Another Obama Flip Flop… This One On Iraq
July 3rd, 2008 at 04:42pm Matt Margolis
Wow, Obama goes back on his own pledges so much, one can only wonder what his position on an issue will be from day to day.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his Web site: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.
A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan.
This is not going to sit well with the liberal base that delivered the nomination to him…
“Sen. Barack Obama left open the possibility of slowing his promised, 16-month withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, saying he would consult with military commanders on an upcoming trip to the region to ensure a withdrawal would keep troops safe and Iraq stable.”
“Is Barack Obama softening his Iraq withdrawal time line? … On the campaign website, Obama says he would “immediately” begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and would have “all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months.” But at a news conference, he was asked about concerns by some that he was backing off on that timetable.”
“Democrat Barack Obama is opening the door to altering his Iraq policy. Campaigning in North Dakota, Obama says his upcoming trip to Iraq could alter his plan to bring U.S. troops home within 16 months. The Illinois senator says it all depends on what he hears in consultations with military commanders there.”
“As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country. … It’s been more than two years since Mr. Obama has visited Iraq, which Republicans have used as a point of criticism. After dismissing an invitation from Mr. McCain to visit Iraq together this summer as a “political stunt,” Mr. Obama began making preparations for his own trip to Iraq.”
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
48 Comments Add your own
1. js | July 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
the word putz is coming to mind here…right there…in obama’s picture…anyone else see it?
2. SEW | July 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Well, the Dem Congress also was going to end the war which was already lost, was going to lower gas prices from the then $2.64 a gallon, the social security sysyem is fine as is, and were going to impeach the evil Bush/Hitler/Rove/Cheney. Gas is $4.09, the stock market is reacting to Hussein’s election and Presidential seal, the fine social security system will be improved by taxing the rich, gas prices will be lowered not by drilling but by, oh just go to Barry’s website, no one has been impeached and it’s now OK to spy on terrorists. They never ever deliver and their minions vote for them year in and year out. What a spectacle.
To understand that intellect, simply read bagni, Carl and on and on.
Yet McCain only has a slight edge in my book.
Drill, drill, drill.
3. neocon | July 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html
What kind of judges do you think Obama wil appoint?
have a sharia day (except for the women)
peace, neocon
4. FmrMarine | July 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Neo;
>>>have a sharia day (except for the women)>>>
AND………gays…..chop chop!
5. neocon | July 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
And Infidels!!
chop chop chop
have a beheady day
peace, neocon
6. Casper | July 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
You guys call this a flipflop. A flipflop is where a person totally changes a position. You know, like being againsty tax cuts before being for them. If Obama had said he wasn’t planing on pulling our troops out, that would be a flipflop. He never said that.
Obviously the Republican strategy this year is to attack Obama everyday no matter what he says or does, so let me write give yo some headlines for future threads.
OBAMA PICKS MASHED POTATOES INSTEAD OF BAKED FOR DINNER.
REPUBLICANS CLAIM FLIPFLOP!!!
OBAMA PUTS OFF BUYING A NEW CAR.
REPUBLICANS CLAIM FLIPFLOP!!!
OBAMA GOES TO THE BATHROOM.
REPUBLICANS CLAIM FLIPFLOP!!!
7. neocon | July 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Posted at 6:07 a.m., Wednesday, September 12, 2007
CLINTON, Iowa — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.
“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to The Associated Press.
“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,” the Illinois senator says
8. Danish Artist | July 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I went to a liberal blog and they stated, get this:
“Obama is not flip-flopping, he is refining his position on crucial issues.”
I almost passed out from laughing so hard.
The liberal spin machine is in overdrive. Obama is trying to be something for everyone. The Democratic party is so fractured with special interest groups of every sort, that he has to change his position constantly to appease every one of them.
It’s like Clinton in ‘92. He would go to Detroit and make a speech about protecting American jobs. He would go to New Orleans and then support NAFTA for the Port of New Orleans, support drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for the oil crowd. Then go to California or Florida and speak about banning offshore drilling.
Truly amazing. I guess Obama said if it worked once….
9. Eric T | July 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Obama and the “cut and run.orgers” they wanna surrender in a war that the U.S appears to be winning? Then they want to sound tough on defense, national security, and terrorism. The leftists can not be trusted to make good foreign policy choices. We can’t humilate our military by electing these agents of George Soros.
I think all of their faces need to be pasted on this picture.
http://www.boners.com/grub/805939.html
10. SEW | July 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Leave Bambi alone and let him eat his pancakes.
Hard to refine “immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,” the Illinois senator says
Cut and Run coward.
11. phnx | July 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Seem all is not well with the Kos Kids. Everyone is up in arms about the flipflop and Markos has even stopped a $2300 donation he was going to make to the Obama campaign.
12. hermie | July 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Obama conned the Kos Kids, MoveOn, Code Pink and the left wing of the Dem party out of millions of dollars in campaign funds, and got enough delegates that made the superdelegates panic and made them give their votes to him.
Now he can do and say whatever he wants, and there is nothing that can be done to stop him from the nomination.
Even if he loses the general election, he’ll have millions of dollars to play ith to kepp him getting reelected to his Senate seat for decades to come.
Poor, poor Dems…they got taken by a typical Chicago politician.
13. Kahn | July 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
hermie, was he lying THEN or NOW. Thats the question.
I believe his position THEN were the real ones. They match up with what voting record he has.
Liberals have to ask themselves if they believe him or not.
14. Rex Smithers | July 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Obama has not changed his position.
Democrat Barack Obama says he’s always been open to refining his Iraq policy but blamed Republican John McCain’s campaign for suggesting “we were changing our policy when we haven’t.”
The Illinois senator called a second news conference of the day Thursday to address the GOP criticism of him and resulting questions about where he stands on Iraq.
He said what he learns from military commanders on his upcoming trip to Iraq will refine his policy but “not the 16-month timetable” for withdrawing U.S. troops from combat in Iraq. He said what he learns could affect how many residual troops might be needed to train the Iraqi army and police.
15. Kahn | July 4th, 2008 at 12:40 am
There ya go Rex. Thanks. I think I said a few days ago we’d soon see a nuanced position.
So Rex old boy of the troops that are there now, how many will be there if and when old Barack takes office? And how many six months later? A year later? A year and four months later?
All gone by then? Mostly gone by then? Depends on the situation on the ground? What?
Please, I’m seeking clarity.
16. Mark Noonan | July 4th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Rex,
Obama introduced legislation in January of 2007 which, had it been passed, would have removed the last US soldier from Iraq on March 20th, 2008. This is a complete 180 on the part of Obama - he was either lying then, or he’s lying now. Pick one - there’s no third option.
17. Kurt | July 4th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Being from Cook County Illinois, I have seen this for years. Barack Obama came up through this very dishonest system here, and fully employs the Cook County tactics because he is a very ordinary politician.
We now have the nations highest sales tax here because Barack Obama’s friend, Todd Stroger, promised to cut taxes, and then raised them after his election. Barack Obama quite simply want to bring Cook County government to the rest of the nation.
Obama isnt new, fresh, or a change agent. He is a weak, cowardly politician. He has no beliefs. He has no honesty. Research the goings on here in Cook County and you will find out what America would be under Obama.
It is not pretty.
18. french student | July 4th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Tell me, this is something i really have a hard time understanding. What is it about the americain culture that makes it so impossible for a politician to change his or her mind?
Here we have a saying, roughly translated it would be “only fools never change their minds”. In fact, it could be argued that the ability to change one’s opinion according to changin circumstances is one of the definitions of intelligence.
So WHY is flip-flopper such an insult in american politics? Are you TRYING to favor and elect the most dogmatic and narrow-minded politicians you can get?
I could get it if you thought the change was only motivated by a will to get a bigger potion of the electorate. However, on this very issue (ie the Iraq war), the right is on the one hand arguing that the conditions there have changed, and attacking Obama for (allegedly) changing his own position on the issue.
If the conditions have changed, the decision should be reevaluated. If changing one’s mind is a sign of some sort of dishonesty, it can only be because the parameters framing the decision (ie, the state of the war) are the same.
19. Mark Noonan | July 4th, 2008 at 3:58 am
french,
Lets put it this way - its not that Obama is changing his tune, but that he’s not admitting to a changed tune while clearly changing it. He played the defeatist record all through 2007 and 2008 until just now….rather than manfully admitting he was wrong about Iraq and the prospects of the troop surge, he’s trying to spin it as if he always thought the surge would work and that his only concern was victory and then US withdrawal. It wasn’t like that at all - he called the campaign lost and he called for an immediate US pull out to be completed more than three months ago.
Furthermore, its all fine and dandy that Obama is willing to parachute into the Iraq campaign right now after President Bush and John McCain have endured massive negativity - much of it launched by Obama, himself - over the decision to double down back in January of ‘07, but there is something nauseating about a man who figured that the US military - the finest military instrument ever raised - couldn’t figure out how to defeat a few thousand ragged terrorists and criminals. Obama and his Democrats took their cue from the last war they forced us to lose, Vietnam - I guess they really think that we were beaten there, rather than forced to quit by the American left.
Obama should have had a little more faith - faith that President Bush isn’t evil; faith that the US military can win; faith that the enemy was cowardly; faith that the Iraqi people wanted to be free…all he had was negativity and defeatism and in the most ironic of all twists, this man of weak faith and no positive thinking is the person you think hopeful! Obama has ever right to, say, doubt the ability of your French military to so much as fight its way out of a paper bag (long gone is the spirit which held Verdun, huh?), but as an American his only attitude towards the enemy should have been not “can we beat them” but “how will we beat them”.
20. Some Assembly Required | July 4th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Deleted - entirely too stupid to remain.
21. french student | July 4th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Mark
On this particular issue, I am mostly in agreement with Rex (comment 14). From the sources you have cited, I see a lor of republicains accusiong Obama of changing his position, but no evidence coming from the Obama camp that it is more than a refinement of the position.
Note That I also believe there is, in fact, no solution in Iraq that is purely military. A military lockdown on the country (one foreign soldier for every 200 man, woman or child in a country IS a military lockdown) might put a lid on the cooking pot (or not, since it took approximately 5 years and segregation of the warring parties to be able to claim that violence was down) but it does not put the fire under the pot out. There is a need for a political solution, be it the formation of several states or (best case scenario) acceptance of a common government by all. So far, I have seen no proof, nor indeed any claim, that such a political solution is even in sight.
Until and unless a political solution is found, every single day the violence is down is a day people are rearming and preparing to fight, making the violence that much worse when it comes back.
Moreover, I find your position inconsistent about this war : you point to the drop in violence as a sign of success of military operations, yet you scream bloody murder whenever someone suggests removing the troops, or even drawing them down to pre-”surge” levels.
Now on to the subject of your disparagement of my county’s military. I do not like such pissing contests, nor do I think this is the topic of this post, but I kinda saw you launch a gauntlet here, so I am going to pick it up.
First, I wish to point out that as a country, we get a much better bang for our buck than you do out of our military. Ask any american soldier who has ever trained in joint ops with the Legion, for example, and you will have confirmation of this.
Since we are, after all, a peaceful nation, however, we do not feel the need to spend so much of our money on weapons.
The point I am trying to make here is that the might of your military comes in great part from the massive amount of, well, cash you put into it. (437,111 billion USD in 2004, nearly the same amount as… the money the rest of the world put into their armies that year). And yet, it took you five years and, I repeat, 1 soldier for every 200 man, woman and child to claim success in Iraq? You even had to borrow the money to maintain the necessary force levels from China?
If you spend as much as the rest of the world combined on military might, and you were on a level of military competence coimparable to the rest of the world, should you not be able to take on the rest of the world by yourself? And yet you can not take on even one nation (Iraq) in less than 5 years (and that is assuming the current drop in violence is permanent).
You claim your military is the best ever, I say that not only is your military might based only on the massive amount of money you spend, but it is not even YOUR money you spend in Iraq. And if you can look me in the face and tell me your return on investment is good, with a straight face, I will treat you to the restaurant of your choice in Nantes.
French student
P.S.
I would also point out that your military-industrial complex is a covert way to boost your economy by building military equipement, using government money, in private-sector firms. However, you can only give so much equipement to every soldier before he can not use it all any more, hence the need to either shelf old ordinance (which exposes the waste for what it is) or destroy it by … using it.
One could therefore make the point that your entire economy, your international competitiveness, runs on war. Are you proud yet?
Remember that every time you scream bloody murder because some non-americain, government-subsidized company made a better offer than the american company’s (I seem to remember you doing just that on an airbus bid a few months ago, but you will forgive me if I do not take the fime to search your archives, I am on my lunch break) : the americain industry is just as subsidized as any other, more than most. It is just done through funding of a very wasteful means of killing people.
22. CanadianObserver | July 4th, 2008 at 8:24 am
21. french student | July 4th, 2008 at 7:38 am
The point I am trying to make here is that the might of your military comes in great part from the massive amount of, well, cash you put into it. (437,111 billion USD in 2004, nearly the same amount as… the money the rest of the world put into their armies that year). And yet, it took you five years and, I repeat, 1 soldier for every 200 man, woman and child to claim success in Iraq? You even had to borrow the money to maintain the necessary force levels from China?
You claim your military is the best ever, I say that not only is your military might based only on the massive amount of money you spend, but it is not even YOUR money you spend in Iraq.
———————————
Excellent observation, French Student.
I wonder also if, after serving and sacrificing for their country, other nations treat their military personnel as poorly as American troops are treated when their tour of duty is over.
Be prepared, French Student, for an onslaught of insults and verbal abuse from those regulars who will never address the comment when they can personally attack the poster instead.
23. french student | July 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Well since I am visiting the family this WE, I might not be able to answer those criticisms, but I shall surely read them.
24. neocon | July 4th, 2008 at 10:09 am
french,
I began reading your post and after finding so many wrong and condescending assertions after the third paragraph, I couldn’t continue.
First, Obama has clearly done a 180 on Iraq. He unequivocally and unconditionally supported the removal of all troops in 2007. Then he supported a “phased” withdrawal, and now he is backing away from that. If you won;t acknowledge that as a reversal of position there is no need to debate any further.
Secondly, it has NEVER been suggested that military use is the only solution to a stable Iraq. To assert that is again completely dishonest. And denigrating the efforts of the Iraqi government exposes an inherent prejudice that only serves to perpetuate chaos. Especially in light of the fact that they have now achieved 16 of 18 benchmarks.
And finally, your assertion that Iraqis are only using this time of calm to rearm is so plainly condescending that I am actually embarrased for you.
The rest of your drivel only pertained to money where I will again assert that I find it ironic that liberals are always wuick to put a price tag on freedom and libertry. Why is that?
I hope you enjoy Americas birthday because I know you have certainly benefited from Americas existence.
peace, neocon
25. neocon | July 4th, 2008 at 10:11 am
CO,
You confuse b4v with the pitchfork. We are actually capable of debating points absent personal insults.
Liberals? Not so much.
I again hope you also enjoy Americas birthday as you live in the shadow and the protection of it’s greatness.
peace, neocon
26. FmrMarine | July 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
co
>>>>I wonder also if, after serving and sacrificing for their country, other nations treat their military personnel as poorly as American troops are treated when their tour of duty is over.>>>
You live in montreal, a separatist hateful french speaking providence.
You know NOTHING of how our troops are treated, other than some rants from a marxist BDS news outlet.
You are truly pathetic…TRY to educate your self, as you prove to be a total MORON by what you post here
27. Mark Noonan | July 4th, 2008 at 10:38 am
french,
The Legion might be good - but it is, after all, the Foreign Legion, and so not entirely French, and thus containing some spirit. Though, to be fair, I understand that a lot of French troops were disgusted with the ROE the former French President placed on them in Afghanistan and under Sarkozy the French army will be more aggressive…and then we’ll see if they’ve got the goods.
And I have never once condemned the idea of withdrawing from Iraq, in and of itself - I’ve only condemned the mind-bogglingly stupid concept of telling the enemy that we will quit by a date certain, such as Obama advocated on the floor of the United States Senate in January of 2007. Here is the entire text of Obama’s remarks:
As you can see, there is nothing in there about how the addition of US troops will help at all - he called it, and I quote, “reckless” to send more troops…the only slight alteration to complete defeatism was Obama’s provision allowing Congress - not the President - to merely suspend surrender if the Iraqis met all 13 benchmarks as determined by Congress. Face it, the whole thrust of Obama’s policy on Iraq since 2006 has been swift withdrawal by a date certain - and now he’s saying that withdrawal might go slow and might not have a date certain. That is a complete change, and if you can’t see it then you’ve just entirely bowed down before your idol and refuse to see him as he is…
28. Casper | July 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
neocon,
“Posted at 6:07 a.m., Wednesday, September 12, 2007
CLINTON, Iowa — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.”
End of next year. that would have taken about 16
months from the time he proposed it.
From his web site:
“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
Seems pretty consistent to me.
Can you direct me to a quote where he says he is planning on staying longer?
Talking to the generals on the ground isn’t a flipflop. Neither is being flexible as to how fast he pulls out the troops. Sounds more like good policy.
29. neocon | July 4th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Casper,
I will say to you what I said to french. If you won’t acknowledge Obamas political shift in as it pertains to Iraq, there is no need for further debate.
Before his “phased”withdrawal he advocated an unconditional immediate withdrawal which you dishonestly omit.
Or do you still find that consistent with his stance now? Wouldn’t surprise me if you did.
peace, neocon
30. french student | July 4th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Neocon
to respond to your points in the order you have made them
first : all I have seen is that Obabma supports, as he has always done, a withdrawal of the troops as soon a safely feasible. What has changed is his estimation of when it would be feasible. every assertion i have seen that contradicts that has been made by someone on the right.
Second : I did not assert that it had been suggested that “military use is the only solution to a stable Iraq”. It would, indeed, be dishonest to do so.
Yet, from what I have seen, while the surge has been a military success, none of the political objectives stated at the start of said surge heve been met. However, it has been stated here by many posters and the editors that the surge was a success. While I do not deny the efforts of the iraqi government put into power by the US, I do deny that the results of these efforts have been conclusive.
As for “the rest of [my] drivel” (note that you are not condescending, but that you are rude), I did not, as you say, put a price tag on freedom and liberty. I put one on your military. And I have to say it is a poor investment in terms of efficiency per dollar.
Now you say you find me condescending. So be it. Condescending and wrong are, however, not synonymous. Since you have not disproved any point I have made, I would say that you are only proving Canadian Observer right, by casting doubts on my character.
31. Casper | July 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
neocon,
His “immediate withdrawal” would have taken place over 16 months. How is that different from a “phased withdrawal” over 16 months.
32. french student | July 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
As for the fourth of july, we do not celbrate it here. Our equivalent is the 14th of july.
On the 14th of july, 1789, the people of Paris took the Bastille. The Bastille was a prison in Paris, where people were sent by decree of the king of France. They were sent there without trial, kept in squalid conditions as long as the king wanted.
You could say the Bastille was a little like Guantanamo, in fact.
The people of Paris took this prison. It was one of the first acts of the French revolution. It was not the first, it was not the last, and it was not the most important strategically.
But it was chosen as a symbol of the whole revolution, because it symbolised the intent of it the best.
By the way, do you know how many people there were in this prison? How many was too many? How many people imprisonned without trial were enough to send a mob?
There were seven prisonners in the Bastille.
33. FmrMarine | July 4th, 2008 at 11:13 am
frog stooge;
>>>What has changed is his estimation of when it would be feasible.>>>
More ramblings from a crooked, cook county, uninformed, community activist- empty suit.
34. neocon | July 4th, 2008 at 11:25 am
french & CO,
Not only is Obama changing his stance in terms of withdrawal, he is also in the process of changing his tune in terms of success. What once was defined as a civil war and unmitigated disaster, is now seen as stable, albeit fragile, situation that needs to be supported. Both of your allegiances to him is however is duly noted with the cautionary warning of what blind allegiances bring.
16 of 18 benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi government and I can only assert that your denigration of that feat and/or your reluctance to acknowledge that is driven by that same blind allegiance.
Belittling the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people on the many great strides they both have made over the last 6 years is indeed being a condescending elitist that reveals to the world your insincerity and aloofness to their plight.
If only you, and your ilk, would extend as much energy fighting actual oppression rather than directing your outrage towards perceived injustices, maybe this world would be the peaceful bastion you want it to be.
just a thought
peace, neocon
35. Ricorun | July 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Here’s an interesting statistic: according to the Iraq Index since Nov of 2007 the number of US troops in Iraq has decreased by 28,000. The average brigade is about 3,800 troops. That works out to a reduction of about one brigade a month. That’s in the ballpark of what Obama advocates.
Therefore one might say that Bush is already implementing Obama’s plan. Food for thought at least.
Anyway, happy Independence Day all!
36. neocon | July 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Rico,
Good post. I will only state that Bush’s withdrawal is based on a completely different premise than Obamas.
Intent matters.
have a great Fourth.
peace, neocon
37. Casper | July 4th, 2008 at 11:56 am
“16 of 18 benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi government”
Actually, that’s not true.
“This year, says the administration, there has been satisfactory progress on 15 of the 18, and on one of the others that has to do with an oil law, there is at least an oil revenue distribution program if not a law.’
Progress on a benchmark isn’t the same as meeting a benchmark. While it’s still good news that we are making progress, it doesn’t sound that many of the benchmarks have actually been met.
38. neocon | July 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Spoken like a true defeatest. Why don’t you sit this one out Casper and let those with courage continue.
Enjoy your freedoms today while you denigrate others striving for it.
peace, neocon
39. Casper | July 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
neocon,
I can always tell when you are losing an argument. You start calling people names. I’m not sure how pointing out that you made a mistake, or that progress towards a benchmark isn’t the same as achieving it is denigrating anyone.
Anyway, have a great Fourth. I’m going to work.
40. neocon | July 4th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
So I called you a name by exposing your defeatest attitude?
I can always tell when you are losing the argument when you resort to chastizing people for properly identifying your agenda.
Have a great time at work
neocon
41. js | July 4th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
defeatist and denegrate are not “calling names” casper stooge….its doing nothing but telling the truth about your characture flaws….which….i might add….should have included mental midget…obviously so if you think he “called you a bad name…”……
lol, maybe you should go tell your mommy, eh?
42. FmrMarine | July 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
JS
>>>lol, maybe you should go tell your mommy, eh?
WAAAAAA WAAAAA WAAAA!!! BOOO HOOO!
Those conservatives are SOOOO mean, they called me stooooopit!
43. js | July 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
an old man had a spot on the top of his head
that looked like dead rotted flesh turned into a gigantic tumor
when asked what it was, he would tell a story
about the foo bird
the foo bird he had thought
was a mythical creature that lived in the amazon jungle
he and a friend had set out to find shortly after his discharge from the Army, after WWII
after weeks, he said, he finally found a guide to take him into the jungle to find the foo bird
the guide had but one demand, that everyone on the trip must wear long sleeve shirts and head gear during the entire trip
so off they went is search of fame and fortune, to find the mythical foo bird, in it existed…
the days turned to weeks, and weeks to a month, and finally…
the guide was ready to give up
but the old man talked him into 1 more day, and then go back home
they say fate itself intervened, for the next morning they heard a wonderful sound, the song of all songs, the foo birds mating call
so close, it was directly above them
so the old man took of his hat, as did his good friend….to the objection of the guide….
and just at that moment, as increadible as it may seem….the foo bird took a crap…down it came…and
splat!! splat!! one pile each to thier disdain, directly on target…just behind the forehead of the two on top of thier heads……
as they were reaching to remove it, the guide yelled stop!! dont touch it!! leave it lie where it lays…for the rest of your days!!
but his friend you see…would not hear of it..so he wiped it away…..the face of the guide almost turned grey….for he knew of this mans fate…
sooner than later, the man became dazed…he could not continue, they were stranded for days…he died there in the jungle….for what he had done….and that, the old man said, which was on his head is what caused the big blot
the moral of the story you see, should not be ignored
if the shoo fits, wear it.
44. Eric T | July 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Take a look at what strong foreign policy looks like.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/georgebush.usforeignpolicy
An Obama presidency would mean a nuclear Iran, Korea, and who knows who else making nuclear weapons under the disguise of power plants and civilian commercial use.
Obama could actually empower terrorists with weak foreign policy.
The world will be safer because of George Bush’s foreign policy during his years in the White House.
45. Tony Kondaks | July 7th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Do pledged Obama delegates have the obligation to switch votes at the convention if they feel that he no longer represents the sentiments of those that elected him?
The DNC rules not only allow it, they encourage it:
http://www.pledgednotbound.com/
46. Mark Noonan | July 7th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Tony,
Interesting - and keep us posted; we’ll see if you manage to light a fire.
47. John personal trainer Austin TX | July 9th, 2008 at 10:04 am
The new BHO doctrine - when the going gets tough we leave, but if the going gets easy we stay. I would think that since the surge is indeed working this would comport well well BHO’s original position of immediately pulling out of Iraq - our presence is not needed. Now he is hesitant to leave Iraq. I am missing something.
48. frog invitations&hellip | August 15th, 2008 at 2:43 am
frog invitations
After reading this post, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to relate. Please expand on your thoughts a little more. Thanks
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed