NYT: Oh, by the way, forget about that whole “withdrawal from Iraq” thing
posted at 2:30 pm on December 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
In fairness to The One and as duly noted by the Times, he’s always distinguished between combat troops, whom he insists will be withdrawn within 16 months, and residual forces, whose deployment would be “entirely conditions-based” and whom one of his advisors said could number as high as 80,000. It wasn’t a question of the rhetoric being inconsistent; the question was whether he was on the level or whether, as many leftists doubtless assumed, he was saying what he had to say to get elected.
The Times, a tear in its eye, comes to a painful conclusion:
That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011…
There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to “end the war” by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.
Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama’s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be “re-missioned,” their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis…
To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come.
“The strategy of declaring defeat in Iraq and blaming Bush seems to have gone by the boards,” notes Maguire, drily. “Re-missioning” sounds smart too, since so many “combat” troops are already serving as de facto peacekeepers; better to have trainers there with combat experience, who can double as a rapid response force if things get hairy, than a squad of pure advisors. Exit question: Assuming the Times is right about Obama leaving tens of thousands of troops in place beyond 2011, when can we expect the left to stir? Exit answer, assuming security gains are preseved: Never — because McCain’s much-maligned “100 years” comment was entirely true. It’s not the occupation, it’s the casualties. So long as casualties are low, Americans won’t hassle him. Especially Americans eager to see The One push through his domestic agenda.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
It’ll be ok. Sad war activists can console themselves with the Bacak Obama Jack-in-the-Box.
The merchandise just gets creepier.
Lehosh on December 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Will we still be fighting there “100 years” from now?
jgapinoy on December 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Of course, his drooling idiot supporters have no idea what this medans nor do they, in fact, care.
chunderroad on December 4, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Am I mistaken or don’t we still have combat troops in South Korea?
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Of course not…criticize only the evil Republicans and the Hitler Bush! Damned hypocrites!
beththebaker on December 4, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Hopenchange comes with a really short shelf life.
The road to Obammunism will be swell, until the free pies run out.
tarpon on December 4, 2008 at 2:36 PM
/cues The Price is Right! fail music
Bu bump bah BAH Baaaaawhaaaaaa….
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 2:36 PM
And that’s a war that still isn’t over either. I blame George W. Bush.
rbj on December 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM
That IS creepy… Oy vey!
beththebaker on December 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Even if there’s no casualties, we shouldn’t be there for 100 years. We shouldn’t be in Korea, Germany or Japan. All these nations have big economies and can pay for their own defense. Iraq will have oil money out of its ass. It can pay for its own defense.
lodge on December 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Not to worry, tarpon. Obama will still pay for Peggy Joseph’s car, gas and rent bills.
wise_man on December 4, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Is removing combat troops while leaving non-combat troops and various contractors a viable idea? It doesn’t sound too good to me.
forest on December 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I blame Trig Palin… but I digress! How advisable is it to pull out all combat troops from Iraq on a set time-table?
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
If we left Germany and Japan right after WW2, lodge, then the world would not look like it does today. Being in other countries and encouraging peace/preventing war by their neighbors is a good thing.
wise_man on December 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
“Will we still be fighting there “100 years” from now?”
No, just advising.
I heard this dope say “end the war in Iraq”.
I wouldn’t have called what’s going on in Iraq “a war”, unless you’re going to call what’s going on in DC, Detroit, LA, Chicago, etc., a war as well, since we have tens of thousands of American citizens murdered in our cities each year.
NoDonkey on December 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM
fify
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Any info on re-enlistment rates after the new Commander-in-Chief’s victory? Anyone know when that kind of info. is reported? Will Obama follow the advice of Dem. Charles Rangel and re-instate the draft if necessary for “re-missioning?”
JiangxiDad on December 4, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Well I have no problem with it. But I can’t to hear the shilling Cindy Sheehans on this one.
Badger40 on December 4, 2008 at 2:43 PM
He would have ended the Iraq war… Unfortunately, Bush won it before Obama got into office….
Sarc/
cs89 on December 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM
The war ended before you could end it. We won, you lost. Get over it, Obama.
*hangs up*
Christien on December 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Well, I actually pay taxes. Couldn’t give a damn if South Korea gets invaded. That’s their problem.
lodge on December 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM
If all of our troops are trained for combat, then isn’t that just a distinction without a difference?
tmq on December 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM
A co-worker has a “W” in the box here in the cube-farm.
Sparky on December 4, 2008 at 2:46 PM
FYI
There are already two “non-combat” brigades that own battlespace.
- 41st Field Artillery Brigade has Wassit overwatch.
- 18th Engineer Brigade has Kirkuk AOR.
Those are just two of the “non-combat” brigades. Only 14 BCTs of the 52 total US brigades in Iraq are considered “combat”. 45,000-50,000 personnel in those “combat” brigades.
The five-sided rubber-room has been using this metric all along. If it isn’t Armor, Mech, Infantry, Cavalry, or Airborn, it isn’t a “combat” brigade…
DJ Elliott on December 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Technically, they all are trained and can be combat troops, but some are equipped and trained for urban warfare and others are I.T. specialists and attorneys and so forth. I think it’s a bad idea to leave the IT specialists there without the combat specialists.
forest on December 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Well, its not like the “bring home the troupes” crowd actually cared if the troupes came home, anyway. How many of them would be just as happy (if not more so) if all the troupes had died?
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 2:50 PM
As usual, Limbaugh is about the only guy in the media anywhere who gets it right:
The story isn’t that Obama is keeping Bush’s national security personnel and policy. Everyone knew that. The story is that he actively sought to undermine Bush’s national defense policy as a (143 day) Senator, for political gain, as do all Democrats, all of the time.
This is a treasonous party of vipers, and praising them for abandoning treason only when it is politically expedient to do so is not terribly bright or logical.
Let’s start impeachment hearings! Heh.
Jaibones on December 4, 2008 at 2:50 PM
One of the war correspondents interviewed different officer level guys over there and to a man they anticipate a ramping up of Iraqi hostilities when we leave,..fighting to fill the power vacuum. It won’t be about religion but simply power,..probably more a tribal thing. At any rate, our guys who are left behind will be much more at risk.
I believe it was either Totten or Roggio. I think this is a big mistake.
a capella on December 4, 2008 at 2:50 PM
It’s amazing how the surge, something Obama vehemently opposed and has not admitted he was wrong about, has been such a blessing for him. It prevents him from making the horrendous decision to leave the place a mess. Hitchens said in that recent Matthews interview, which was posted here that he is perhaps the luckiest politician today due the Iraqi Parliament essentially agreeing with his plan. Let’s just hope it all works out.
V15J on December 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM
How curious. Because if it were Bush or any Republican, the same a-holes would term it an “occupation.”
whitetop on December 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Personally, I think that’s a bit short-sighted.
.
Are you a Libertarian? I’m not being snarky, just curious. ‘Still trying to understand the Libertarian point of view.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM
FIFY.
I mean, who cares what some funny German leader with a moustache does? We ain’t Polish. Or Jews. (oh, wait, nevermind that last thing)
Isolationism is the last refuge of the coward and the wuss who wouldn’t fight if his own grandmother had a gun held to her head.
mjk on December 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Exit Question: If 20,000 troops were deployed within the CONUS by Bush, and Obama withdrew them, where would he invade them?
/
Christien on December 4, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Yick. If we had, both would have been overrun by the Soviets, who would probably rolled right into France as well. I can’t even begin to outline how that would have changed history in very scary ways.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Obama was enabled in this lie by the media. The same NY Times which managed to do in depth reporting on Sarah Palin’s shoes never actually pressed Obama on a war that is involving hundreds of thousands of US troops. Typical.
rob verdi on December 4, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Will Code Pink disrupt the party?
rob verdi on December 4, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Allah, long accused of a festering case of Hopenchange himself, has now moved this standard clause from the last paragraph of every post – lest he be accused by Duncan Black or Andrew Sullivan of being unfair – to the opening words of the post.
Gosh, the Era of Obama is so fresh!
Jaibones on December 4, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Who knew Hope n’ Change really means:
hawks in charge?
Hilliary in charge
Hawks and capitalism?
joeindc44 on December 4, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Oooh, I hope so! I’d like to see those losers deployed to Iraq wearing those adorable pink outfits.
I wonder what an IED does to a pink dress?
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Exactly. Their economy is 10 times the size of North Korea’s
So, logically, they can fund a much better military than North Korea can
therefore, we don’t need to spend our money defending them and boosting their local economy
lodge on December 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Probably depends heavily on how much of the dress is shielded by the bulk of the wearer.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 3:03 PM
The last election proved one thing — It’s real easy to make idiot voters out of ignorant people.
tarpon on December 4, 2008 at 3:03 PM
So do you think the U.S. should pull out of NATO or other military alliances with economically strong countries? Which countries, if any, do you think are worth U.S. lives/money to defend?
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Nice idea, but the main problem is that even if they could field 10 times the army, it wouldn’t protect their capitol from being leveled by the artillery the North has set up on the boarder.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM
If you put lipstick on a Code Pinker, is she still a pig?
mrrrow
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM
So, I’m not the only one feeling snarky today?
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM
a GOP congressman should propose a “Peggy Joseph Bailout” that does just that as a stunt
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
The only one shedding tears is Harry Reid. Harry, in his role as Al Qaeda’s Washington spokesperson, tried to convince the American people that the war was lost. To this date he has not retracted those oomments and apologized to the American people for his treason.
grdred944 on December 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I’m always snarky when it comes to those losers. I looked (briefly) for a vid that would illustrate something pink getting blown up to link to, but I got lazy and gave up.
Hey, maybe at Mythbusters… lemme check.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
So troops will remain, even “combat troops” but they’ll just be “re-missioned” and called something else even if they’re doing the same thing (supporting and training Iraqi units now doing most of the security work).
Clever… I’ll give him that much.
Can we expect more of this from Obama in the future, a play on words to make things look all hopenchangey even though they’re still essentially the same?
Yakko77 on December 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Exactly. They would risk open war with us by killing our soldiers. We can’t police the entire planet, but where we have been, it has been beneficial to the host country. And McCain’s 100 years quote was exactly correct when it came to Iraq. As long as the violence was down. We’ve been in Germany and Japan, Korea and other countries for decades. If we stay in the middle east, it benefits them, and it benefits us – all of us including the rest of the world in the long run.
wise_man on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Why… why.. that BLOODTHIRSTY WARMONGER!!!
Had to say it. Now I’m off to go fire up Photoshop… ;-)
Seriously, McCain gave his “100 years” response as a mature, responsible answer to a serious question, and Obama and his buddies did some very childish things with it. NO WAY should Obama’s de facto endorsement of McCain’s (very reasonable) policies be allowed to calmly evaporate.
commenter on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
South Korea partly funds our bases and troops located there.
its part of modern, realistic, Capitalism as well. We withdrawal from these place and they become China or Russia, tin pot dictators and other oppressing forces rise up and make trade and business for us with them hard if not end it in some cases.
the economic cost of Isolationism are enemorous, something we found out once already in the last 100yrs
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Ok, it’s a start…
code pinker analog from Mythbusters
Do jihadists wear eye patches, I wonder?
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM
As a 92-yankee (supply) I still had to load my weapon and go on the roads to move prisoners. Is that a combat mission, does it fall under the category of war for oil? Or is it not a combat operation because Obama declares MP units as non-combat?
rob verdi on December 4, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Interesting that you mention that. I’ve only seen one Mythbusters, but I think it included a section on flack-jacket technology. There was a human-form model made of something with the same consistency of flesh, and they hit it with shrapnel like an like from an IED.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM
jp,
The world abhors a vacuum, withdraw American power and someone will fill the void, pretty much and countries you mentioned, and in many cases, worst. Of course down the road this leads to wars that cost millions of lives, but the isolationist left/right doesn’t care.
rob verdi on December 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I’d just keep an eye on the uniforms you’re issued after January 20th… make sure none of them look like this one.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM
It’s not a matter of how “big” their economy is. It’s a matter of expertise, in training, discipline, intel and fending off surrounding threats. The Iraqis have just stepped into the 21st Century: troop training, discipline and intel are entirely new concepts to them, and could rapidly erode without their mentors present for some period of time.
As far as the surrounding threats, consult a map and figure it out for yourself.
Nichevo on December 4, 2008 at 3:16 PM
the crackpot libertarians which are uncompromising and a certain brand(Murray Rothbard Anarcho-Capitalism) that is widely on the internet(Lew Rockwell) is simple really:
Govt. is Evil, Govt. should do absolutely nothing, the US is the “Evil Empire” the Soviets were not, only military we should have is a Navy(and a small one) and only thing that is actual Defense is on our borders waiting to get hit and IF that happens(you know we get Nuked) THEN, and only Then, show the US fight back in anyway whatsoever.
They also beleive in the fantasy that if we simply trade with nations(any Nations, with any leaders) that all will be peaches. and either completely dismiss OR ignorant of things like Nationalistic Pride, World History, Human Nature, ideology of the Islamo-Nazis, etc.
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:18 PM
A lot of them also smoke pot.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM
They do love them some good weed.
apollyonbob on December 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Bingo, If we don’t, they will. Its as simple as that, and we with our rhetoric and whining broadcast to the world has basically invited things like what Putin is doing now in Russia, Mumbai, the Pirates, Iran…
strongest position we were in was right after Saddam fell and Lybia pissed in their pants and gave us their WMD’s free of charge. No other country will be doing that anytime soon.
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Thx. That’s been my impression, but I’m still trying to collect data to see if there are any rational ones out there.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Our country. Defending other countries is the responsibility of that particular country. And seeing as we have a large nuclear deterrent, our defense is pretty much impregnable.
lodge on December 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Oh, you should definitely check them out. I think you’d enjoy it.
They use ballistics gel a lot, but often wind up resorting to pigs, which is particularly fun as Kari Byron is really squeemish and a vegetarian so she really loathes the trips to the slaughterhouse.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM
OK, thanks. I disagree with you, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM
This was why I was in a real bad mood on Nov. 5.
I still have the urge to yell at people who drive by with an “O” bumper sticker.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM
This is why I think Pat Buchanan has the more logical and sane position(of Isolationist on the Right) over the Libertarians(Rockwell/Paul of the Right) as far as ‘on paper’ Isolationism goes….being Isolationist and letting the world go to pits if it chooses, would be more feasible for us if we did not trade with other nations and Produced everything we consumed, no Immigration….i.e. Fortress America
Just not the way the world works(or meant to be IMO)….and also another plus for Buchanan is he represents the Isolationist position much better than the cranks(Ron Paul) as far as honesty goes, his WW2 revisionism aside.
the MOral Egalitarians on the Left are another story, there problem here is spiritual.
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:29 PM
sometimes defending other countries is defending our country, if you don’t see the National Secuirty aspect(terror sponsor states, Soviet expansionism) then look at the Economic Liberty aspect(trade).
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Except for those little pesky times like WTC attack1 and 9/11, right?
None of those weren’t deterred by our nukes.
Part of the reason that Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq can been explained in the book by Nathan Sharansky ‘the case for democracy.’ Long story short – drain the swamps that help breed terrorism. Our being in Iraq and Afghanistan is helping to this cause. Our cutting and running from there would do the opposite.
wise_man on December 4, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Speaking of revisionism – you’re confusing protectionism with isolationism. Libertarians are neither – they are free traders and non-interventionists with a view towards a strong defense. Like Reagan.
angelat0763 on December 4, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Please don’t insult pigs.
And strangely, there are no Codepinkers outside the marine office in Bezerkeley now . None. What happened ? I was so getting used to those she-devils screaming their lungs out , everytime I waved my red-white n blue cap at them.
Hey Madea, come back
macncheez on December 4, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Heh. Iran used to be a democracy, ya know.
angelat0763 on December 4, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I haven’t read all the comments, so I apologize if this point has already been made:
This reminds me of how Bush was careful never to say that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, but the left and the MSM consistently accused him of misleading language in that regard. Not surprising they’re being more charitable in this case…
Enrique on December 4, 2008 at 3:47 PM
… like Reagan? Ronald Reagan?
Are you suggesting that Reagan was a libertarian? Or that he was a non-interventionist?
wise_man on December 4, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Obviously if you read the book, there is more information there than what I summarized.
Heh.
wise_man on December 4, 2008 at 3:50 PM
It seems to me that the question is how one defines a strong defense. Based on what I’ve read of the platform, Libertarians define it in a very narrow way compared to Republicans.
I personally don’t think we can have a strong defense if we abandon all military and economic aid to other countries, or if we let allied countries get toppled by expansionist regimes or ideologies.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Bingo!
Zombie Reagan just emailed me and reminded me about this.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:55 PM
This is so ridiculous. After all this drama, we get an Oh Well, the troops are staying. sigh.
Gag me.
Terrye on December 4, 2008 at 3:56 PM
ummm, no. Libertarians like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are Utopian minded morons, not all that different from the on-paper true beleiving communist.
Trade is Interventionist, the dominant nation dictates the terms of the Trade, the Business Law used(like in non-Sharia) and it also forces the dominate nations(America) culture down the throats of others.(think Hollywood movies shown worldwide, much less our products).
They are Isolationist as far as Military goes, and naive fools to boot.
My point is that to have a limp D*** Foreign Policy, in the real world that we live in, means Trade doesn’t work with it, therefore Buchanan’s view of Protectionism and Americans only consuming what we Produce, is the more logical position.
The Oil we are dependent on for survival(we as in the Industiralized world) doesn’t magically get out of the ground, shipped to refinaries and to our gas stations without interference(think Somali Pirates, tinpot dictators like Saddam).
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Like anyone with more than 17 brain cells didn’t know Obama was flat out lying about this.
Supposedly all the problems in the world down to my cat’s hairballs was because we have troops in Iraq. But silly me- it’s just because we have COMBAT troops in Iraq.
Thanks, President-Elect Urkel, you’ve outsmarted everyone again.
Chuck Schick on December 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM
funny thing is Paul called Reagan a ‘traitor’ in the late 80’s, left the party and registered in LP and ran on a Drug Legalization platform and accussed the Bush Family and CIA of being Drug dealers.
Rockwell and that clique were also calling Reagan a “neo-con” in the 1980’s.
in addition to trying to attach their views to Reagan, they also consider Barry Goldwater to be in their camp. The same Goldwater who ran on Nuking the NOrth Vietnamese in 1964.
jp on December 4, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Ok, now I’m sad. I miss Ronnie.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM
He didn’t run on it…he just didn’t rule it out. LBJ ran on him running on it though.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 4:07 PM
the truth is, that isolationism vs. an active FP isn’t really a right vs. left thing.
in the 1920’s through 30’s) the consensus was generally along the lines of Isolationism(”NOT OUR PROBLEM”), then after the horrows of Hitler and Japan the nation snapped out of that general mindset to a consensus of an activist Foreign Policy(with obvious disagreements within that).
and Thank God for it, imagine the Cold War if we had remained isolationist.
Now I fear we are back in that mindset of the 1930’s(economically and foreign policy wise) and it’ll take something bad to snap the nation out of it. Unless Obama is able to pull this 180 off for the left/MSM.
jp on December 4, 2008 at 4:07 PM
The “anti-war” liberal websites, rather than being outraged, are laughing their asses off…….at us.
jay12 on December 4, 2008 at 4:07 PM
How can you stand it? Man, I would just burst.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Let ‘em laugh.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
How long would it take for Iraqi terrorists to start targeting American troops again?
Phoenician on December 4, 2008 at 4:10 PM
From WWI onward, the soviet associated communists in the US took over the isolationist/anti-war movement, promoting it to keep the US from interfering with the expansion of the USSR.
They reversed themselves once: when Hitler invaded Russia.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 4:11 PM
In this day and age is it even possible to mount a “strong defense” without having military alliances? I mean, our planes have to land somewhere. Our ships have to go into port. The quickest routes to trouble spots cross lots of sovereign airspace.
It seems like a Libertarian view of strong defense without involving other countries is technologically impossible. To accomplish it, we’d have to spend a butt load of time and money developing work around solutions to logistical concerns.
Or do we just rely on nukes?
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I’m curious: what do they find funny?
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 4:12 PM
1983 Murray Rothbard article:
Ronald Reagan, Warmonger
and yet amazingly, Rothbards view is still pushed by some with an R next to their name(ron paul)
jp on December 4, 2008 at 4:13 PM
If we could manage it, it would make us the unilateral bullies we hear so much about.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Enrique,
you know thats a good point, the left convinced themselves that Bush was a liar, by fabricating lies. Obama uses “nuance” on the exact same issue and you hear…..nothing.
rob verdi on December 4, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »