I’m glad President Obama gave this heartfelt speech.

On the other hand, Colby Hall said:
” The President is not only looking to honor to those who served in Iraq War, but perhaps also remind his constituents that he is making good on a promise he made during his run for office.”

The fact that you refused to acknowledge is that the SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) was actually signed by President Bush.

“appeared on the right-of-center website Human Events” Colby Hall

I’m glad the left-of-center website Mediaite mentioned it.

Azarkhan said:
I’m glad the left-of-center website Mediaite mentioned it.

BOOYA….LOL

More Liberty said:
I’m glad President Obama gave this heartfelt speech. On the other hand, Colby Hall said:” The President is not only looking to honor to those who served in Iraq War, but perhaps also remind his constituents that he is making good on a promise he made during his run for office.” The fact that you refused to acknowledge is that the SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) was actually signed by President Bush.

The Iraq war was not Bush’s war or Obama’s war. It was America’s war. It is fitting and appropriate for the President to speak on such an occasion. You are being disrespectful to the Office of the Presidency.

valkyrie101 said:
You are being disrespectful to the Office of the Presidency.

You better believe I am. I don’t care what forked tongue huckster is in that seat. I’m a “free” and independent individual, I have the right to say what i want, and profess my anger at this corrupt government.

Republican or democrat, I don’t respect the presidency, the congress or Supreme court. It is these politicians that have disrespected and violated their oath of office, which was to support and defend the US Constitution.

They are liars and crooks – I’m sorry you are still being fooled by them.

What was most remarkable about his speech is how reserved and reticent the troops were to it.

Not good, Barry!

Please remind them that you were against the surge ALL ALONG!

More Liberty said:
You better believe I am. I don’t care what forked tongue huckster is in that seat. I’m a “free” and independent individual, I have the right to say what i want, and profess my anger at this corrupt government. Republican or democrat, I don’t respect the presidency, the congress or Supreme court. It is these politicians that have disrespected and violated their oath of office, which was to support and defend the US Constitution. They are liars and crooks – I’m sorry you are still being fooled by them.

are you advocating Anarchy?

Did Obama mention mention what a good job corpse men do?

More Liberty said:
You better believe I am. I don’t care what forked tongue huckster is in that seat. I’m a “free” and independent individual, I have the right to say what i want, and profess my anger at this corrupt government. Republican or democrat, I don’t respect the presidency, the congress or Supreme court. It is these politicians that have disrespected and violated their oath of office, which was to support and defend the US Constitution. They are liars and crooks – I’m sorry you are still being fooled by them.

I was referring to the institution, our Constitutional system, the “Office of the President”, not the person.

We should have never invaded Iraq it will take more than a ‘surge’ to give Bush any credit for the mistake he made.

SpineCrusher said:
are you advocating Anarchy?

No…not at all. I don’t care for anarchists. I’m simply expressing my displeasure at these two parties, who are virtually the same. We need to all be honest about that. They are the same coin, just slightly different sides.

Colby, I’m sure you’re putting the final touches on your piece, but thought I’d get a jump on you:

Today White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told Gretchen Carlson on FOX and Friends this about the successful Bush Surge that Obama and democrats opposed:

Carlson: “Excuse me. Back in 2007 he said he was against the surge.”
Gibbs: “No. He said he was against the surge. He said there was no doubt that adding 20,000 men and women would improve the security situation. But, as we know, our efforts in Iraq weren’t going to be done simply militarily, Gretchen. There had to be a political accomodation.”

Of course, this was not true at all.
Back in 2007 Barack Obama actually said that the surge would make things worse:

Obama in 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian viiolence there. In fact, it will do the reverse….”

Consider me checked!!

More Liberty said:
No…not at all. I don’t care for anarchists. I’m simply expressing my displeasure at these two parties, who are virtually the same. We need to all be honest about that. They are the same coin, just slightly different sides.

I agree completely.

You’re complaint is not with the structure, but who’s currently filling the roles within the structure. Gotcha.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
We should have never invaded Iraq it will take more than a ’surge’ to give Bush any credit for the mistake he made.

You’re more intelligent than that right. Both these parties got us there, go back and look at the HJ Res 104. All but one Republican voted for it, and over half of the Senate Democrats voted for it.

Go back and take a look at the war funding. Even Mr Obama voted to fund the war once he was in the US Senate.

Don’t be fooled.

SpineCrusher said:
You’re complaint is not with the structure, but who’s currently filling the roles within the structure.

The circumvention of our Constitution is nothing new. It didn’t start with Obama, and it won’t end with him either. But many simple minded people on both sides only see what the media and the two parties want us to see. They only want us in one of two boxes.

More Liberty said:
You’re more intelligent than that right. Both these parties got us there, go back and look at the HJ Res 104. All but one Republican voted for it, and over half of the Senate Democrats voted for it.

Go back and take a look at the war funding. Even Mr Obama voted to fund the war once he was in the US Senate.

Don’t be fooled.

I understand but the responsibility to invaded Iraq lays heavy on Bush he was our leader. I hold Obama just as responsible for the on going war in Afghanistan.

MichelleF said:
Colby, I’m sure you’re putting the final touches on your piece, but thought I’d get a jump on you: Today White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told Gretchen Carlson on FOX and Friends this about the successful Bush Surge that Obama and democrats opposed: Carlson: “Excuse me. Back in 2007 he said he was against the surge.”Gibbs: “No. He said he was against the surge. He said there was no doubt that adding 20,000 men and women would improve the security situation. But, as we know, our efforts in Iraq weren’t going to be done simply militarily, Gretchen. There had to be a political accomodation.” Of course, this was not true at all.Back in 2007 Barack Obama actually said that the surge would make things worse: Obama in 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian viiolence there. In fact, it will do the reverse….” Consider me checked!!

So Michelle, has the sectarian violence been quelled? That’s a rhetorical question, because we all know that the answer is NO.

Pulling out of Iraq is purely political, the surge did not work, the war in Iraq did not work…there is no victory in occupying and throwing a country into such deep despair and then leaving without solid leadership in place.

However, the only solid leadership that was ever place in Iraq, the only man who was ever able to contain the sectarian violence is the same one that we got rid of.

What did we gain, as a country, from this excursion? Surely not victory in any sense of the word. There were no WMDs, there was no immediate threat. We ousted the only man who could control the sectarian violence.

So what did I take out of this? America loves violence, supremacy and changing history to cover up for our horrible decisions.

I love this country, but we’re like a child when it comes to international diplomacy. Do what we say or we will attack you! Unless, of course, you have lots of money (here’s looking at you Saudi Arabia!).

MichelleF said:
Today White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told Gretchen Carlson on FOX and Friends this about the successful Bush Surge that Obama and democrats opposed:

What was great was when Gibb’s danced around her question if BHO’s was going to give some credit for the success in Iraq to Bush. She asked that miscreant a number of times and he wouldn’t answer it, getting soooooooo puerile that he said “that’s the 5th time you asked me that question” that she finally said to that jerk, “In baseball you get 3 strikes and you are out, you have had five chances to answer the question.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGCkyXkm7Y

notsofast said:
What was great was when Gibb’s danced around her question if BHO’s was going to give some credit for the success in Iraq to Bush. She asked that miscreant a number of times and he wouldn’t answer it, getting soooooooo puerile that he said “that’s the 5th time you asked me that question” that she finally said to that jerk, “In baseball you get 3 strikes and you are out, you have had five chances to answer the question.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGCkyXkm7Y

What success in Iraq are you referring to?

Forced elections? A forced Democracy? The complete destruction of their infrastructure and way of life? An increase in sectarian violence that has not been seen for decades?

I’ve been asking this question for years and nobody has been able to say, definitively, what success we have had…the talking points always move towards intangibles that are “supposed to happen” in the future.

Are these the same troops the Democrats are trying to keep the absentee ballots from? – so they can be used instead for felons in prison, who more represent the Democratic Base???

SpineCrusher said:
Forced elections? A forced Democracy?

Sure, lib , just make it up again.

The real success of course is that Barry can claim that the “Surge” created or saved more than 2.5 million jobs!!!!

LMAO

Won’t the “take credit for something I adamantly opposed” speech steal thunder away from the Summer of Recovery?

LOL!!!

NORBIT said:
Won’t the “take credit for something I adamantly opposed” speech steal thunder away from the Summer of Recovery?

LOL!!!

A large majority of the entire country adamantly opposed the war and even larger majorities of the world. He is only “claiming credit” for ending this disaster.

MichelleF said:
Colby, I’m sure you’re putting the final touches on your piece, but thought I’d get a jump on you:

Today White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told Gretchen Carlson on FOX and Friends this about the successful Bush Surge that Obama and democrats opposed:

Carlson: “Excuse me. Back in 2007 he said he was against the surge.”
Gibbs: “No. He said he was against the surge. He said there was no doubt that adding 20,000 men and women would improve the security situation. But, as we know, our efforts in Iraq weren’t going to be done simply militarily, Gretchen. There had to be a political accomodation.”

Of course, this was not true at all.
Back in 2007 Barack Obama actually said that the surge would make things worse:

Obama in 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian viiolence there. In fact, it will do the reverse….”

Consider me checked!!

Why is there a contradiction between the two statements? He had no doubt the surge would improve stability or security in the short run but also though would have no impact on solving sectarian violence as a social issue and would only intensify those angers in the long run.

Raygun said:
A large majority of the entire country adamantly opposed the war and even larger majorities of the world. He is only “claiming credit” for ending this disaster.

I was alluding to his staunch and unequivocal opposition to the strategy that allowed him to keep his withdrawl promise – The SURGE!

In the last 48 hours, 21 American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. Remember when the mainstream media led off the news every night with reports on casualties from Iraq? — and the numbers were much smaller back then, yet they got much bigger play in the press and on the nightly news.

Oh, I forgot….Bush was President then.

felixw said:
In the last 48 hours, 21 American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. Remember when the mainstream media led off the news every night with reports on casualties from Iraq? — and the numbers were much smaller back then, yet they got much bigger play in the press and on the nightly news. Oh, I forgot….Bush was President then.

That was pretty good, felix. Where is there time, given the mosque controversy, the indictment of Roger Clemens, and the Cinncinati Reds.

Other than people paid to listen to this jerk, is anyone really paying attention to what this clown is saying anymore?

felixw said:
In the last 48 hours, 21 American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. Remember when the mainstream media led off the news every night with reports on casualties from Iraq? — and the numbers were much smaller back then, yet they got much bigger play in the press and on the nightly news.

Oh, I forgot….Bush was President then.

Yes, Bush was President when a pointless war was started and waged while the war we were already waging in response to the 9/11 attacks got placed on the back-burner and became insignificant to the administration of the time because of the pointless war he’d started over oil. And what do we have to show for the pointless war? A huge deficit, responsibility for completely colapsing another country’s social and economic stability for who knows how many years, a huge loss of life by OUR troops, and we are STILL trying to finish the war that was started in response to the 9/11 attacks, that was started BEFORE the pointless war.

orionantares said:
Yes, Bush was President when a pointless war was started and waged while the war we were already waging in response to the 9/11 attacks got placed on the back-burner and became insignificant to the administration of the time because of the pointless war he’d started over oil. And what do we have to show for the pointless war? A huge deficit, responsibility for completely colapsing another country’s social and economic stability for who knows how many years, a huge loss of life by OUR troops, and we are STILL trying to finish the war that was started in response to the 9/11 attacks, that was started BEFORE the pointless war.

I understand now. When a Republican is president, a military casualty is big story. But when soldiers die for a Democrat commander-in-chief, that’s not such a big story. Thanks for clearing things up.