Bush Administration and Senator John McCain today in confessing that talking with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be a horrible idea.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/21/richardson-y ...

    Same old politics? Big talk, negative put downs of others and promises by Obama, then back off to do what every one else has done.
  • mzx639, on 05/21/2008, -12/+7Obama is a fool.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -6/+5Could Changey McHopeNChange mince words any more? First, McCain nails him for saying he would meet with President ImOnAMadJihad and Obama comes back with, "Well I didn't say Ahmadinejad, I said the Iranian Leadership." Then he says that he would meet with our enemies without any preconditions, but he would have lots and lots of "preparation."
  • mzx639, on 05/21/2008, -12/+7Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
    Michelle Malkin
    Creators Syndicate
    Copyright 2008

    All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

    But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

    * Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

    *Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

    *Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

    *Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

    *Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

    “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

    Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

    *Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

    *Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:

    “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

    I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

    *Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”

    “Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

    * And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

    Barack Obama–promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah–is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?
    • TeagueSterling, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1I tried to give your comment a fair read, but stopped when it said he had claimed to have visited 57 states. Yea, I am wondering what the hell he was thinking when he said that, but if you look for the video clip he says 52. No more excusable, but if you're gonna talk about someone gaffing, keep your numbers straight.

      Edit: I just realized a bunch of you have been posting the same comment over and over. Lame
      • dacrazydude, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1He actually does say 57 states in the video clip.

        I personally don't see what the problem is....it's not like he honestly believes there's 58 States in the United States. He was tired and he had a brain fart. I'm still digging up the opposing views comment though because it seems very one-sided here on Digg.
        • mzx639, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1And McCain's 'brain farts' aren't excusable? Diggtards are hypocrites.
      • mzx639, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I'm not taking credit for the post, if you look at the top of the comment you will see the author. Obama did say 57 states, you can see the video here. And this post is not lame, Obama is lame.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
  • bigjimslade, on 05/21/2008, -4/+4
    Consider the source.

  • Unearthly, on 05/21/2008, -9/+4What? More irrelevant Obama'isms from the huffingtonpost.com? I wonder how many people on his campaign run that site?
    The Barack Hussein Obama National Digg Community really needs to get a source.
    Buried ... as it should be.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, okay, DIGG's gotten the message and obviously certain submitters have chosen to ignore you. Bury the story, congratulations! What do you and every other "MORE HUFF SPAM OMGWTFBBQ" commenter want? A cookie?
      • Unearthly, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0"What do you and every other "MORE HUFF SPAM OMGWTFBBQ" commenter want?"
        Really? I thought it would be fairly obvious ... but I will explain, and use small words.
        We. Want. To. Stop. The. Huff. Spam
  • nastronomical, on 05/21/2008, -10/+8OBampropaganda
  • flink405, on 05/21/2008, -9/+3Next Obama will be announcing he will be meeting with Osama bin Laden.
    I can see the headline on CNN: "Live at the White House - Obama meets Osama!"
    LOL.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I'd like the US Government to meet with Osama, too; after he's been handcuffed and surrounded by Marines.
  • icewater, on 05/21/2008, -6/+4McSame is a dinosaur and will lose by a considerable margin to Obama. Mind you, it would be kind of interesting to watch the USA super collapse if McCain should win. Get the popcorn ready for that one early because it'll happen fast.
  • nastronomical, on 05/21/2008, -9/+4Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain and more his own character, his inexperience and odd cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere as a junior senator with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished by the softball questioning of a fawning press. (Which is why those “Saturday Night Live” parodies of the O-man were so devastatingly effective.) His only way to stay in the game is to stay on offense which will be very difficult for a rookie
    • verifex, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Stop spamming comments from the beginning of the story.
  • shiftclick, on 05/21/2008, -9/+4This from the leader of the "HOPE" clan who has ZERO foreign relations experience. He should be ashamed... and Ariana - fantastic, 3rd grade level journalism again! DON'T BELIEVE THE HOPE!
  • Griberal, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5Buried as inaccurate because it came from the Huffington Post.
  • ocean17, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1The reason I'm so interested in the outcome of this presidential race is that, courtesy of the web, I'm giving my voice back to a country that has so much influence on mine (and vice-versa now & again). It's a privilege to do so!
    So brilliant to see a new foreign policy on its way; lead by someone who not only has a policy (a clear change from Bush pruning) but has a will & desire to improve as much as possible. Now where can I find such an essential candidate in Ireland?
  • nastronomical, on 05/21/2008, -4/+2Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
    Michelle Malkin
    Creators Syndicate
    Copyright 2008

    All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

    But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

    * Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

    *Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

    *Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

    *Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

    *Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

    “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

    Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

    *Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

    *Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:

    “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

    I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

    *Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”

    “Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

    * And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

    Barack Obama–promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah–is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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