Politico Makes The Case For Libyan Kinetic Operations

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Politico Makes The Case For Libyan Kinetic Operations

Written By : William Teach

After the initial silence of the Liberals, following Obama sending the US military to attack Libya (again, I agree with the actions), Liberals have been working overtime to find an avenue to say that Barack H. Obama, a man who was (supposedly) deeply anti-war, a man who would heal the world, build new bridges, was not a war monger, but a thoughtful leader engaged in some sort of humanitarian relief effort, and that Libya was somehow different from Afghanistan and Iraq. Shibley Telhami, a fellow at the Liberal Brookings Institution, is the latest to take a shot at defending Obama, saying that the Libyan intervention was morally right

U.S. foreign military intervention shouldn�t be taken lightly, and the current one in Libya deserves a full debate. But Libya�s case is exceptional � in more ways than one.

Both U.S. national interests and its values come together here, and Arab support is unprecedented. In addition, the interests at stake extend far beyond Libya�s borders.

Well, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, has said that Libya was not a vital national interest. Interesting.

That the intervention is moral is not a hard case to make. Libya is an exceptional case. Qadhafi�s brutality was matched by his chilling threat to �purify� Libya �house to house,� using his military and foreign mercenaries.

Had Qadhafi been allowed to overtake Benghazi, with possible massacres, no one could have pretended surprise. The pressure to act would have only increased when it would have been too late and too costly.

And, somehow, because Gdaffy is reviled throughout the Arab world, it’s different from the massacres in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Darfur, etc and so on? That’s funny, because so many Liberals were dead set against any military action against Afghanistan, and the Taliban and al Qaeda, after the horrid events of 9/11, when 3,000 of our friends, neighbors, and loved ones were killed. Remember, Obama preached restraint and empathy with the murderers just a few days after September 11th. But action in Libya is somehow “moral?” You know, the more liberals try and hem and haw to defend Obama, the more they make me think that I am wrong to support Obama’s Great Kinetic Operation.

For those who ask what the U.S. national interest in Libya is, the correct question is about broad U.S. regional interests. Had the Libyan crisis emerged before the Arab uprisings, intervention would still have been the moral course � though it would have been harder to make the case about U.S. interests. But there is a link among the revolutions sweeping the Arab world that cannot be denied.

Shibly goes on to discuss the mostly peaceful (Syria, Yemen, even some parts of the Egypt uprising were violent. And what about the Green Uprising in Iran, Shibly?), and an anti-dote to “militant extremists.” Good thing the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t involved in Egypt, and al-Qaeda in Libya. And then 6 more paragraphs which pretty much ignore any sort of answer as to why this is in the US national interest, till we get

But one test of the intervention is what would have happened without it. Aside from the moral issue, the empowered millions of Libyans would have had to turn to militant means � leading to prolonged civil war and opportunities for Al Qaeda. International public opinion would have dictated isolating Qadhafi, leading him to become an international menace. And his will to meddle in the transitions of Tunisia and Egypt would have increased.

Let’s see: Saddam Hussein and his minority Bathist regime brutalized the Iraqi people, murdered them, tortured them, displaced the Marsh Arabs, mass murdered the Kurds, a Jordanian doctor did a study that said 50,000 Iraqi children where dying in Iraq each year, Hussein paid families $25k for their children to go blow themselves up in Israel, there were numerous terrorist training camps in Iraq, he was a threat to regional stability….but, obviously, there was no moral or national security interests there. Or, it was simply a case of Bush being a Republican?

And, again, don’t forget that so many Liberals were against action in Afghanistan, where there were quite a few moral and national security reasons, not to mention 3,000 dead, and all the injured.

But Libya is somehow different to the anti-war kumbaya Left. At least some of them. Most of the rest who are against this action have mostly been silent, in order to protect their Lightworker.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Anonymous

I’ll give Obama a pass. After all, he just ended the controversy about Iraq and Afghanistan, vindicated the entire Bush foreign policy, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his own party is made up of politically-motivated hypocrites.

He’s also destroyed his last best tool for reelection and unifying the liberal base, which was running against Bush and Republican foreign policy.

Anonymous

Since Obama has not done even *one* of the things you state – thanks for the pass.

Anonymous

“Remember, Obama preached restraint and empathy with the murderers just a few days after September 11th. ”

And you have the nerve to quote Red State on this point?

And isn’t it time to stop attempting to justify the grand deception of the American people by the Bush administration in its invasion of Iraq? It was a Neocon effort, the deception that is, but there is no need today to use current humanitarian causes to justify the take down of Saddam. And yes he was all of those things. But you’re correct about the hypocrisy. Bush actually supported if not ignored the massacres that attended the Darfur situation. The reason? What else: oil. Was Halliburton (Cheney)involved, by the way?

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Did you read Obama’s own words? Blame Red State if you want, which had the actual quote, but, you are ignoring the central theme of Obama’s article. But, I don’t expect more from a liberal, who must deflect by attacking the source, rather than focusing on the message.

Nor am I surprised you that you try, briefly to say “but Iraq was different!!!” You don’t explain why, except for some BDS. Nor did Bush support the massacres in Darfur. That’s just plain deranged of you to insinuate that.

But, you did work in quite a few left wing whines such as neocon and Halliburton.

Anonymous

Ol’ Joe hate the Jews, and he likes throwing the word neocon around, which is liberalspeak for Jew.

Anonymous

Yes Dick Nixon, who has the nerve to preach anti-semitism here, while calling Henry Kissinger, “that Jew boy,” over and over again. It is not a small reason why 80% of Jewish Americans vote Democratic. Better get a new nom de plume, Dick. You’re walking on thick ice day after day. SUggested alternatives: Hitler, NeoNaziboy, etc.

Anonymous

DIck Nixon is not a jew hater, as you are. Can you link to where Dick Nixon the blogger used anti Semetic language Joe? You know, this isn’t POTUS Nixon, don’t you? you must have sold too much blood, it apparently limits your ability to think.
Anonymous

DIck Nixon is not a jew hater, as you are. Can you link to where Dick Nixon the blogger used anti Semetic language Joe? You know, this isn’t POTUS Nixon, don’t you? you must have sold too much blood, it apparently limits your ability to think.
Anonymous

DIck Nixon is not a jew hater, as you are. Can you link to where Dick Nixon the blogger used anti Semetic language Joe? You know, this isn’t POTUS Nixon, don’t you? you must have sold too much blood, it apparently limits your ability to think.
Anonymous

DIck Nixon is not a jew hater, as you are. Can you link to where Dick Nixon the blogger used anti Semetic language Joe? You know, this isn’t POTUS Nixon, don’t you? you must have sold too much blood, it apparently limits your ability to think.

Anonymous

Yes Dick Nixon, who has the nerve to preach anti-semitism here, while calling Henry Kissinger, “that Jew boy,” over and over again. It is not a small reason why 80% of Jewish Americans vote Democratic. Better get a new nom de plume, Dick. You’re walking on thick ice day after day. SUggested alternatives: Hitler, NeoNaziboy, etc.
Anonymous

Yes Dick Nixon, who has the nerve to preach anti-semitism here, while calling Henry Kissinger, “that Jew boy,” over and over again. It is not a small reason why 80% of Jewish Americans vote Democratic. Better get a new nom de plume, Dick. You’re walking on thick ice day after day. SUggested alternatives: Hitler, NeoNaziboy, etc.
Anonymous

Yes Dick Nixon, who has the nerve to preach anti-semitism here, while calling Henry Kissinger, “that Jew boy,” over and over again. It is not a small reason why 80% of Jewish Americans vote Democratic. Better get a new nom de plume, Dick. You’re walking on thick ice day after day. SUggested alternatives: Hitler, NeoNaziboy, etc.
Anonymous

Yes Dick Nixon, who has the nerve to preach anti-semitism here, while calling Henry Kissinger, “that Jew boy,” over and over again. It is not a small reason why 80% of Jewish Americans vote Democratic. Better get a new nom de plume, Dick. You’re walking on thick ice day after day. SUggested alternatives: Hitler, NeoNaziboy, etc.

Anonymous

“except for some BDS”

There is no comparison to the ODS which is being shown.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You’re right BDS was far worse.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Did you read Obama’s own words? Blame Red State if you want, which had the actual quote, but, you are ignoring the central theme of Obama’s article. But, I don’t expect more from a liberal, who must deflect by attacking the source, rather than focusing on the message.

Nor am I surprised you that you try, briefly to say “but Iraq was different!!!” You don’t explain why, except for some BDS. Nor did Bush support the massacres in Darfur. That’s just plain deranged of you to insinuate that.

But, you did work in quite a few left wing whines such as neocon and Halliburton.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Again there was no deception about Iraq, fucktard, quit lying to create talking points.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Again there was no deception about Iraq, fucktard, quit lying to create talking points.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Again there was no deception about Iraq, fucktard, quit lying to create talking points.

Anonymous

A War for European Oil. Courtesy of Barak Obamateur.
Anonymous

A War for European Oil. Courtesy of Barak Obamateur.

D-Vega

Wars for oil are unacceptable to you now?
D-Vega

Wars for oil are unacceptable to you now?

Anonymous

Wars where other people volunteer the US military to handle the grunt work are. Obama said that today btw. go over the Ace of Spades, it’s at the top.

Good to see you admit this is a war for oil. Not regime change, not for violating the Gulf War ceasefire, but for oil. Oil for Europe.

D-Vega

That’s a big part of it, yes. Just like the Iraq war.
D-Vega

That’s a big part of it, yes. Just like the Iraq war.
D-Vega

That’s a big part of it, yes. Just like the Iraq war.

Anonymous

However, this isn’t Iraq. Obama had the choice here. After his criticisms of Iraq he sure didn’t mind jumping into this fray.
D-Vega

It isn’t Iraq? You guys have to make up your mind whether it is or isn’t.
Anonymous

Libya is not Iraq Vega, has Nixon claimed it is? Libya is a war for Eurpoe with Amercian forces now under foreign command.
Anonymous

Libya is not Iraq Vega, has Nixon claimed it is? Libya is a war for Eurpoe with Amercian forces now under foreign command.
Anonymous

Libya is not Iraq Vega, has Nixon claimed it is? Libya is a war for Eurpoe with Amercian forces now under foreign command.
Anonymous

However, this isn’t Iraq. Obama had the choice here. After his criticisms of Iraq he sure didn’t mind jumping into this fray.
Anonymous

However, this isn’t Iraq. Obama had the choice here. After his criticisms of Iraq he sure didn’t mind jumping into this fray.

D-Vega

That’s a big part of it, yes. Just like the Iraq war.

Anonymous

Wars where other people volunteer the US military to handle the grunt work are. Obama said that today btw. go over the Ace of Spades, it’s at the top.

Good to see you admit this is a war for oil. Not regime change, not for violating the Gulf War ceasefire, but for oil. Oil for Europe.

Anonymous

A War for European Oil. Courtesy of Barak Obamateur.
Anonymous

What we should really do about the Middle East

Solutions are not easy. This region has seen strife for thousands of years. Any possible solution is going to be bloody and will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. One possible solution is to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. That is the easiest course of action. But if we want to try to put an end to the cycle of violence, we should try to be bold and think out of the box.
The current problems can be traced to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Europeans that drew the lines in the sand that produced these dysfunctional states we have today did so with little regard to ethnic divisions, historic claims, and fairness. We have many states ruled by minorities and their constitutions don�t support the rule of law. The Sykes�Picot Agreement of 1916 started the current mess and it is time we go back and undo the damage it created. The San Remo Conference further cemented the divisions we see today. We need to undo these disastrous policies and create nation states that will represent the people that live on the land. In many cases, population transfers will have to take place to make these new states ethnically pure. There will be many winners and losers in this system. Some small groups will no longer have large countries like the Alawites enjoy today in Syria. But groups such as the Kurds will finally have a land they can call their own. Lebanon will become a Christian State and Israel would remain a Jewish state. I don�t see a solution for the Copts in Egypt and the Saudi rulers would see their territory greatly reduced. The Hashemites would be returned to rule of the holy places of Mecca and Medina and the Palestinians would get their own state in what is now Jordan. Some nations will be divided and current boundries will have to be shifted. But many of the current grievances with unrepresentative government will go away.
This is not going to be easy. Some states will remain radical and export their sons to continue their terroristic ways. But the mistakes the Europeans made a century ago can no longer be glossed over and we must find a way of bringing calm to this volatile region.

D-Vega

That’s very good, BIG, and a realistic view of the situation. It’s also why we should stay the hell out of it where we can.

Because the losers are going to be looking at us for payback.

Anonymous

The losers are already looking at us for payback. It is our choice whether we endur generations of continued terror attacks or we bite the bullet and go in now and try to clean the swamp. Think of it as having a car that burns oil. You can keep toping off the oil and live with the fumes or you can rebuild the engine and getting it working properly. Many think the fumescoming from this region is something we can live with, but the problem will keep getting worse until the engine is fixed.

D-Vega

I’d rather not go right now, BIG. We are kinda busy. Can it wait a couple of years?

Anonymous

Of course it can wait. Just keep your head held high so you don’t see the pile of bodies. Do you think it will be easier after Iran gets a few bombs? Should we wait to act on this after one of our cities is glowing from a nuclear detenation? Kicking the can down the road isn’t going to make eliminating this problem any easier.
Anonymous

Of course it can wait. Just keep your head held high so you don’t see the pile of bodies. Do you think it will be easier after Iran gets a few bombs? Should we wait to act on this after one of our cities is glowing from a nuclear detenation? Kicking the can down the road isn’t going to make eliminating this problem any easier.
Anonymous

Of course it can wait. Just keep your head held high so you don’t see the pile of bodies. Do you think it will be easier after Iran gets a few bombs? Should we wait to act on this after one of our cities is glowing from a nuclear detenation? Kicking the can down the road isn’t going to make eliminating this problem any easier.
Anonymous

Of course it can wait. Just keep your head held high so you don’t see the pile of bodies. Do you think it will be easier after Iran gets a few bombs? Should we wait to act on this after one of our cities is glowing from a nuclear detenation? Kicking the can down the road isn’t going to make eliminating this problem any easier.

Anonymous

The losers are already looking at us for payback. It is our choice whether we endur generations of continued terror attacks or we bite the bullet and go in now and try to clean the swamp. Think of it as having a car that burns oil. You can keep toping off the oil and live with the fumes or you can rebuild the engine and getting it working properly. Many think the fumescoming from this region is something we can live with, but the problem will keep getting worse until the engine is fixed.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Even assuming such a solution would actually be feasible at this late a date, it would require a huge war and a long occupation of the entire region which nobody has the money or will to even attempt these days.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Even assuming such a solution would actually be feasible at this late a date, it would require a huge war and a long occupation of the entire region which nobody has the money or will to even attempt these days.

Anonymous

What we should really do about the Middle East

Solutions are not easy. This region has seen strife for thousands of years. Any possible solution is going to be bloody and will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. One possible solution is to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. That is the easiest course of action. But if we want to try to put an end to the cycle of violence, we should try to be bold and think out of the box.
The current problems can be traced to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Europeans that drew the lines in the sand that produced these dysfunctional states we have today did so with little regard to ethnic divisions, historic claims, and fairness. We have many states ruled by minorities and their constitutions don�t support the rule of law. The Sykes�Picot Agreement of 1916 started the current mess and it is time we go back and undo the damage it created. The San Remo Conference further cemented the divisions we see today. We need to undo these disastrous policies and create nation states that will represent the people that live on the land. In many cases, population transfers will have to take place to make these new states ethnically pure. There will be many winners and losers in this system. Some small groups will no longer have large countries like the Alawites enjoy today in Syria. But groups such as the Kurds will finally have a land they can call their own. Lebanon will become a Christian State and Israel would remain a Jewish state. I don�t see a solution for the Copts in Egypt and the Saudi rulers would see their territory greatly reduced. The Hashemites would be returned to rule of the holy places of Mecca and Medina and the Palestinians would get their own state in what is now Jordan. Some nations will be divided and current boundries will have to be shifted. But many of the current grievances with unrepresentative government will go away.
This is not going to be easy. Some states will remain radical and export their sons to continue their terroristic ways. But the mistakes the Europeans made a century ago can no longer be glossed over and we must find a way of bringing calm to this volatile region.
Anonymous

What we should really do about the Middle East

Solutions are not easy. This region has seen strife for thousands of years. Any possible solution is going to be bloody and will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. One possible solution is to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. That is the easiest course of action. But if we want to try to put an end to the cycle of violence, we should try to be bold and think out of the box.
The current problems can be traced to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Europeans that drew the lines in the sand that produced these dysfunctional states we have today did so with little regard to ethnic divisions, historic claims, and fairness. We have many states ruled by minorities and their constitutions don�t support the rule of law. The Sykes�Picot Agreement of 1916 started the current mess and it is time we go back and undo the damage it created. The San Remo Conference further cemented the divisions we see today. We need to undo these disastrous policies and create nation states that will represent the people that live on the land. In many cases, population transfers will have to take place to make these new states ethnically pure. There will be many winners and losers in this system. Some small groups will no longer have large countries like the Alawites enjoy today in Syria. But groups such as the Kurds will finally have a land they can call their own. Lebanon will become a Christian State and Israel would remain a Jewish state. I don�t see a solution for the Copts in Egypt and the Saudi rulers would see their territory greatly reduced. The Hashemites would be returned to rule of the holy places of Mecca and Medina and the Palestinians would get their own state in what is now Jordan. Some nations will be divided and current boundries will have to be shifted. But many of the current grievances with unrepresentative government will go away.
This is not going to be easy. Some states will remain radical and export their sons to continue their terroristic ways. But the mistakes the Europeans made a century ago can no longer be glossed over and we must find a way of bringing calm to this volatile region.
D-Vega

The reasoning is simple for anyone who isn’t staunchly anti-Obama no matter what he does:

- Libya has huge amounts of OIL, which is extremely important to Europe.
- Libya has a despot that no one is really interested in working with.
- Libya is very close to Europe, who also do not want hundreds of thousands of refugees washing ashore.
- Libya has a despot who wouldn’t stop for a second to initiate wholesale slaughter on everyone who even seems to be the opposition.
- NATO and Europe is taking the lead here, so America isn’t seen as once again forcing their will on an Arab Muslim country.

The choices were clear, wait until there is a slaughter (which I would have supported, though it’s cold-blooded) or bomb them now.

Lastly, Libya is NOT Afghanistan or Iraq, where we have devoted 8-10 years, hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of lives and a trillion+ dollars.
D-Vega

The reasoning is simple for anyone who isn’t staunchly anti-Obama no matter what he does:

- Libya has huge amounts of OIL, which is extremely important to Europe.
- Libya has a despot that no one is really interested in working with.
- Libya is very close to Europe, who also do not want hundreds of thousands of refugees washing ashore.
- Libya has a despot who wouldn’t stop for a second to initiate wholesale slaughter on everyone who even seems to be the opposition.
- NATO and Europe is taking the lead here, so America isn’t seen as once again forcing their will on an Arab Muslim country.

The choices were clear, wait until there is a slaughter (which I would have supported, though it’s cold-blooded) or bomb them now.

Lastly, Libya is NOT Afghanistan or Iraq, where we have devoted 8-10 years, hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of lives and a trillion+ dollars.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

So why does the US have to do anything? Sounds like it’e Europe’s problem not ours.

D-Vega

And we are their ally. Their most powerful one.

That’s why this is and should be a NATO operation.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

NATO is a defensive treaty, this is not a defense of Europe, so it doesn’t apply it this scenario.

D-Vega

You just said it was their “problem”. Under NATO, if it’s their problem, it’s also our problem.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Only if NATO countries are ATTACKED is it NATO’s problem. Has Libya attacked any member of NATO? If not then it’s not NATO’s problem.
D-Vega

Bosnia didn’t attack a NATO country either. But it was in NATO’s security interests.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Bosnia wasn’t under NATO language
either.
D-Vega

And yet we were there. To prevent genocide.
D-Vega

And yet we were there. To prevent genocide.
D-Vega

And yet we were there. To prevent genocide.
D-Vega

And yet we were there. To prevent genocide.
D-Vega

And yet we were there. To prevent genocide.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Bosnia wasn’t under NATO language
either.
Anonymous

The double-speak is amazing.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Only if NATO countries are ATTACKED is it NATO’s problem. Has Libya attacked any member of NATO? If not then it’s not NATO’s problem.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Only if NATO countries are ATTACKED is it NATO’s problem. Has Libya attacked any member of NATO? If not then it’s not NATO’s problem.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

NATO’s job is to protect Europe from Russia, not attack countries to maintain Europe’s oil supply. You’re slouching into defending Obama, what a shock.
D-Vega

That has not been NATO’s role for years.
D-Vega

That has not been NATO’s role for years.
D-Vega

That has not been NATO’s role for years.
D-Vega

That has not been NATO’s role for years.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

NATO is a defensive treaty, this is not a defense of Europe, so it doesn’t apply it this scenario.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

NATO is a defensive treaty, this is not a defense of Europe, so it doesn’t apply it this scenario.
Anonymous

So we are obligated to defend them against vicious attacks of . . . high oil prices?

Ok, does that go both ways? Because I seem to recall yall labeling the war in Iraq as a war for oil, meaning by this logic France and Germany were obligated to help out.

D-Vega

Okay, so what’s your point?

I’ll react the same way when we invade Libya, which we aren’t doing.You do see the difference?
D-Vega

Okay, so what’s your point?

I’ll react the same way when we invade Libya, which we aren’t doing.You do see the difference?

Anonymous

So we are obligated to defend them against vicious attacks of . . . high oil prices?

Ok, does that go both ways? Because I seem to recall yall labeling the war in Iraq as a war for oil, meaning by this logic France and Germany were obligated to help out.
Anonymous

So we are obligated to defend them against vicious attacks of . . . high oil prices?

Ok, does that go both ways? Because I seem to recall yall labeling the war in Iraq as a war for oil, meaning by this logic France and Germany were obligated to help out.
Anonymous

So we are obligated to defend them against vicious attacks of . . . high oil prices?

Ok, does that go both ways? Because I seem to recall yall labeling the war in Iraq as a war for oil, meaning by this logic France and Germany were obligated to help out.
Anonymous

So we are obligated to defend them against vicious attacks of . . . high oil prices?

Ok, does that go both ways? Because I seem to recall yall labeling the war in Iraq as a war for oil, meaning by this logic France and Germany were obligated to help out.

D-Vega

And we are their ally. Their most powerful one.

That’s why this is and should be a NATO operation.
D-Vega

And we are their ally. Their most powerful one.

That’s why this is and should be a NATO operation.
D-Vega

And we are their ally. Their most powerful one.

That’s why this is and should be a NATO operation.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

So, we’re doing it so Europe can get oil?

D-Vega

That’s part of it.

But that’s also a part of why we are in Iraq as well. And we’ve spent far more there.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

So, we’re doing it so Europe can get oil?
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

So, we’re doing it so Europe can get oil?

D-Vega

Yes, they won’t deny that.

It’s not so much that Kadaffi won’t sell his oil. It’s that a prolonged civil war would disrupt supplies, plus they would have to put sanctions on Libya that could stop supplies.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

What happened to “no blood for oil”?

Let’s see if this double posts

D-Vega

Are you saying that Obama isn’t hearing it from liberals on this issue? Of course he is.
Anonymous

any odds some anti war liberal primaries Obama Vega?
Anonymous

any odds some anti war liberal primaries Obama Vega?
D-Vega

Not a chance.
D-Vega

Not a chance.
D-Vega

Not a chance.
Anonymous

any odds some anti war liberal primaries Obama Vega?

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

What happened to “no blood for oil”?

Let’s see if this double posts
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

What happened to “no blood for oil”?

Let’s see if this double posts
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

What happened to “no blood for oil”?

Let’s see if this double posts
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

What happened to “no blood for oil”?

Let’s see if this double posts
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

What happened to “no blood for oil”?

Let’s see if this double posts

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

So, we’re doing it so Europe can get oil?
Anonymous

Well launching a preemptive strike to ensure the economies of other countries is clearly a misuse of our military resources.

At no point in our constitution does it say the military should be used to ensure the domestic stability and economic growth of either France or Germany.

I’ll recheck with Prussia instead of Germany (what with it being the 1700s and all) but I’m certain France isn’t in there.

D-Vega

I said that was part of it, not all of it.

The biggest part is preventing wholesale slaughter.

Anonymous

Right right, got to prevent slaughter over all those oil fields.
Anonymous

Right right, got to prevent slaughter over all those oil fields.
Anonymous

Right right, got to prevent slaughter over all those oil fields.
Anonymous

Right right, got to prevent slaughter over all those oil fields.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

So, then we should intervene in Syria, N Korea, and Darfur, among others, right, Vega?

Oh, and then there was stopping that wholesale slaughter in Iraq.

Can’t hav it both ways, bub!

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

There’s lots of oil in the Sudan too.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

There’s lots of oil in the Sudan too.
D-Vega

They all would, except for Syria, which hasn’t gotten as bad.

Though there are no opposition forces in NK.

And in Africa a no-fly zone and Tomahawks don’t do much against guys with machetes in pick-ups.

If there is open war in Iran, or Syria, I could very well see us doing the same thing. There’s a very good chance now.

The other countries in Africa no one really cares about. You don’t see any stories of what’s happening on the Ivory Coast.

The problem comes when Bahrain or Saudi Arabia are killing people in the streets.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

So, then we should intervene in Syria, N Korea, and Darfur, among others, right, Vega?

Oh, and then there was stopping that wholesale slaughter in Iraq.

Can’t hav it both ways, bub!
http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

So, then we should intervene in Syria, N Korea, and Darfur, among others, right, Vega?

Oh, and then there was stopping that wholesale slaughter in Iraq.

Can’t hav it both ways, bub!

D-Vega

I said that was part of it, not all of it.

The biggest part is preventing wholesale slaughter.

Anonymous

Well launching a preemptive strike to ensure the economies of other countries is clearly a misuse of our military resources.

At no point in our constitution does it say the military should be used to ensure the domestic stability and economic growth of either France or Germany.

I’ll recheck with Prussia instead of Germany (what with it being the 1700s and all) but I’m certain France isn’t in there.
Anonymous

Well launching a preemptive strike to ensure the economies of other countries is clearly a misuse of our military resources.

At no point in our constitution does it say the military should be used to ensure the domestic stability and economic growth of either France or Germany.

I’ll recheck with Prussia instead of Germany (what with it being the 1700s and all) but I’m certain France isn’t in there.
Anonymous

Well launching a preemptive strike to ensure the economies of other countries is clearly a misuse of our military resources.

At no point in our constitution does it say the military should be used to ensure the domestic stability and economic growth of either France or Germany.

I’ll recheck with Prussia instead of Germany (what with it being the 1700s and all) but I’m certain France isn’t in there.
Anonymous

Well launching a preemptive strike to ensure the economies of other countries is clearly a misuse of our military resources.

At no point in our constitution does it say the military should be used to ensure the domestic stability and economic growth of either France or Germany.

I’ll recheck with Prussia instead of Germany (what with it being the 1700s and all) but I’m certain France isn’t in there.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Essentially those are why the Europeans got involved, but the US got involved for mostly humanitarian reasons – consider Rice’s “there will never be another Rwanda on my watch” comments and the entire “force to protect citizens” doctrine that the Obama administration is touting.

We got UN approval because of those things, but that’s not what the Obama administration is after. That’s why they’re saying “no fly zone” and bombing and firing missiles at tanks and ground installations.

D-Vega

Yes, it’s a backhanded way of getting rid of Kadaffi. Destroy his defenses and let the rebels do their job.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Sure, and it will probably work, but its not what they said we were going to do, not what the UN authorized, and Germany has already pulled out over that particular problem.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Sure, and it will probably work, but its not what they said we were going to do, not what the UN authorized, and Germany has already pulled out over that particular problem.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Sure, and it will probably work, but its not what they said we were going to do, not what the UN authorized, and Germany has already pulled out over that particular problem.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Sure, and it will probably work, but its not what they said we were going to do, not what the UN authorized, and Germany has already pulled out over that particular problem.

D-Vega

Yes, it’s a backhanded way of getting rid of Kadaffi. Destroy his defenses and let the rebels do their job.
D-Vega

Yes, it’s a backhanded way of getting rid of Kadaffi. Destroy his defenses and let the rebels do their job.
D-Vega

Yes, it’s a backhanded way of getting rid of Kadaffi. Destroy his defenses and let the rebels do their job.
D-Vega

Yes, it’s a backhanded way of getting rid of Kadaffi. Destroy his defenses and let the rebels do their job.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Essentially those are why the Europeans got involved, but the US got involved for mostly humanitarian reasons – consider Rice’s “there will never be another Rwanda on my watch” comments and the entire “force to protect citizens” doctrine that the Obama administration is touting.

We got UN approval because of those things, but that’s not what the Obama administration is after. That’s why they’re saying “no fly zone” and bombing and firing missiles at tanks and ground installations.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Essentially those are why the Europeans got involved, but the US got involved for mostly humanitarian reasons – consider Rice’s “there will never be another Rwanda on my watch” comments and the entire “force to protect citizens” doctrine that the Obama administration is touting.

We got UN approval because of those things, but that’s not what the Obama administration is after. That’s why they’re saying “no fly zone” and bombing and firing missiles at tanks and ground installations.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Essentially those are why the Europeans got involved, but the US got involved for mostly humanitarian reasons – consider Rice’s “there will never be another Rwanda on my watch” comments and the entire “force to protect citizens” doctrine that the Obama administration is touting.

We got UN approval because of those things, but that’s not what the Obama administration is after. That’s why they’re saying “no fly zone” and bombing and firing missiles at tanks and ground installations.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Essentially those are why the Europeans got involved, but the US got involved for mostly humanitarian reasons – consider Rice’s “there will never be another Rwanda on my watch” comments and the entire “force to protect citizens” doctrine that the Obama administration is touting.

We got UN approval because of those things, but that’s not what the Obama administration is after. That’s why they’re saying “no fly zone” and bombing and firing missiles at tanks and ground installations.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Essentially those are why the Europeans got involved, but the US got involved for mostly humanitarian reasons – consider Rice’s “there will never be another Rwanda on my watch” comments and the entire “force to protect citizens” doctrine that the Obama administration is touting.

We got UN approval because of those things, but that’s not what the Obama administration is after. That’s why they’re saying “no fly zone” and bombing and firing missiles at tanks and ground installations.

Anonymous

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/globalist-obama-now-allowing-us-military-to-be-volunteered-by-others-for-international-work/
Anonymous

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/globalist-obama-now-allowing-us-military-to-be-volunteered-by-others-for-international-work/
Anonymous

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/globalist-obama-now-allowing-us-military-to-be-volunteered-by-others-for-international-work/
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think all of us want guys like Khadaffi out of power, but like President Friedman said, we’re overtaxed already and its time to worry about our econmoy first.

D-Vega

We should have did that in 2003 also.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

In 2003 we were not in a horrendous fiscal disaster with almost 10% unemployment and had just been attacked directly by terrorists. But hey, other than that, its exactly the same (rolling eyes).

D-Vega

March 2003 report:

Friday’s report means the 12-month net change in private payrolls has been negative for 20 straight months, extending the longest stretch of labor-market pain since 1944-46. Private payrolls are now 2.5 million jobs lower than they were in March 2001, when a recession began.

Stock Market – March 2003:

The markets continued their declines, breaking the September low to five-year lows on October 7 and reaching a bottom (below Dow 7200 and just above 1100 on the NASDAQ) on October 9. Stocks recovered slightly from their October lows to year-end, with the Dow remaining in the mid-8000s from November 2002 to mid-January 2003. The markets reached a final low below Dow 7500 in mid-March 2003.

And this isn’t a full-scale, trillion dollar+, invasion of Libya.

Yeah, it’s totally different. /sarc
D-Vega

March 2003 report:

Friday’s report means the 12-month net change in private payrolls has been negative for 20 straight months, extending the longest stretch of labor-market pain since 1944-46. Private payrolls are now 2.5 million jobs lower than they were in March 2001, when a recession began.

Stock Market – March 2003:

The markets continued their declines, breaking the September low to five-year lows on October 7 and reaching a bottom (below Dow 7200 and just above 1100 on the NASDAQ) on October 9. Stocks recovered slightly from their October lows to year-end, with the Dow remaining in the mid-8000s from November 2002 to mid-January 2003. The markets reached a final low below Dow 7500 in mid-March 2003.

And this isn’t a full-scale, trillion dollar+, invasion of Libya.

Yeah, it’s totally different. /sarc

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

So you think the mild recession we already were coming out of by 2003 is the same as the horrendous one we’re in now? You think the deficit and debt then is the same as now? You think the banks and housing sectors were the same then as now?

Got it.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

So you think the mild recession we already were coming out of by 2003 is the same as the horrendous one we’re in now? You think the deficit and debt then is the same as now? You think the banks and housing sectors were the same then as now?

Got it.

D-Vega

March 2003 report:

Friday’s report means the 12-month net change in private payrolls has been negative for 20 straight months, extending the longest stretch of labor-market pain since 1944-46. Private payrolls are now 2.5 million jobs lower than they were in March 2001, when a recession began.

Stock Market – March 2003:

The markets continued their declines, breaking the September low to five-year lows on October 7 and reaching a bottom (below Dow 7200 and just above 1100 on the NASDAQ) on October 9. Stocks recovered slightly from their October lows to year-end, with the Dow remaining in the mid-8000s from November 2002 to mid-January 2003. The markets reached a final low below Dow 7500 in mid-March 2003.

And this isn’t a full-scale, trillion dollar+, invasion of Libya.

Yeah, it’s totally different. /sarc

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

In 2003 we were not in a horrendous fiscal disaster with almost 10% unemployment and had just been attacked directly by terrorists. But hey, other than that, its exactly the same (rolling eyes).
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

In 2003 we were not in a horrendous fiscal disaster with almost 10% unemployment and had just been attacked directly by terrorists. But hey, other than that, its exactly the same (rolling eyes).

Anonymous

“Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, has said that Libya was not a vital national interest”
“France wants Libya strikes run by new ‘committee’ ”
“France takes lead on ousting Qaddafi, U.S. wavers on ultimate goal”
“Europe, not US, pushed for military force in Libya”
“U.S. in compliance with U.N. resolution, will cede lead soon”

Follow the CRUDE:

France gets MORE THAN 10% of its oil from Libya.
Germany gets an even higher percentage from Libya.
Many of the oil facilities are owned by Italian firms (Libya was a colony of Italy).
The US gets a negligibly small amount from Libya, but just needs to payback europe for supporting US interests in Iraq oil — THAT’S WHY THE US MISSION IS LIMITED.

And the UK wants to kill gadhafi to make sure he never tells the full story of their BP-Libya oil deal for the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

It’s ALWAYS about the oil.

BTW: Today rush limbaugh agreed EXACTLY with the above in his comments on “You Lie!” hussein’s libyan war.

D-Vega

Uh, no one has denied that, baby huey.

Anonymous

So do you support Obama’s blatant oil grab?

D-Vega

I don’t know what that is.

I support this action, but I don’t think we should have done it.
D-Vega

I don’t know what that is.

I support this action, but I don’t think we should have done it.
D-Vega

I don’t know what that is.

I support this action, but I don’t think we should have done it.
D-Vega

I don’t know what that is.

I support this action, but I don’t think we should have done it.
D-Vega

I don’t know what that is.

I support this action, but I don’t think we should have done it.

Anonymous

So do you support Obama’s blatant oil grab?

Anonymous

“Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, has said that Libya was not a vital national interest”
“France wants Libya strikes run by new ‘committee’ ”
“France takes lead on ousting Qaddafi, U.S. wavers on ultimate goal”
“Europe, not US, pushed for military force in Libya”
“U.S. in compliance with U.N. resolution, will cede lead soon”

Follow the CRUDE:

France gets MORE THAN 10% of its oil from Libya.
Germany gets an even higher percentage from Libya.
Many of the oil facilities are owned by Italian firms (Libya was a colony of Italy).
The US gets a negligibly small amount from Libya, but just needs to payback europe for supporting US interests in Iraq oil — THAT’S WHY THE US MISSION IS LIMITED.

And the UK wants to kill gadhafi to make sure he never tells the full story of their BP-Libya oil deal for the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

It’s ALWAYS about the oil.

BTW: Today rush limbaugh agreed EXACTLY with the above in his comments on “You Lie!” hussein’s libyan war.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Unless this turns into Iraq: The Sequel. Then Obama’s toast.

Obama will win in 2012 unless the GOP can put up a strong non-smush candidate, someone that the Republican and conservative base wants to vote for rather than simply as a vote against Obama.

Be honest, you guys will vote for anyone over a Republican no matter what Obama does. He could nuke New Jersey and you’d still vote for him instead of any Republican candidate.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Unless this turns into Iraq: The Sequel. Then Obama’s toast.

Obama will win in 2012 unless the GOP can put up a strong non-smush candidate, someone that the Republican and conservative base wants to vote for rather than simply as a vote against Obama.

Be honest, you guys will vote for anyone over a Republican no matter what Obama does. He could nuke New Jersey and you’d still vote for him instead of any Republican candidate.

D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done.

Only if the GOP doesn’t put up a strong candidate. Like I said you’ll vote for Obama over any Republican, doesn’t matter what you claim now. You’ll find a reason when November rolls around.

D-Vega

First of all, I gave you the circumstances under which I would vote for a Republican.

Secondly, it is intellectual honesty. Look at how they are dancing now in terms of Libya. Newt did a 180 so quickly, he is also now a homosexual.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

There are no circumstances you’ll vote for a Republican over President Obama in 2012. Ever. You can delude yourself or try to fool people on here all you want but when that day comes around you’ll pull that lever no matter what he does.
D-Vega

The quality of your candidates is not my fault. McCain almost had me.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

That’s a flat out lie.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

That’s a flat out lie.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

That’s a flat out lie.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

There are no circumstances you’ll vote for a Republican over President Obama in 2012. Ever. You can delude yourself or try to fool people on here all you want but when that day comes around you’ll pull that lever no matter what he does.
Anonymous

then Newt will fit in with your boys Joe Britton and soldout.
Anonymous

then Newt will fit in with your boys Joe Britton and soldout.

D-Vega

First of all, I gave you the circumstances under which I would vote for a Republican.

Secondly, it is intellectual honesty. Look at how they are dancing now in terms of Libya. Newt did a 180 so quickly, he is also now a homosexual.
D-Vega

First of all, I gave you the circumstances under which I would vote for a Republican.

Secondly, it is intellectual honesty. Look at how they are dancing now in terms of Libya. Newt did a 180 so quickly, he is also now a homosexual.
D-Vega

First of all, I gave you the circumstances under which I would vote for a Republican.

Secondly, it is intellectual honesty. Look at how they are dancing now in terms of Libya. Newt did a 180 so quickly, he is also now a homosexual.

D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.
D-Vega

If this turns into creeping iraq, then obama is done. Unless the economy explodes with new jobs next month, which ain’t gonna happen.

The only thing that obama has going for him is an economy that is inching upward and the drawdown of the wars.

He doesn’t have those things, he is done.

And I would vote for a republican if they could find a way to reach me without implying that I am a comunist or traitor or slacker or racist. Or maybe if one of them could even attempt some intellectual honesty.

NONE of them has yet to do either.

I heard Trump released his birth certificate today. As if anyone cares. That’s what we have to look forward to from the reps? No thanks.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Unless this turns into Iraq: The Sequel. Then Obama’s toast.

Obama will win in 2012 unless the GOP can put up a strong non-smush candidate, someone that the Republican and conservative base wants to vote for rather than simply as a vote against Obama.

Be honest, you guys will vote for anyone over a Republican no matter what Obama does. He could nuke New Jersey and you’d still vote for him instead of any Republican candidate.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Unless this turns into Iraq: The Sequel. Then Obama’s toast.

Obama will win in 2012 unless the GOP can put up a strong non-smush candidate, someone that the Republican and conservative base wants to vote for rather than simply as a vote against Obama.

Be honest, you guys will vote for anyone over a Republican no matter what Obama does. He could nuke New Jersey and you’d still vote for him instead of any Republican candidate.

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN