“I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform,” Mr. Obama said. “The work they’re doing there is too important.”

Wait, aren’t you Mr. Withdrawal? And aren’t you withdrawing because you say we shouldn’t be there? Then how the hell is the work “too important”? And if it’s so important, why the f**k would you pull them out? Amateur. Oh wait, I forgot, he’s a Dem and can get away with insane lies and inconsistencies on a daily basis because his pals in the media won’t hold his shameful feet to the fire.

MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 7:19 AM

I hope you’re just funnin’ here.

They both look awful to me, although Obama looks a tad better because of his tanned skin.

bridgetown on May 29, 2008 at 9:00 AM

The picture is a faltering one of Obama and an almost hideous one of McCain.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

I hope you’re right. I hope if he gets elected that he’ll decide to work for America, however twisted way he gets there.

Obama is in favor of the war on terror, in fact he supports more troops in Afghanistan and from what I can tell, unilateral attacks upon regions in Pakistan, and maybe Somalia. Your hitching your cart to the wrong horse if you think he is anti-war.

bnelson44 on May 29, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Of course he isn’t, and he isn’t going to be against the war in Iraq anymore either if he is elected President. He is starting a very sloooow march back from his antiwar appeals during the early primaries, because he knows now that the facts on the ground have changed and Americans do not want to lose a war we are about to win.

What??!!??

I thought the work our troops was doing was completely UNimportant and unncessary, according to the Obamassiah. If it’s a war we shouldn’t be in, why not waste some of the troops’ time by meeting with them? At least that’s a few hours they won’t be out there raping Iraqi women and shooting little children, right?

Obama is in favor of the war on terror, in fact he supports more troops in Afghanistan and from what I can tell, unilateral attacks upon regions in Pakistan, and maybe Somalia. Your hitching your cart to the wrong horse if you think he is anti-war.

bnelson44 on May 29, 2008 at 10:27 AM

You fall for most anything don’t you…
That is the lefts chant, more troops in Afghanistan because we have too many in Iraq. The only reason they want more troops is to discredit what we are doing in Iraq, nothing else. And to continuously make the point “we would have caught Osama by now if we would have…”
He (Osama) has no idea “how many troops” are needed to complete a task, he has no idea of the work being done overeseas, he has no clue, only the mantra “I am against terrorism, we need more troops in Afghanistan”.
I would like a reporter to ask him a series of questions:
What is a
Section
Team
Flight
Wing
Squad
Platoon
Company (battery)
Battalion
Regiment
Brigade
Division
Corps
Army
Sorry Navy, you are too complex.
I don’t care if our Commander knows the price of milk, but I do want him to know what it means to have three battalions in a region.

“The work they’re doing there is too important.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but to me, this sure as hell sounds like, Bush has been RIGHT all along.

“The work they’re doing there is too important.”

In an e-mail, from my cousin’s grandson Dustin, serving in the Mosul region, a couple of years ago:

“These people need us here.”

At the memorial for Marine Darrel Morris, of Spokane, who died on his second tour, his father had questioned Darrel’s volunteering for the tour, he explained:

“When I asked him why, he told me, ‘Those people need us.’”

That it took this grandstanding, treasonous, anti-war weasel pus-bucket this long to come to this conclusion, is beyond outrageous.

freevillage on May 29, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Obama is in favor of the war on terror, in fact he supports more troops in Afghanistan and from what I can tell, unilateral attacks upon regions in Pakistan, and maybe Somalia. Your hitching your cart to the wrong horse if you think he is anti-war.

Yesterday, I was scratching my head over Obama’s strategy on handling McCan’s invitation to travel to Iraq together. His campaign could have finessed this issue a lot of different ways. They could have questioning whether the two major party presidential candidates traveling through a war zone together represented a unique and unnecessary security risk. They could have said it would be inappropriate to consider the invitation until the Democratic nomination was formally secured. They could have simply said their schedules were unlikely to coincide.

Most notably, the campaign could have said that the candidate hopes to get to Iraq before Election Day, but that it would depend on many scheduling factors.

Instead, their initial answer asserted that there was no value to traveling to Iraq, which I think is a much tougher “sell.”

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWM0NjZiNzE3ZTRlZTlhNWVlNWU2ZGZkNWE5MzU5MTU=

bnelson44 on May 29, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Probably true. However, here’s what we know about predictive powers of pro-war people.

“I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform,” Mr. Obama said. “The work they’re doing there is too important.”

Words, of the Finest Silk and Silver

He will figuratively drown in a sea of his own filth.

Oohh the feminazi’s are rallying the troops behind the Queen.
This Doctor may have finally explained the liberal sickness.
The Media Matters turds are upset that Russert isn’t attacking McCain as much as they think he should.
Muslim “…

He declined an invitation from Senator John McCain to take a joint trip to Iraq, saying: “I just don’t want to be involved in a political stunt.”

Bwuh? That right there is another political stunt, Barry.

I hope you’re just funnin’ here.

They both look awful to me, although Obama looks a tad better because of his tanned skin.

As soon as his staffers complete the final draft of his speech, defining why the war is a lost cause in spite of bits and pieces of progress he saw during his visit.

Let’s call it Pre-emptive Defeatism.

Obama is clearly more of a follower than a leader.

Dollayo on May 29, 2008 at 8:13 AM

Bingo!