Oh yea!

That’s a SHOCKER!

Of course he’s playing to his anti-war left.

I consider myself amongst them now, and agree with Biden, that we can do the job just as well with surgical strikes & drones.

Bill O is correct; he is playing politics with our troops. That is why the whole speech was I, me my….tyhpical of hehimself who sees himself “as a god” just like that guy from Time magazine or newsweek or msnbc or the nytimes or cnn or whoever.

If the economy stays as it is, there’s a chance Obama can disempower the Democrats for GENERATIONS!

Now that’s Hope & Change we can believe in!

NORBIT Jr. said:
If the economy stays as it is, there’s a chance Obama can disempower the Democrats for GENERATIONS! Now that’s Hope & Change we can believe in!

That’s the reason he’s not bringing them back. The economy sucks and there is no work for them in the States. Obama knows the economy will hurt him more than the wars. What’s a few dead soldiers versus him getting reelected.
If unemployment was at 6% and the economy was booming more soldiers would be coming back. Period.

It must drive generals nuts to have listen to a small time community organizer who only cares about his reelection . Clark fails as an Obama apologist .

NORBIT Jr. said:
If the economy stays as it is, there’s a chance Obama can disempower the Democrats for GENERATIONS!

Now that’s Hope & Change we can believe in!

I would like to know who the Dems plan on running after O.

gar said:
That’s the reason he’s not bringing them back. The economy sucks and there is no work for them in the States. Obama knows the economy will hurt him more than the wars. What’s a few dead soldiers versus him getting reelected.If unemployment was at 6% and the economy was booming more soldiers would be coming back. Period.

Big Eddie said:
It must drive generals nuts to have listen to a small time community organizer who only cares about his reelection . Clark fails as an Obama apologist .

I humbly agree with both of you.

WCinWI said:
I would like to know who the Dems plan on running after O.

Hillary is their ONLY shot.

WCinWI said:
I would like to know who the Dems plan on running after O.

Weiner?

lol – but he was a rising star & a threat to the GOP.
Oh well!

LMAO!

OMG! Dam him, he’s the only president whoever let political considerations influence his military strategy and I for one am outraged that less troops will risking their lives over there.

fox news sheep have you not heard that you high priestess Ann Coulter wants a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan…. she said these are tribal people, 70% illiteracy rate, main export is heroin so why do you want to stay… oh thats right President Obama wants to withdraw which means the sheep want to stay

NORBIT Jr. said:
I humbly agree with both of you.

First you say Obama is bringing back too many soldiers to pander to the anti-war left then you agree with somebody that says Obama is not bringing home enough because he’s trying to save the economy.

The only you agree on is your hate of Obamoa, You prove time and time again that logic has nothing to do with your reasoning.

CosmosDan said:
OMG! Dam him, he’s the only president whoever let political considerations influence his military strategy and I for one am outraged that less troops will risking their lives over there.

I guess that shit eating grin would be wiped off your face if somebody you know or loved died for political considerations. It’s time to stop this war.Afghanistan will never take ownership as long as we stay.

Yes Bill, Obama is doing it for political reasons.

To make sure chickenhawks like you don’t get back in power to kill thousands more soldiers with your never ending wars because we are “getting the finger”.
I’m pretty sure there are quite a few of you who think Iran is giving us the finger right now.

gar said:
I guess that shit eating grin would be wiped off your face if somebody you know or loved died for political considerations. It’s time to stop this war.Afghanistan will never take ownership as long as we stay.

They did. In VietNam (1971), Kuwait (1990) and Iraq (2004).

NORBIT Jr. said:
Weiner?

lol – but he was a rising star & a threat to the GOP.
Oh well!

LMAO!

Funny thing is, Weiner would defeat any of the empty shells you’ve got running now, Chachi.

Nacho said:
First you say Obama is bringing back too many soldiers to pander to the anti-war left then you agree with somebody that says Obama is not bringing home enough because he’s trying to save the economy. The only you agree on is your hate of Obamoa, You prove time and time again that logic has nothing to do with your reasoning.

You’d be surprised how many conservatives want to see these wars end.

Glackin said:
They did. In VietNam (1971), Kuwait (1990) and Iraq (2004).

So what’s the point Einstein?

Ladies and gentlemen,Hello everybody,
input this URL: === http://globalsell.org/ ===
shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff (jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)
and so on..welcome to our website:
( http://globalsell.org/)
we sincerely hope to establish the business relation with you.
Looking forward your visit.

With the Petraeus move to the CIA and the timing after so many in the press are criticizing Obama about Afghanistan, it sounds to me like O’Reilly “was pointing” out the obvious politics rather than “accusing”.

gar said:
You’d be surprised how many conservatives want to see these wars end.

Do you understand that O’Reilly is making the argument that he is bringing back too many troops? And doing it just for playing politics?

gar said:
So what’s the point Einstein?

Dead soldiers should not be political pawns.
That’s the point.
They were men and women who died serving their country.
Please keep your cheap political rhetoric away from them.

NonElite said:
With the Petraeus move to the CIA and the timing after so many in the press are criticizing Obama about Afghanistan, it sounds to me like O’Reilly “was pointing” out the obvious politics rather than “accusing”.

You act as if this is some new plan that the administration just came up with.

Hell everybody wants the war over, none of us wants to be there anymore, we just don’t want those 10 years wasted completely by leaving too soon. We’re famous for helping nations “go out on a limb” and then pulling out when an election is near. Obama’s not the first to do it and I’m sure not the last but it doesn’t make it right.

Obama and his administration established this plan over a year ago.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-12/politics/us.afghanistan.karzai_1_president-karzai-afghan-governments-afghanistan?_s=PM:POLITICS

Glackin said:
Dead soldiers should not be political pawns.That’s the point.They were men and women who died serving their country.Please keep your cheap political rhetoric away from them.

Do you have a reading problem. Talk to Obama about using them as political pawns. I want to see them all come back tomorrow whole.

Nacho said:
You act as if this is some new plan that the administration just came up with.

I’m sorry, let me put it this way. With the Petraeus move to the CIA and the timing of make such a big deal with a special stop-the-presses speech about it after so many in the press are criticizing Obama about Afghanistan, it sounds to me like O’Reilly “was pointing” out the obvious politics rather than “accusing”.
We knew about the “plan”, it didn’t call for the special speech.

lackin said:
Dead soldiers should not be political pawns.

Tell that to Obomber, k?

NonElite said:
I’m sorry, let me put it this way. With the Petraeus move to the CIA and the timing of make such a big deal with a special stop-the-presses speech about it after so many in the press are criticizing Obama about Afghanistan, it sounds to me like O’Reilly “was pointing” out the obvious politics rather than “accusing”.
We knew about the “plan”, it didn’t call for the special speech.

O’Reilly didn’t say one thing about the speech itself. He was discussing the ‘playing politics’ with the military actions.

Did you only read the title of this piece?

gar said:
Do you have a reading problem. Talk to Obama about using them as political pawns. I want to see them all come back tomorrow whole.

This country goes to war. Too often and too readily for my taste.
There are justified uses of military power, but we have to recognize the cost.
IF you are saying, “No, nay, never.” that’s valid.
Perhaps naive, but valid.
IF you back your party’s wars blindly, and condemn the other’s, that’s political BS.
All I ask is that you leave the warriors who died out of your internet bravado.

Problem with morons like yourself are the blanket accusations that because we’re conservatives we love war.
Show me where I ever disrespected any of our military with your supposed internet bravado.
Just for your understanding, I would love to see us out of Afghanistan. I believe this president understands the negatives of bringing home the soldiers, not in the best interest of the U.S.A. but in the best interests of him getting elected. As soon as he put a timeline on the withdrawal and the country became more divided this war became unwinnable. To not lose it we would have to be there forever. Not worth it.

lackin said:
IF you back your party’s wars blindly, and condemn the other’s, that’s political BS.

Somebody get the construction crew in cause the hypocrisy meter has just been shattered to pieces.

gar said:
I guess that shit eating grin would be wiped off your face if somebody you know or loved died for political considerations. It’s time to stop this war.Afghanistan will never take ownership as long as we stay.

Actually , if you note my comment is sarcasm, you might realize that I think we should be out of there as well.

It’s just the idea that a president’s political concerns influences his military decisions is not new, and should be no surprise to anyone. It’s more feigned outrage.
IMO, we should have been marching on DC a long time ago to end these wars, but we didn’t.

CosmosDan said:
but we didn’t.

Why not? Oh, there’s a D in the house…my bad.

Nacho said:
O’Reilly didn’t say one thing about the speech itself. He was discussing the ‘playing politics’ with the military actions. Did you only read the title of this piece?

Face palm….
Why do you suppose there were so many stories about pulling out of Afghanistgan today. This is all in reaction to Obama’s speech.

Everyone knows this is a political tactic. The real question is who is willing to admit it.

NonElite said:
Face palm….
Why do you suppose there were so many stories about pulling out of Afghanistgan today. This is all in reaction to Obama’s speech.

Most people paid attention to what he said, not how he said it. Including Bill O’Reilly.

=== {{w w w }} {{be tter whole saler }} {{ u s }} ====

Dedi cated service, the new style, believing you will love it!!!

WE ACCEPT PYA PAL PAY MENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

thank you!!!

Bill O’Reilly Accuses Obama Of ‘Playing Politics’ With Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal

Of course . It’s politics for Obama . What else does he know ? He’s still a small time organizer/union thug .
Good choice , liberals .

Of course it’s politics…..just like going into Afghanistan in the FIRST PLACE was politics.

Jaurez said:
Why not? Oh, there’s a D in the house…my bad.

Maybe , but also because changes have been made and we were told things would end. Such as the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Dealing with out own crisis at home , we’ve been too patient.

You know I haven’t seen hoards of conservatives leading the way in protest.

gar said:
Problem with morons like yourself are the blanket accusations that because we’re conservatives we love war.
Show me where I ever disrespected any of our military with your supposed internet bravado.
Just for your understanding, I would love to see us out of Afghanistan. I believe this president understands the negatives of bringing home the soldiers, not in the best interest of the U.S.A. but in the best interests of him getting elected. As soon as he put a timeline on the withdrawal and the country became more divided this war became unwinnable. To not lose it we would have to be there forever. Not worth it.

So how long do you think we should have been there? How many Republicans have been consistently vocal about ending it completely.

welcome to our website:

=== http://globalsell.org/ ===-

shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.
if you like to order anything you like.
More details,
please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;
Service is our Lift.
enjoy yourself.
thank you!!

Fact: It’s hard to win wars even on terror when there are so many enemies within on the democrat’s bandwagon out to destroy America and make it a two bit nation. Wimps.

WCinWI said:
I would like to know who the Dems plan on running after O.

probably H. in fact, i wouldnt be surprised is O backed out for 2012 and H was nominated. she would have a better chance than him.

CosmosDan said:
OMG! Dam him, he’s the only president whoever let political considerations influence his military strategy and I for one am outraged that less troops will risking their lives over there.

So, do you suggest we do something yesterday? We can only be effective against something that is happening now. We have troops in the field, do they need the extra support or don’t they? You are asking the wrong questions.

Dem4Ever said:
Everyone knows this is a political tactic. The real question is who is willing to admit it.

Obama does nothing that isn’t political, no matter who it endangers.

Though I doubt he had a “real” choice and certainly cannot speak out against the president, I am sad that Petraeus is moving to the CIA and leaving the military in the lurch. Obama is very good at sandbagging people who might oppose his actions.

I would love to hear what Stanley McCrystal thinks of Obama’s latest move in Afghanistan. Now out of the military, he might be able to speak the truth about the results he predicts for Obama’s latest political move.

NonElite said:
I’m sorry, let me put it this way. With the Petraeus move to the CIA and the timing of make such a big deal with a special stop-the-presses speech about it after so many in the press are criticizing Obama about Afghanistan, it sounds to me like O’Reilly “was pointing” out the obvious politics rather than “accusing”.
We knew about the “plan”, it didn’t call for the special speech.

I thought he was pointing out the obvious as well. Since Biden, Hillary and Obama were completely wrong about the Iraqi surge, only Hillary learned to trust the expertise of Petraeous. Obama always seems a little forced into trust Petraeous’ over Biden, which is nutty to me since Biden is ALWAYS wrong.

@tilie,

good point! Since he’s retired from the military, I hope we get to hear his thoughts on the decision!

Nothing like the GOP jacking up the national security threat level every time W slipped in the polls. LOL

CosmosDan said:
So how long do you think we should have been there? How many Republicans have been consistently vocal about ending it completely.

I thought you closet liberals were all for “Hope and change”.Seems all you do Dan is use previous presidents and their actions as an excuse for the status quo. In your case it’s the Republican ones. I thought this administration was going to change the playing field, go where no man has gone before. He’s nothing but a scared politician taking any advice from a bunch of his inept pollsters to get himself reelected.
Keep comparing him to Bush, someone liberals considered the worst president of all time.

RichS said:
So, do you suggest we do something yesterday? We can only be effective against something that is happening now. We have troops in the field, do they need the extra support or don’t they? You are asking the wrong questions.

My question is, how soon can we reasonably and safely get all our troops out of there, and out of Iraq as well? I don’t think it’s the wrong one.
IMO, given the history of that region of the world our military presence there is not making things better for anyone.
If someone wants to give me a detailed specific plan and motive for staying than sooner than “everybody out ASAP” I’ll be glad to listen.

gar said:
I thought you closet liberals were all for “Hope and change”.Seems all you do Dan is use previous presidents and their actions as an excuse for the status quo.

Show me the post where I did that in this thread, because I think you’re making this up to avoid answering a direct question.

Obama hasn’t done what I’d hoped he would , but I’m pretty sure no Republican would either. Obama has shown me that the problem is much more complicated than one man in the oval office can solve.