Obama the Black Hitler?

What effect would killing OBL have on the war on terror? Please, provide pro's and Con's in that list. I see the Left as pushing the idea that AQ and OBL are the be all end all in that fight and they choose to ignore all the other sources of terrorism and in many cases even side with them.... like the case of Palestine and Hamas.

It's not Clinton's fault your parents are ignorant.

Yea, Bush sure fooled those church people.

Be the time of the election, McCain might as well be seen as a third Bush term.

The moron running isn't the democrat.

Well, I obviously missed them. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me to that list?

Perhaps if Bill had cared more about the country, and his Oath of Office, INSTEAD of his dick, none of that would have been an issue. Having lived in Arkansas while Bill was Governor, I can assure you that NOTHING changed when he got to the White House, he was doing the same things there that he was doing in Little Rock, but in Washington, he lacked the "good ole' boy network" to help him hide what he was doing.

He was then, and remains to this day a lying sack of feces. All the Republicans did was pull the covers off and expose his highly questionable character to the light of day.

OK PFOS, I'm going to challenge you to support that assertion. As a Veteran, while I do see some things about both Afghanistan and Iraq that I would have done differently, I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that as far as GWOT that President Bush has "failed us".

By your saying that he "failed us", that indicates that you have a particular outcome in mind that has not been achieved, so perhaps you would be so kind as to share with us exactly what you would have done differently to achieve that outcome.

No everyone tags McCain as Bush because he is Bush (policy wise). There differences are he's a whole lot older, has a much worse temper and he thinks reaching for the salt across one of his (I think it's up to 11 now) kitchen tables is best done as a military maneuver.

But I degress...

So what you're saying is... We traded in a personal private adult consensual affair... for the much better Republican wrecked economy, highest inflation rate in 27 tears, soaring deficits & debt, get attacked pants down with Bush @ the helm on 9-11, lied into a war with over 4000 brave soldiers killed over 30,000 seriously wounded, spent up to $12,000,000,000 (TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS) of hard earned taxpayer money (now & in the future) while doing it and have lost our moral authority by doing that becoming much more disliked all around the world!

I see... Well all things considered it's a shame Senator Obama doesn't fool around because I'd personally stand in line to vote to bring back the BJ!

I'll address "Republican Conservative Morals" next post.

Actually he did bring back the bj, you know he did. he just liked his from a guy and he liked a little crack with it

Ill say the samething for him as I did for clinton,

with that ugly pug for a wife, we cant blame him

Republicans have repeatedly proven themselves to be not only perverted but major hypocrites in trying to hide their true sexual tendencies.

I mean Republican Senator Larry Craig trying to have airport restroom gay stall sex with a complete stranger is just about as Dirty Sanchez as it gets.

Republican Senator Mark Foley trying to diddle young men, our own US Congressional pages, was close to Larry on the perversion scale.

Republicans own no high ground anymore and you know it (never really did they just hide in the closet) when it comes to morality or spending.

They have to act out in perverted risky ways because they are so trying to cover their tracks and they spend like drunken sailors on made up Wars and Corporate Welfare and are only conservative if it isn't any kind of a domestic social program that might actually help American. It's very sad but like the old saying: Absolute power corrupts absolutely! The Republicans proved they can be text book examples of that.

ok read back to yourself what you said, you talked about two really freaked out wierd men and tried to wrap our president around them and the whole republican party around them

you were responding to BUSH's morals, cant you even give us something about his morals? all you can come up with is the same two republicans that even republicans have shunned and that you repeat over and over

when a republican does something sick and twisted, no one is forgiving, when a dem does something sick and twisted the whole party comes around to tell us its ok, make excuses protect defend, thats why you keep protecting obama the bj crack smoken messiah.

the truth is you can not come up with anything on bush in the morals, just a bunch of made up hate mongering that he had the nerve to go to war

That's what reasonable, informed people call a LIE!

LIE! You really should study [rul=ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt]THIS[/url] chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Inflation for 2007 was only 2.8% over 2006, which was 3.2% from 2005, which was 3.4% from 2004, etc., etc.

Time for you to do some more research LIAR. The debt and deficit, as a percentage of the GDP is nowhere NEAR as high as it's ever been.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! President Bush had only been in office for 9 months when we got attacked, primarily because CLINTON DIDN'T DO HIS JOB!!

Even MORE LIES. OK tg, I DARE you to try to show us ONE LIE, and I'll blow you out of the water! The only LIARS around here are you Libtards.

I see you haven't looked at the costs of WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam (inflation adjusted of course), because if you had, you'd know that GWOT has been run ON THE CHEAP! Lives of troops? You are SO FULL OF CRAP!! We lost more troops on D-DAY than we've lost since 9-11!

Libtards like you never HAD any "moral authority" in the first place, so what are you talking about?

1 I would have put the troops needed into Afghanistan. Not putting so much on the hands of Afghans to do our job because where where scared to get bloody. I would have put in the support the Military, and CIA needed to get there job done. Gary Berntsen, the top CIA man on the ground there made it very clear we had Bin Laden, but we failed to send in the troops needed when he requested them, and relied on Afghans to do that job, and they let him slip past. I would have more troops ready to go into Pakistan if needed and make sure we help Afghanistan , not to let it build as it is today where its getting worse not better , and the Al Qaeda/Taliban forces gain in power while we sit and look over the border at them rarely able to do anything to them.

And as for Iraq....I would not have gone in. We had bigger fish to fry, and from the start Iran as a bigger threat and all we have done is strengthened Iran at every turn. Had I actually gone in, I would have done so with alot more troops, and focused on Securing it rather then taking it as fast as possible. Never disbanded the army ( only top Generals and those known to have committed major war crimes) The Surge, should have been done Right away not years down the road. The American Public and Iraqis may not have liked The lock down, as they wanted to see people in the streets with flags giving candy to the troops....But I will take Secure empty streets that we can take out anyone who looks at us funny until we have gone threw and tried to clean out Insurgent forces.Then Slowly move things back. The biggest 2 threats from Saddam in a war was 1. Bio/chem attack and 2 Insurgency...the Iraqi army was basically worthless save for a few units and we knew that.

That said, I would not have gone in.

Food for thought...

One make herself appear a liar when she purposely perpetuate lies.

And I've often in life found that those so critical of others looks... are kinda coyotes themselves. I'm just saying that's the pattern.

A large part of the Republican Party is either selfish, biggoted, closeted, morally bankrupt, hypocrites, or some combination of the previous five... except for maybe my brother... and I'm not sure about him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p64av910Lg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p64av910Lg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8JZ8t051EY

You're operating under a misconseption PFOS. Our mission planning in Afghanistan was to destroy the illegitimate government of the Taliban, with the assistance of the legitimate Northern Alliance government. Our mission there was simply to destroy the Taliban, and to find UBL if possible, but because, unlike Iraq, we weren't there to overthrow the legitimate government, but rather to work WITH them, we had to allow them to play a central role in the fighting in order to allow them the opportunity to re-establish their primacy in their own country. It has nothing to do with your slanderous allegations that we were concerned with getting bloody, it had to do with the fact that it was their country, and as such they had the primary say in what happened there.

We sent in the troops that the MILITARY commanders on the ground decided that they needed, and the CIA be damned. The CIA isn't in charge of military operations, the military is, and we learned THAT lession in Vietnam. The Afghans wanted to get UBL, and as we were GUESTS in their country, we had to allow them that opportunity.

OK, that tells me that you really don't know what's going on in Afghanistan. Do some REAL research, and quit believing everything the alphabet soup news agencies, who BTW are all, by their OWN admissions, in the pockets of the DNC and YOUR candidate. Their reporting is not only skewed, they're outright LYING.