Isn’t it “weird” the bush administration – actually, almost the entire gop including mccain – has decided to adopt some of Obama’s philosophies they previously called naive?
For example…
1) Agreeing that strategic strikes into Pakistan are needed if we had ACTUAL and RELIABLE intelligence (not like the Iraqi “intelligence”) in regards to bin laden’s whereabouts.
2) Actually talking to North Korea so that they chill the fck out on their nuclear program.
Obama has to feel like somebody is looking over his shoulder during a test and stealing all his answers. Dude, cover your exam leading up to the election or they’ll copy everything and claim your work/thoughts were their agenda the whole time.
Nonetheless, it’s fair to assume the administration/gop won’t be able to say we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq since we’re knee deep in that debacle. Nor, will they be able to claim that the surge was a good idea since – while we may be “winning” the war now – our own economy is in “shambles” thanks to way too many billions of dollars being injected into the market…I mean, middle east.
Bcc:List.com 
since you won’t post my stuff, the world will never know my knowledge, the reason they want to focus on the towel heads in afgan is because the surge worked and violence is way down.
this site still has aids
“Sorry” everybody but you’ve got to love Freedom of Speech!
The surge “worked” in regards to decreasing violence. Or, did it? Just a few months ago – after the surge – troop deaths were at an all time monthly high. “Things are going well over the last 2 to 3 months – that’s a good enough subset of data – let’s go fight the real war now!” Doesn’t make sense to me.
Moreover, how can you say a surge in Iraq “worked” if our country is going broke because of increased spending fighting an unfounded “war” without receiving any return on investment? If bin laden was in Iraq, bombs away. I – and every other American – want his head on a platter 6+ years ago.
Instead, we have a worthless dollar, uncontrollable inflation, and a not even close to liberated Iraq. Great!
P.S. I haven’t tested it yet, but, I don’t think my blog has any STD.
dns attack:
As a conservative, I am formally asking you to stop ‘blogging’. The left will never listen to an opposing argument if we use terms like ‘towel head’, and accuse their sites of having an STD. The surge has worked, I will agree, although liberals are hesitant to admit it, and that’s fine, that’s their way of dealing with being wrong. Furthermore sir, until you can act in a civil manor when speaking to Mass Emailer, who seems like a very intelligent person, please turn your computer off and go back to your crayons and coloring book. No, don’t eat the crayons anymore, just color with them.
Somebody please tell me how the surge has “worked” when our country is in shambles – literally. A highly traveled fcking bridge collapsed on this administration’s watch. A fcking bridge in America collapsed. I repeat, a fcking bridge in America collapsed.
But, we don’t have bin laden’s head, we invaded a country that didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, and we’re no more safe now than we were on September 12, 2001.
Here comes the rebuttal – “How are we not safer? There hasn’t been a terrorist attack since!”
The clock is a ticking. Thankfully, we bent over, took one in the a$$, and removed our bases in 2003 from Saudi Arabia as al qaeda requested.
Confused? Read up…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
Even the Washington Compost..I mean Post ran this in their publication
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927_pf.html
I agree with you that there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11…good point. Supporting the surge doesn’t mean you’re pro-war, it just means that you’re bringing the manpower to the fight, providing more stability in a perpetually unstable region, and handing over power to the Iraqi’s. I won’t speculate on whether or not the decision to go to war was the correct one, I will however point out that despite what you think about the Iraq War, our men and women are serving our country in Iraq right now, they’re in harm’s way, and we need to get them back home.
In doing that, we need to make sure that we help to provide a solid, strong government from which they can police their own country, as we bring home our men and women of the armed forces.
Here’s the real deal: We’re there, we’re at war, so get behind our troops, support them, and stop undermining their efforts…
I am not confused sir, I respectfully propose that you are on this particular issue. The clock is ticking…tick, tick, tick…
I support the troops. I don’t support the commander-in-chief’s mission. Nor, do I support the way the commander-in-chief supports our returning soldiers.
Side note – Within reasoning, I’m as pro war as you can get. I want bin laden’s head on a platter.
I agree with you, and I don’t know that I even understand what his mission is. To be honest, I believe it was part retribution for his father’s inability to conquer Saddam, and part ‘OIL’. If this had been clearly stated, for instance:
President Bush Speaking to the American People:
“My fellow Americans, Saddam and his regime fought back my father’s attempts at him, although they did push him out of Kuwait. As a son, I admire my father, and am going to get Saddam, this one is for you dad”
“Furthermore, we are addicted to oil here in America, so I am lodging a military campaign to knock over this obviously corrupt regime, and we will set up shop in Iraq, putting Halliburton in charge of exploration and distribution of the oil fields.”
Now that’s a truthful statement, that as a capitalist and someone who admired my dad very much, could get behind. Yes, we were misled by bad intelligence, then manipulated in transmission to us, I think we agree.
Wow, I can’t believe we agree on something! I just enjoy hearing your point of view. Keep up the good posts my friend!
It feels good to finally agree about something with a conservative. Thanks again for checking out the blog and commenting.