disneydude

I thought Bush was "the decider"

__________________
Thank you President Obama, for restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse

Reverend_Hellh0und

Hmm does the NYT confirm this?


And was this a case where they gave one canidate space and not another? and like I said it is thier right, but how can you not say there is a liberal slant to the MSM then>?

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á

jallman

Aps, the NYT could post a front page headline saying "WE REJECTED REPUBLICAN OP ED CUZ THAT'S HOW WE ROLL" and you would still defend it because the slight is against a republican. You are as partisan as Navy is. You just get away with it because you have great bewbz.

__________________
Prayer and blasphemy...the two are so narrowly separated in these trying times.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Given stunts like this, is it any wonder that he NYT profits are down 82%?

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á

Truth Detector

As opposed to what, the speculative criticism Barack Hussein Obama gave of McCain?

Your response is amazing in light of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama's piece was an effort to criticize McCain. McCain's response was in reaction to that criticism and the NY Times basically flipped John McCain off and said; go find your own newspaper to run your opinion in. This is Barack Hussein Obama headquarters baby; we don't need no stinking balance here!

People who make such weak assertions are profound in their blatant hypocrisy. This from the same liberals who claim they want more fairness in politics, who feign they want more transparency and who argue for balance.

The only time they feign such glorious values is when their candidates can't get elected. But when their candidates are benefiting from unfair biased coverage, it's FAIR.

Truth Detector

There's no HOLE in the argument; the surge has bought time for the Iraqi's to train and recruit.

The HOLE in these arguments happens to be any absurd effort to suggest that the NY Times is justified to allow one candidate to voice their opinion and use their medium over another.

How profound watching the same Leftists and confused Ron Paul supporters who feign their desire for fairer elections and transparent politics to now defend such obvious censorship from one of the largest papers in the world.

Lerxst

You are wrong. It bought them no time, as there is no time constraint on the situation. What it did was was put more boots on the ground and treat the symptoms of sectarian violence, the insurgency, and foreign terror involvement.

The real major factor in the reduction of terrorist/insurgent related deaths over there is the "Sons of Iraq." Local militia and former insurgents who are paid by the U.S. military to patrol the streets and drum up intel on the bad guys. They have been convinced to work with the police and army. This is how it's really done.

The troop surge put boots on the ground and won temporary yet decisive victories in Iraq. It's the strategy of giving the insurgents a choice of coming in from the dark and giving the locals a choice of never joining the insurgency that is actually making the most notable difference.

__________________
Step into my office....

DeeJayH

wasn't and isn't OHB against the surge?
isn't it a failure in his and many other dems eyes?

__________________

Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones

Lerxst

Obama was against the surge, he was for trying a different strategy. One of forcing the Iraqi's to step up and take responsibility while drawing down our troop levels. He was tired of American's being forced to shoulder the burden that a corrupt and inept Iraqi parliament seemed unable to.

Obama clearly stated in his interview with Katie Couric that the surge was a success. His position on the issue seems to be the fact that it was a tactical event and only temporary in nature, one that can be reversed. The military agrees. The overarching strategy for shifting responsibility to the Iraqi government and reducing the American troop presence there is his focus, as the surge is simply a milestone of sorts within the entire situation.

I don't know anyone that believes the surge is a failure. Sure there are probably some that do, but not Obama and not me.

__________________
Step into my office....

Truth Detector

Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Democrats were against the surge strategy. Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Democrats stated the surge would not work. Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats were wrong.

Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats are rarely right and the notion that walking out on the Iraqi Government is somehow a BETTER strategy is part and parcel to the bizzarro world Liberals and Leftists wallow in.

What did Democrats say?

"We cannot support the increase in troops unless George Bush disavows the NeoCon strategy and presents a new strategy. George Bush has been using the troops for the past four years trying to divide the country between those who support the war and those who do not. President Bush is trying to divide us again with his expected call this week for a 'surge' of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace." -- Wesley Clark

Moral is high among the troops and the added safety provided by the surge has helped the Iraqi Government move forward on the diplomatic front.

I can't wait till your next Genius statement Wesley Clark.

"I think that the reports that you (David Petraeus) provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief. In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside." -- Hillary Clinton

Believing you have a coherent though requires the "willing suspension of disbelief" Mrs. Clinton; but then you were probably raised by a village (of idiots), who ever accused you of being honest, intellectual and balanced.

"(The) idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." -- Howard Dean

Well Howard, I guess you think America's soldiers are just a bunch of losers. How profound that you argue for our defeat after Democrats voted to place our young men and women into harms way.

"We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq--we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years--Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers--has drawn the same conclusion--there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong." -- Christopher Dodd

To listen to you would be wrong Mr. Dodd. You wouldn’t know "right" if it slapped you upside your thick Neanderthal head. In your case we need a surge of intelligence. I won’t be holding my breath.

"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong." -- Dick Durbin

Ahhhhh Dick Durban the Turban. What can one say except that YOU are proof that intellectual midgets can actually fool the American people into voting for them.

By carefully manipulating reality and the truth, you think your arguments about defeat will equate to victory; how profound.

"An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake." -- Ted Kennedy

Well one thing is certain when it comes to you Ted, making mistakes is your forte'. Here's a thought for you; anything you argue against must be the RIGHT thing to do. Thank you Mr. Bush for NOT agreeing with Ted (I couldn't save her from drowning) Kennedy.

"We owe our troops a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice, and it's clear that the current strategy – the President's escalation – has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia." -- John Kerry

John, what we owe our troops is protection from your moronic rhetoric; you know what I am talking about, "there is no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- the historical customs, religious customs. ... ".

What is CLEAR is your failure as a Senator to engage your brain for even one minute and elaborate anything considered to be clear and coherent.

I guess we all need a constant reminder of the irony and hypocrisy of Democrats.

As for the messiah Barack Hussein Obama, what can we say except that we appreciated your “audacity of hopelessness” and refusal to acknowledge when you are so wrong. But I understand that your naïveté’ and arrogance wont permit you to get to that place.


John Hawkins :: Townhall.com :: A Look Back: What Democrats Were Saying About The Surge